If a trade surplus is automatically interpreted as proof of unfairness, then many European Union exports — from automobiles to pharmaceuticals — could be subjected to the same logic elsewhere.

The EU justifies its trade surplus with the United States as a natural outcome of market forces, even as Washington accuses it of exploiting the US market. Yet, in a striking double standard, the EU now adopts the same logic in reverse. Framing its trade deficit with China as evidence of "victimhood", while overlooking the very market dynamics it so readily champions elsewhere.

The EU often lectures the world about the virtues of open markets, rules-based trade and economic integration. Yet Brussels' proposed Industrial Accelerator Act, along with other bills and policies, suggests that the bloc is increasingly tempted to abandon the very principles that helped build its prosperity.

READ MORE: 'China Shock' seen as cover of protectionism

Presented as a tool to "strengthen industrial competitiveness" and "accelerate the green transition", the IAA carries a less advertised objective: reducing China's role in Europe's strategic industries. Through public procurement restrictions, enhanced foreign investment screening and various "Made in Europe" preferences, the legislation marks a shift from openness toward industrial protectionism. It is nothing but an EU adaptation of "America First".

That is precisely why the concerns submitted by the China Chamber of Commerce to the EU on Thursday deserve serious consideration. The chamber, representing more than 1,000 Chinese enterprises operating in the EU, argues that several provisions of the IAA create legal uncertainty. More important, they threaten to make the EU's green transition slower and more expensive rather than faster and more competitive.

EU policymakers should realize that engaging with China brings opportunities to global enterprises. Multinational corporations are no longer peripheral players in China — they are integral to its industrial ecosystem. This is reflected in the numbers: foreign direct investment in the world's second-largest economy has topped $100 billion annually for 16 years running.

According to a report released at the seventh Qingdao Multinationals Summit on Tuesday, the surveyed multinational corporations in China allocated 14.3 percent of their global R&D spending to the country last year. At the same time, new foreign-invested enterprises in scientific research and technical services jumped 27.2 percent year-on-year to 14,000 — underscoring a deepening technological embrace of the Chinese market.

Divorced from the reality, however, the language of "de-risking", "reducing dependency" and correcting "trade imbalances" has become increasingly commonplace among some of the EU's political circles. Recent discussions among EU leaders have focused heavily on developing new restrictive trade instruments targeting China.

International trade is a matter of mutual choice. EU consumers purchase Chinese goods and EU companies source from Chinese supply chains because they are efficient and offer cost-performance advantages.

Trade balances are the outcome of market forces, industrial structures and consumer preferences. China has never deliberately sought a trade surplus with the EU. Treating a trade deficit as evidence of "economic victimhood" is a dangerous oversimplification.

The EU's competitiveness challenges stem from high energy costs, sluggish productivity growth, fragmented capital markets and regulatory burdens. Restricting Chinese investment will not solve these problems. Nor will excluding Chinese companies from procurement projects make European companies globally competitive.

Instead, it will lead to retaliatory measures, uncertainty and lost opportunities. China has made clear that it will take necessary measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests should discriminatory restrictions become EU policy.

But a more constructive path remains available. Despite growing tensions, China and the EU continue to maintain regular communication on economic and trade issues, as He Yadong, spokesman for China's Ministry of Commerce, said on Thursday. The talks in Brussels on June 9 between Ling Ji, vice-minister of commerce and deputy international trade representative of China, and Ditte Juul Jorgensen, director-general for trade and economic security at the European Commission, were "in-depth and comprehensive" and had helped lay the groundwork for ministerial consultations to be held soon, the Commerce Ministry spokesman added.

ALSO READ: 'De-risking' is EU's pretext for protectionism

The ministerial consultations deserve strengthening to deepen mutual understanding.

A comprehensive and objective perspective is essential for the EU in managing its economic ties with China. Past efforts to resolve disputes, from electric vehicles to steel, have consistently shown that negotiation is the rational way forward in addressing bilateral trade frictions.

Should Brussels double down on a de facto "EU First" agenda, it may end up undermining the competitiveness it purports to protect. And when the dust settles, it will be EU businesses, consumers and future industrial strength that pay the price.