The fourth China-Germany High-Level Financial Dialogue, co-chaired by Chinese Vice-Premier He Lifeng and German Vice-Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil in Beijing on Monday, came at a crucial time.

This mechanism, established a decade ago, enables frank, systematic consultation on macroeconomic conditions, financial regulation and trade. But its particularly important now as this visit — Klingbeil's first as Germany's finance minister and the first ministerial-level visit from Berlin since the new coalition government took office — comes in the backdrop of widening trade deficit, supply chain anxieties and politically charged debates within Germany about its China policy.

The dialogue, therefore, provides a chance to replace speculation with communication and unilateral pressure with pragmatic cooperation.

As the German media noted, the visit carries "far more than financial significance". Klingbeil arrives in Beijing after a canceled visit by German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul last month. German officials have indicated Klingbeil will raise issues such as China's export controls on rare earths and concerns about industrial "overcapacity". They also acknowledged that positions were coordinated in advance with the European Commission, reflecting Germany's role within the European Union.

For China, these discussions are not new. China has always viewed financial dialogue as a platform to conduct candid, rules-based discussions, not as a forum to politicize trade or create new confrontations. Beijing has consistently emphasized that global supply chains should remain stable, predictable and nondiscriminatory, and that debates over critical raw materials must be based on market reality rather than geopolitical narratives.

The fact that China is willing to engage directly with German concerns demonstrates its sincerity in maintaining mutually beneficial cooperation.

German industry leaders have repeatedly stressed that China is indispensable as a sales market, procurement center and innovation hub, and that "reducing dependence" cannot be equated with "de-risking" or decoupling. Risk management, they argue, is not the same as ideological isolation — a point policymakers in Berlin would do well to consider.

Some European commentators have attributed supply chain challenges to Chinese policy adjustments. Others, including German researchers, have pointed out that Germany's own competitiveness problems — worsened by external shocks including the US trade war, rising energy prices and domestic industrial transition — require honest introspection. Politicizing trade issues neither solves structural problems nor serves Germany's long-term interests. Instead, as the Nexperia dispute indicates, it risks creating the kind of uncertainty German companies warn against.

German institutions such as Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank and insurance companies such as Allianz and Ergo are reportedly represented in the delegation, underscoring the importance of stable China-Germany financial ties for the broader European financial ecosystem.

China has consistently promoted high-standard opening-up in the financial sector and encouraged deeper regulatory dialogue to enhance transparency and predictability. While Germany's own internal debate on "reducing dependence" will continue, several German media outlets warn that discussions about restructuring supply chains must first answer a fundamental question: who bears the cost? Lost profits, rising unemployment, higher consumer prices and pressure on public finances are real consequences of economically unrealistic approaches.

The better path is the one that China advocates: dialogue over confrontation, cooperation over division, stability over politicization. Klingbeil himself acknowledged before leaving Berlin that Germany shouldn't just talk about China, but engage in dialogue with it. This is precisely the spirit the fourth high-level financial dialogue embodies. The task is not to amplify differences but to manage them responsibly, strengthen the foundations of bilateral cooperation, and contribute jointly to global stability. That is the expectation of businesses, the international community, and both peoples — and it is the responsibility of both governments to deliver.