Beyond tariff wars: Why the EU and China must double down on RCEP with Asean — Phar Kim Beng

SEPTEMBER 17 — Economic nationalism is back with a vengeance. The Trump administration’s tariff regime has shown how quickly the rules of global commerce can be rewritten in Washington. Europe, China, Japan, South Korea, and Asean all feel the pressure of unilateral protectionism that undermines the open trading system painstakingly built over decades. 

Yet the answer is not a tit-for-tat escalation. It lies instead in strengthening multilateral arrangements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), where inclusivity and scale are powerful antidotes to isolationism.

Europe’s Bind with China

The European Union cannot pretend to be insulated from China. Supply chains are deeply entangled: German automakers depend on Chinese consumers; French vineyards rely on exports to China; Italian luxury brands manufacture and sell into the Chinese market. Consumers across the EU, meanwhile, benefit from affordable imports ranging from electronics to textiles. With 21 percent of EU imports sourced from China, any attempt to decouple would trigger a self-inflicted economic crisis.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen understands this dilemma. 

She has voiced concern over overdependence but also recognizes that a frontal economic clash with Beijing would be disastrous. 

Instead, she increasingly sees value in leveraging RCEP as a stabilizing anchor. By engaging this Asia-Pacific megatrade pact, the EU can insulate itself from Trump’s punitive tariffs while preserving access to China’s enormous market.

The RCEP Advantage

RCEP is the world’s largest trade bloc, covering nearly a third of global GDP and population. Unlike bilateral trade deals, it creates a dense web of commitments that reduce tariffs, streamline rules of origin, and expand market access across Asia-Pacific. For Europe, greater involvement with RCEP offers three benefits.

First, it provides scale — aligning the EU with a bloc larger than any single national economy, including the U.S. 

Second, it offers diversification — Europe need not rely solely on transatlantic trade to weather Trump’s tariffs. Third, it offers credibility — RCEP members, despite diverse political systems, are united by a commitment to trade integration rather than fragmentation.

Von der Leyen is reportedly receptive to the notion that Europe’s best response to Trump’s tariffs is not retaliation but expansion — building out multilateral trade frameworks that are too large for Washington to ignore.

Asean’s Caution and Neutrality

For Asean, the challenge is more subtle. Unlike the EU, Asean has never wielded sanctions or punitive tariffs as tools of statecraft. It has no experience weaponizing trade either internally or externally. Its strength lies in neutrality and centrality: creating platforms for dialogue, not instruments of coercion.

It would be reckless for Asean to break this pattern by trying to mount a coordinated economic counterstrike against Washington. 

Asean’s unity would shatter quickly. Export-driven economies like Singapore and Vietnam would find themselves at odds with countries like Indonesia or the Philippines, where domestic markets dominate. The resulting fractures would be permanent, undermining the very cohesion that makes ASEAN relevant.

Asean must therefore resist the temptation to join Europe and China in any overt anti-U.S. tariff front. 

Its comparative advantage lies elsewhere: in deepening RCEP, anchoring free trade in Asia, and keeping itself open to all partners without becoming the spearhead of confrontation.

Trump’s Trap

The danger for both Europe and Asia is walking into a Trumpian trap. The U.S. president thrives on bilateral confrontations where he can dictate terms. A fragmented EU, a divided Asean, or a China isolated from its neighbors all play into his hands. The antidote is precisely the opposite: collective scale and cohesion.

This is why the expansion and deepening of RCEP is critical. By strengthening the rules, broadening participation, and aligning external partners like the EU, RCEP can transform into a true global counterweight to protectionism. 

Trump’s tariffs may slow individual economies, but they cannot easily overpower a bloc that accounts for a third of global trade.

The Limits of Defiance

Yet Asean must tread carefully. While von der Leyen may be willing to explore RCEP as a shield against American tariffs, ASEAN cannot afford to be seen as openly challenging Washington. The bloc’s credibility rests on neutrality, not confrontation. ASEAN’s comparative power lies in being a bulwark of open trade, not a battleground for tariff wars.

What Asean does not know, it should not attempt to improvise. It has never experimented with economic sanctions. It has no institutional experience in punitive tariffs. To venture into such territory now would risk exposing its weaknesses rather than amplifying its strengths.

Building a Post-Tariff Order

The wiser path forward is to build resilience without provocation. 

For the EU, this means seeking alignment with Asia’s trade architecture, especially RCEP. For Asean, it means consolidating its role as the anchor of that architecture, ensuring the bloc’s cohesion and neutrality remain intact. 

For China, it means accepting that integration, not confrontation, is the most effective way to resist unilateralism.

In this way, Europe and Asia can jointly build a post-tariff order: one where scale, openness, and inclusivity render protectionism less effective. The goal is not to undermine the U.S. but to preserve a trading system that benefits all.

Conclusion

Europe and China are too economically entwined to embark on tariff wars. Von der Leyen is correct to view RCEP as the most credible platform for resilience. But Asean must play its role carefully: to anchor free trade, not to pretend to wield tools it does not possess. Its unity is its strength, and its neutrality is its shield. If Europe, China, and Asean deepen RCEP, they can create an economic bulwark capable of withstanding protectionist storms. Anything else risks fracture, escalation, and permanent damage to the global trading order. 

• Phar Kim Beng, PhD is the Professor of Asean Studies at International Islamic University of Malaysia and Director of Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS).

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.