Consider the European Union (EU): 27 different countries - with 27 different cultures, languages and, most important, 27 different political and economic systems - united in one overarching political structure with a European Parliament, European Commission (consisting of European 'ministers') and the European Council (consisting of the 27 heads of state). Then consider the Eurozone: 19 different EU-members sharing a common currency, the Euro, and all subjected to one monetary institution, the European Central Bank. Then, finally, combine these two political structures and start analyzing.
The net result? A currency based on 'one size fits none' - i.e. certain (mostly Northern European) countries having strong economies and hence trade surpluses and certain (mostly Southern European) other countries having weak(er) economies and hence trade deficits. These economic tensions within both the Eurozone and the EU translate into political tensions within the EU, pushing individual member states to look for foreign (non-EU) partners to trade. This fundamental weakness in the EU framework leads to the situation that third parties (the US, China, Russia, etc.) play off member states against one another - either willingly or as a side-effect of trade deals.
Now, let's look at China. A huge country consisting of 1.4 billion people, run by a Communist dictatorship which views economics solely as a tool in geopolitical powerplay. The Chinese economy is characterized by overcapacity through over-investment, which means the Chinese state subsidizes home grown production even if more than 50% of this economic production is superfluous. Instead of letting this ecoonomic bubble burst the Chinese state uses its state banks to keep financing this. Why? In order to export this massive production surplus to the outside world. They even lend credits to buyers in order to let these buyers buy Chinese products. Combine this with lower wages and you have cheap products being dumped on Western markets with Chinese subsidies for the weaker countries.
Through this economic mechanism, the EU has lost 1.4 trillion Euro in just 20 years of trade with China. This money could have been used to invest in European enterprises, technological development and social welfare. Instead, this money has gone to the Chinese Communist Party and all the EU and its citizens got in return were cheap products - temporarily countering inflation through dumping practises.
This would be a problem, but simply an economic one. The problem: Chinese economic policy is pure geopolitical powerplay. Their long term strategy is to buy up technology, patents and natural resources to become fully self-dependent and thus dictate to other countries their wishes. Under the guise of 'globalism' and 'free trade' the Chinese Communist Party has changed its policy from economic defence to economic agression. It has sucked up trillions of foreign currency (artificially keeping their currency more competitive than it otherwise would be) from Western countries and dumped cheap products on these markets. And even worse, it has bought up and/or built huge infrastructure networks in all sorts of places where natural resources are found, effectively creating a monopoly on many of these rare Earths and minerals.
And what has the EU done? Basically nothing but talk and talk and talk. And in the meantime letting Chinese economic policy weaken its cohesion and economic power. There seems to be no strategic plan apart from the neoliberal dogma of 'free trade' and 'globalism' creating prosperity for the whole wide world. With friends like these politicians and bureaucrats, which European needs enemies?
As Holslag rightfully points out, the core problem is the immense and structural trade surplus of China. Analyzing hundreds of Chinese policy documents and economic statistics, he concludes that the CCP has no intention of changing its course. This means that the EU has to change its approach and take a more hardline position with regard to trade with China. To do this, European politicians need to develop a common economic policy which will serve individual member states and the general interest, instead of creating competitive advantages for individual businesses and entrepeneurs. One important ingredient for such a viable European economic strategy - Holslag calls it "Made in Europe" - is to solve the problem of the trade surplus/trade deficit problem inherent in the EU and Eurozone. Northern countries should invest more in Southern countries while Southern countries should reform the national economies and invest in durable industries in order to become more productive and competitive.
According to Holslag (who is a political and economic realist) trade policy should be viewed as a means to an end - the end being the well being, prosperity and happiness of citizens. This means that individual European governments as well as the EU as a whole should focus on its own citizens and consumers, even if that would take difficult and sometimes painful decisions. As long as Europe tolerates the Chinese trade surplus China will continue weakening and undermining its position - both politically and economically.
With The Silk Road Trap (2019) political scientist Jonathan Holslag delivers a fatal blow to the economic policies of dimwitted, geopolitically naive and dogmatically brainwashed EU bureaucrats. They have undermined and weakened European countries and the EU and they don't seem to change their course. So Holslag's book is a strong reminder for these fools to finally reconsider their positions. We have seen how their policy decisions can lead to disastrous results with regard to Russia and Ukraine. Don't make the same mistake twice.
Personally, I don't buy Holslag's argument that individual European countries need the EU and I even think many countries would be better off without a shared political structure and/or a common currency and monetary policy. The disastrous trade policies of the EU are a prime examply of the malfuctioning of this oversized, overly ambitious and democratically detached supranational institution. One size fits none seems to be the conclusion both for the EU and the Eurozone. But if one wants the EU and the Euro as political projects, Holslag's strategic analysis with regards to European trade policy concerning China and his policy advice seem to me to be the only viable way forward.
If Holslag's warnings and suggestions aren't heeded, I fear Europe will become the museum of the world in the coming decades. Having lost almost all its technological advantages to China and the US, and lacking natural resources, the European econnomies (and economy) are in for a rough ride. And with economic weakness comes military weakness. The Russian-Ukraine war should wake up these bureaucrats, but so far there seems to be no indication of changing policy, just a bunch of ad hoc decisions based on emotion and short term political success. It's not too late yet for structural and fundamental changes in trade policies but I am pessimistic, perhaps more so than Holslag - who, notwithstanding his bleak analyses, seems to be optimistic with regards to the future.