Club提要：德国总理默茨今日开启任内首次访华行程，重点在于落实其提出的“双重校准”战略，平衡欧、美、中三方关系。下午，中方领导人会见默茨。 北京对话特约专家、上海全球治理与区域国别研究院理事长姜锋在CGTN撰文指出，务实共赢的经贸合作始终是中德关系的基石，两国协同合作对于应对气候变化等共同挑战、为动荡世界注入稳定性至关重要。 默茨此访有望为中德关系廓清迷雾，提供宝贵的确定性。
（翻译：李雨琪，核译：金地）
姜锋发文分析默茨访华（图源：CGTN）
德国总理默茨上任后的首次访华备受瞩目。访华前夕，默茨阐述了其“双重校准”的外交战略，主张在减少德国对美过度安全依赖的同时，校正经济上过度依赖中国的局面。
陪同默茨访华的不仅有内阁成员，还包括商界、学术界及重要智库代表，表明此次访华肩负双重使命——既要加强与中国的经济联系，也要深化对华战略认知。
2月14日，德国总理默茨在慕尼黑会见中共中央政治局委员、外交部长王毅（图源：外交部）
摆脱“系统性对手”的界定：中德关系稳定发展的政治前提
“双重校准”战略本质上是对日益加剧的大国竞争、跨大西洋关系裂痕、日益增高的欧洲战略自主呼声的务实回应。
近年来，柏林的对华政策始终有伙伴、竞争者、系统性对手这三重前提。这三重前提同时起效会令人无所适从，导致务实合作常因意识形态和集团政治思维受阻、对华认知产生偏差、对华政策呈现矛盾与摇摆状态。
将中国定位为“系统性对手”是德国对华政策中的又一次历史性战略误判。实际上，中国坚定维护多边主义和国际法基本准则，致力于与各国共同完善全球治理。
中德共同利益远超分歧，合作空间远大于竞争张力。德国若想实现其追求的“价值观与利益的平衡”，就不应给双边关系设置排他性的意识形态壁垒。
2月25日，中国国家主席在北京会见来华进行正式访问的德国总理默茨（图源：德意志新闻社）
德国应汲取过去数十年对华政策中的两次战略误判教训：一是曾认为中国的体制缺乏创新能力；二是曾相信通过“以合作促变革”能推动中国体制转型。
如今，中国已成为全球创新与竞争力的主要中心之一，国家制度日益巩固。面对这两大误判的落空，欧美感到沮丧，视此前的期待为“幼稚”，转而对中国制度可能产生的影响感到担忧并加以防范——这一论调在德国政坛也颇有市场。
柏林要校准对华政策，首先要摒弃非此即彼、零和博弈的政治制度观。这意味着要放弃基于意识形态的集团对抗思维，放弃认为制度差异必然导致系统性对抗的预设，同时还需纠偏一系列固化的政策认知——将经济互补等同于战略脆弱、混淆竞争与对抗、将去风险曲解为全面脱钩。默茨总理此次访华为德国校准对华认知、重建战略共识提供了重要契机。
2023年2月18日，中共中央政治局委员、中央外事工作委员会办公室主任王毅在慕尼黑安全会议上发表题为《建设一个更加安全的世界》的主旨讲话（图源：外交部）
务实、共赢、平衡的经济合作：中德关系韧性的基石
默茨总理率领大型商界代表团访华，凸显了德国工业界对中国市场的深度利益与信心，再次印证了务实的经贸合作仍是中德关系不可撼动的基石。
德国经济正疲于应付增长乏力、产业转型与外部竞争加剧，促使默茨政府推行改革以提升效率、重振经济。中国经济同样面临内外挑战，但正以更大力度开放并转向高质量发展，可再生能源、先进制造、数字经济、绿色产业等新动能正在涌现。两国经济互补性非但不曾减弱，反而因各自转型而呈现出新的交汇点。
德国所谓“过度依赖中国经济”的论调，本质上是市场力量与比较优势作用的结果。人为切断业已形成的产业链或追求“脱钩”，只会损害德国企业自身利益，削弱德国经济竞争力。
中国多年来一直是德国最大贸易伙伴，众多德国旗舰企业在华投资兴业、深度扎根，既受益于中国经济增长，也为中国产业升级和技术进步作出贡献。这是全球化资源配置的自然结果，而非某些人所言的“战略风险”。
2024年11月14日下午，第三届德中经济大会·德国企业对华投资合作专场活动成功举行（图源：商务部投资促进局）
德国的“去风险”议程应聚焦于供应链安全、公平竞争、知识产权保护等务实领域——通过强化规则与深化合作来管控风险，而非将经济政策安全化、推行保护主义或市场分割——后者只会制造新的脆弱性。对于德国的出口导向型经济而言，全球市场的完整性是其核心战略利益，而市场的碎片化才是最大的系统性风险。
中德应把握此访契机，深化经贸磋商，健全贸易平衡机制，扩大贸易规模，优化贸易结构。既要升级汽车、机械、化工、医药等传统领域合作，也要拓展可再生能源、氢能、碳捕集利用、工业互联网、人工智能等新兴领域合作。共同开发第三方市场将为两国经济开辟新的合作空间、增长动力与合作模式。
中德在全球治理中的协调：共担责任的体现
人文关怀、历史感与对未来的共同担当，是中德传统文化中鲜明的共同底色。
当今世界面临气候变化、能源危机、粮食安全、太空安全、公共卫生及地区冲突等一系列全球性挑战，任何国家都无法独自应对。多边合作是唯一出路。
1月22日，默茨在达沃斯论坛上表示，世界已进入“大国政治时代”（图源：盖蒂图片社）
遗憾的是，受“去风险”、经贸关系安全化、“系统性对手”等论调影响，中德双边交流合作的信任基础遭到削弱，具体合作减少，甚至学者间的学术交流也受到国家安全机制审查。
应当认识到，“系统性对手”的定位不仅严重损害了中德双边关系，也使全球治理努力失去了中德更紧密合作所能提供的持续动力。中德在全球治理中的协同合作不仅惠及两国社会，也有益于世界，能在日益动荡的国际局势中提供稳定性和建设性方案。
德国正处于内外政策重大调整期，中德两国经济也面临结构性转型与外部压力。在此背景下，各界对默茨总理此次访华寄予厚望，期待其能与中国领导人一道，厘清中德关系的战略方向，为一个分裂的世界带来亟需的确定性与稳定性，并使两国在全球治理中发挥应有的战略作用。
英文原文如下：
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's first visit to China since taking office has drawn wide attention. In the days leading up to his China visit, Merz outlined his foreign-policy strategy of "dual recalibration," which calls for reducing Germany's excessive security dependence on the United States while correcting its over-reliance on China economically.
Accompanying the chancellor are not only cabinet members but also representatives from the business community, academia and leading think tanks, signaling the visit's dual purpose – to tighten economic ties with China while deepening Germany's strategic understanding of the country.
Moving beyond the 'systemic rival' frame: the political precondition for stable China-Germany relations
The "dual recalibration" is, at its core, a realist response to intensifying great-power rivalry, fractures in transatlantic relations, and rising calls for European strategic autonomy.
In recent years, Berlin has framed its China policy through three simultaneous lenses: partner, competitor, and systemic rival. With all three lights flashing at once, no one knows which to follow, leaving practical cooperation frequently disrupted by ideological and bloc-based thinking, perceptions of China skewed, and policy toward China marked by ambivalence and drift.
Casting China as a "systemic rival" is yet another historic strategic misjudgment in Germany's China policy. The reality is that China upholds multilateralism and the foundational norms of international law and is committed to working with all countries to refine and improve global governance.
The shared interests between China and Germany far outweigh their differences, and the scope for cooperation far exceeds competitive tensions. If Germany is to achieve the "balance of values and interests" it seeks, it should not impose exclusionary ideological barriers on bilateral relations.
Germany should draw lessons from two strategic misjudgments in its China policy over the past decades: first, the assumption that China's system lacked the capacity for innovation; and second, the belief that engagement – "change through cooperation" – would drive systemic transformation in China.
In fact, today's China has evolved into a major global center of innovation and competitiveness, with its state system becoming more consolidated. Faced with the failure of these two misjudgments, Europe and the United States have grown frustrated, viewing their earlier expectations as "naive," and have swung toward concern and defensiveness about potential influence from China's system – a narrative that has also gained traction in German political discourse.
For Berlin to recalibrate its China policy, it must first move beyond a binary, zero-sum view of political systems. This entails abandoning ideology-driven bloc confrontation and the assumption that systemic differences necessarily amount to systemic rivalry. It also requires correcting a set of entrenched policy misperceptions – equating economic complementarity with strategic vulnerability, conflating competition with confrontation, and recasting de-risking as wholesale decoupling. This visit by Chancellor Merz to China presents a crucial opportunity for Germany to recalibrate its understanding of China and rebuild strategic consensus.
Pragmatic, win-win, and balanced economic cooperation: the bedrock of resilient Sino-German relations
Merz's visit to China leading a large business delegation underscores German industry's deep stake in and confidence in the Chinese market, reaffirming that pragmatic economic cooperation remains an unshakable cornerstone of China-Germany relations.
Germany's economy is grappling with weak growth, industrial transition, and intensifying external competition, prompting the Merz government to pursue reforms to boost efficiency and restore economic growth. China's economy faces its own domestic and external headwinds but is opening further and shifting toward high-quality growth, with new drivers emerging in renewable energy, advanced manufacturing, the digital economy and green industries. Rather than diminishing, the complementarity between the two economies is evolving, as transformation on both sides creates new points of convergence.
Germany's so-called "excessive economic reliance on China" is in fact the result of market forces and comparative advantage. Artificially severing integrated supply chains or pursuing decoupling would only harm German firms and undermine the competitiveness of the German economy.
China has been Germany's largest trading partner for years, with many flagship German companies investing and building a strong presence there, deeply embedded in the market. They have both benefited from China's growth and contributed to its industrial upgrading and technological progress. This is a natural outcome of globalized resource allocation, not the "strategic risk" some claim.
Germany's de-risking agenda should concentrate on practical domains such as supply-chain security, fair competition, and intellectual property protection – managing risks through stronger rules and deeper cooperation rather than through the securitization of economic policy, protectionism, or market fragmentation, which only generate new vulnerabilities.
For Germany's export-oriented economy, the integrity of the global market is a core strategic interest, while its fragmentation constitutes the greatest systemic risk.
China and Germany should seize the opportunity of this visit to deepen economic and trade consultations, strengthen trade-balancing mechanisms, expand trade volumes and optimize the trade structure. They should upgrade cooperation in traditional sectors such as automotive, machinery, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, while expanding collaboration in emerging fields including renewable energy, hydrogen, carbon capture and utilization, the industrial internet and artificial intelligence.
Jointly developing third-party markets would open new areas of cooperation, new growth drivers, and new frameworks for both economies.
China-Germany coordination on global governance: a mark of shared responsibility
A humanistic outlook, a strong sense of history, and a shared responsibility for the future are distinctive common threads in the traditional cultures of both China and Germany.
Today's world faces a spectrum of global challenges – from climate change and energy crises to food security, space security, public health and regional conflicts – none of which any country can tackle alone. Multilateral cooperation is the only viable path forward.
Regrettably, under the influence of notions such as "de-risking," the securitization of economic relations, and the framing of China as a "systemic rival," the trust underpinning bilateral exchanges and cooperation has weakened. Concrete collaboration has diminished, and even academic exchanges between scholars have come under scrutiny through national-security review mechanisms.
It should be recognized that the "systemic rival" framing has not only inflicted significant damage on China-Germany relations but also deprived global governance efforts of the sustained momentum that closer China-Germany cooperation could provide. China-Germany coordination in global governance benefits not only both societies but also the wider world, serving as a source of stability and constructive solutions in an increasingly turbulent international landscape.
Germany is undergoing significant domestic and foreign-policy adjustment, while both the Chinese and German economies face structural transition and external pressures.
Against this backdrop, expectations are high that Chancellor Merz's visit to China will, together with China's leadership, help define the strategic direction of China-Germany relations. It could also bring much-needed predictability and stability to a fragmented world and enable both countries to play their strategic roles in global governance.