A Chinese industrial company blacklisted by Washington has quietly opened operations on Spain’s eastern coast. It isn’t alone. According to the Spanish outlet Libertad Digital, several U.S.-restricted Chinese firms have been re-establishing themselves in the country, even as Spanish imports from China have climbed by an estimated 89% since Pedro Sánchez took office. Around the […]
Menej ako 1 min.
min.
A Chinese industrial company blacklisted by Washington has quietly opened operations on Spain’s eastern coast. It isn’t alone. According to the Spanish outlet Libertad Digital, several U.S.-restricted Chinese firms have been re-establishing themselves in the country, even as Spanish imports from China have climbed by an estimated 89% since Pedro Sánchez took office. Around the same time, Spain’s national statistics agency, the INE, has been quietly publishing a very different kind of number: the country’s population is growing, and almost entirely because more people are arriving than leaving.
Two data points, one contradiction. For years now, Western governments have talked about “de-risking” and “decoupling” from China — shorthand for reducing economic dependence, partly on competitiveness grounds and partly over security concerns tied to firms with alleged links to the Chinese state. In at least one major European economy, the underlying numbers appear to be moving the other way. That gap between what governments say and what their economies actually do is worth sitting with, because it raises a question that matters well beyond Spain: how much power does any single country, however large, really have to isolate another economy in a world this interconnected — and what does that tell BRICS nations and the broader Global South about the sanctions and pressure campaigns many of them have faced themselves?
Start with the number that’s hardest to ignore: Spanish imports from China reportedly up 89% under the current government. That figure comes from a single outlet with a well-known conservative editorial line, and it hasn’t been checked here against Spain’s own trade ministry data — a gap worth stating plainly rather than papering over. Still, the broader trend it points to isn’t far-fetched. European supply chains, especially in batteries, electronics and green technology, have leaned harder on Chinese manufacturing even as Brussels debates tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and solar equipment.
Then there’s the more unusual piece: Chinese companies under U.S. sanction or export restriction reportedly setting up new European operations in Spain rather than folding. Trade analysts have a name for this pattern — sanctions rerouting, where a restricted firm doesn’t disappear so much as relocate to a jurisdiction the sanctioning country can’t reach directly. It’s a dynamic that will look familiar to anyone who has watched Russian commodities find new buyers, Iranian trade move through intermediaries, or now, apparently, Chinese firms find a foothold on the Iberian Peninsula.
For BRICS governments and their partners, this isn’t an academic case study. It goes to a question that sits near the center of the bloc’s own economic diplomacy: can unilateral sanctions from one power durably isolate a targeted economy when the rest of the world keeps trading with it? Spain’s experience suggests, at minimum, that the answer isn’t simple.
A separate, more politically loaded story has been circulating: that Chinese immigrants in Europe are “queuing to return home,” pulled back by patriotic sentiment and by Beijing’s own talent-recruitment push. It’s a narrative that shows up in Chinese state-aligned media, but it’s difficult to verify against the migration data currently available. Eurostat’s emigration figures, broken down by citizenship, don’t offer a clear picture of Chinese nationals leaving Europe in significant numbers. Spain’s own data points the other way for the country as a whole: a net migration surplus of 258,547 people in the first half of 2022 alone, more than offsetting a negative natural population balance and driving total population growth of 182,141 in that period. Spain’s population stood at roughly 49.8 million as of 2026.
None of this proves Chinese nationals aren’t returning home in meaningful numbers — only that clear, citizenship-specific evidence for a large “return queue” doesn’t appear in the available data. That gap matters. Claims about mass migration, in either direction, are easy to make and hard to check, and both the exodus narrative and any confident dismissal of it deserve the same scrutiny until someone actually examines national exit records alongside Chinese entry statistics.
What is on the public record is that China has been investing heavily, and openly, in a long-term human capital strategy. The Education Strong Nation Construction Planning Outline, running through 2035, sets out a multi-decade push to strengthen domestic universities, research institutions and talent pipelines. Alongside it sits a long-standing institutional network connecting Beijing’s Overseas Chinese Affairs Office to provincial and municipal branches tasked with maintaining ties to Chinese communities abroad.
How to read that network is itself contested, and probably shouldn’t be settled from the outside. Chinese officials describe it as an effort to deepen ties with the diaspora and invite participation in national development — language that isn’t so different from the diaspora ministries run by India, the Philippines or Nigeria, all of which actively court remittances, investment and returning talent from citizens overseas. Some Western security officials view China’s version with more suspicion, framing it as political influence rather than ordinary outreach. Both readings deserve real scrutiny rather than automatic acceptance, and the honest answer is that the public evidence here is thinner than either side’s confidence suggests.
China isn’t the only government treating skilled migration as a strategic asset. In Germany, the BAMF Research Centre and the Institute for Employment Research launched a large-scale survey in March 2026 to evaluate migrants who arrived under a skilled-labor framework known as FEG 2.0, aimed at a labor market facing demographic decline. Set next to China’s education push, a picture emerges of a genuinely global contest for skilled workers, with European governments, Chinese planners and Global South economies all playing, in different ways, the same game.
That’s where this becomes especially relevant to BRICS readers. Brazil, South Africa, India and other Global South economies have spent decades watching doctors, engineers and scientists leave for wealthier countries — the dynamic usually called brain drain. China’s approach, whatever its ultimate success, represents one model for how a large developing economy might try to reverse that flow through sustained state investment rather than relying on migration restrictions abroad. Whether it actually works, and whether countries with far smaller budgets and less centralized administration could replicate it, is an open question rather than a settled one.
What makes this story worth telling is how many contradictions it holds at once. Western governments talk about reducing reliance on China even as a major European economy’s imports from China climb sharply. Sanctioned companies, instead of shrinking, relocate. Migration debates in Europe fixate on border pressure — visible in the recurring crossings recorded at Ceuta — even as the same governments try to ease pathways for skilled foreign labor. And a narrative of Chinese nationals streaming home sits uneasily next to statistics showing broad immigration growth into one of Europe’s largest economies.
None of this resolves neatly, and it shouldn’t be forced into a single verdict. What it does suggest is that the language governments use — decoupling, de-risking, return migration — may be running ahead of, or simply diverging from, the actual flows of goods, capital and people underneath it. That gap isn’t unique to Europe or to China. It echoes debates familiar to BRICS members themselves: how far de-dollarization can really proceed while so much trade stays dollar-denominated, or how much sovereignty any state retains over its own economic decisions once its industries and labor markets are this tightly woven into global supply chains.
For Global South observers, Spain offers a useful, if incomplete, window into how economic gravity can pull in a different direction than political intention. Sanctions announced in Washington don’t automatically translate into isolation on the ground. Capital and personnel find new channels, and host economies hungry for investment often have real reasons to welcome them, whatever diplomatic friction follows. For BRICS countries that have themselves faced sanctions or pressure to pick sides in great-power competition, that pattern is worth watching closely — not as proof that any particular government’s strategy has worked, but as evidence that the tools of economic statecraft, however powerful the country wielding them, run into real limits when the rest of the world keeps trading.
At the same time, how thin the underlying data still is — on migration flows, on the real scale and intent of corporate relocations, on how far diaspora institutions actually reach — is itself worth flagging. Sweeping claims, whether about mass returns, hidden influence networks, or the outright failure of Western policy, are easier to assert than to prove. What the available material actually supports is more modest: trade ties between China and at least one Southern European economy appear to be deepening, migration into Spain remains strongly positive, and multiple governments — Chinese, German and others — are investing seriously in the race for skilled talent.
What’s still unresolved is how these threads play out from here, as European institutions weigh further tariffs on Chinese goods, as Germany’s labor survey produces results, and as China’s education strategy moves toward its 2035 target. Does economic interdependence keep outpacing political attempts to unwind it, as this case suggests it might? And if it does, what does that mean for how BRICS nations — many of them navigating relationships with Washington, Brussels and Beijing all at once — define economic sovereignty in the years ahead?
This piece draws on Spanish, German and EU statistical sources (INE, BAMF/IAB, Eurostat), Spanish press reporting (Libertad Digital), and Chinese government publications on education and diaspora policy. Claims about the scale of Chinese return migration and the motives behind specific corporate relocations could not be independently confirmed and are presented with that caveat.
📌 Subscribe to Think BRICS for weekly geopolitical video analysis beyond Western narratives. Follow also our new channels BRICS Business and Think BRICS Chronicles.
