In geopolitics, rhetoric can be as misleading as selective statistics.

Such was the case when a senior official of the European Council declared, at a meeting of the European Union’s diplomatic corps in Brussels on Tuesday, that "China disrupts trade".

The problem with such rhetoric is that reality stubbornly refuses to play along.

The Middle East is aflame after the United States-Israeli strikes on Iran triggered energy shocks, with shipping through the Strait of Hormuz disrupted.

At the same time, the Russia-Ukraine conflict is continuing on Europe’s eastern flank. And across the Atlantic, tariff threats have been revived. European policymakers are anxiously recalculating their economic strategies.

Against this backdrop, saying "China disrupts trade" is akin to blaming a passenger for turbulence caused by the storm outside the airplane. What makes it even more concerning about the mindset of some in the EU is the fact that two-way trade between China and the EU surpassed $1 trillion last year, making the two sides an important economic partner of each other. And more than 2 million European tourists have visited China under expanded visa-free policies. Even European leaders from France, the United Kingdom, Finland and Germany, as well as accompanying delegations, have visited China in recent months to strengthen commercial ties rather than unwind them.

"Trade disruption" — really? It looks more like signs of a trade boom.

Europe’s own policy debate increasingly acknowledges a simple truth: economic gravity still matters. China remains the world’s largest manufacturing hub, the biggest emerging market, and one of the most important engines of global growth. Over the past five years, China’s economy expanded at an average annual rate of 5.4 percent, contributing roughly 30 percent of global growth — more than the combined contribution of the G7 economies.

Hardly the resume of a "saboteur".

If anything, China has been the defender of an open trading system while some other major economies indulge in protectionism. Beijing continues to advocate a trading order centered on the World Trade Organization and warns that tariff wars and economic "decoupling" risk suffocating the economic interactions that have helped lift hundreds of millions out of poverty.

Europe, a continent whose prosperity was built on open markets and cross-border integration, should understand that instinctively.

And lately, it seems a growing number of European policymakers do.

As Washington talks of sweeping tariffs and "endless wins" for itself, some European leaders have begun exploring a more pragmatic approach toward China — one that acknowledges differences but resists framing the relationship as a zero-sum rivalry.

That approach has already produced some tangible results. Negotiations have helped stabilize trade relations, and some recent deals have helped ease tensions in sectors ranging from green technology to industry supply chains between China and the EU.

Europe and China still spar over market access, the so-called "subsidy" issue, technology rules and geopolitical alignment. But these disagreements need not be disruptions.

The deeper strategic point is easy to miss amid all the rhetorical fireworks of some European politicians: China and Europe share a stake in the thriving of inclusive economic globalization.

Both depend on open sea lanes, predictable rules and functioning supply chains. Both face the same climate challenge and the same need for green technology cooperation. And both have far more to gain from a stable multilateral international order than from the economic fragmentation being pursued by some countries.

Which is why Beijing consistently describes Europe as a crucial pole in a multipolar world and an essential partner in global governance.

For the EU, the calculation is pragmatic. Interdependence is not necessarily vulnerability; it can also be resilience. Supply chains linking Hamburg to Shanghai are not geopolitical traps — they are economic lifelines.

The real disruptions to global trade today are coming from conflicts, sanctions and tariff wars originating from across the Atlantic.

So perhaps the Brussels speech should be read less as an accusation and more as a reminder of the EU’s anxieties over the US, a country the senior official of the European Council admitted "challenges the international rules-based order".

In uncertain times, scapegoating others is convenient. But policy requires something sturdier than rhetoric. It requires clear eyes.

?