Thank you very much indeed for that question. I think there are a couple of things to say about economic coercion.
The first, and perhaps the most important, is that we are still lacking a coherence in terms of our response. You might remember that in the case of Lithuania, which, it was argued, had illegally been coerced by Beijing, there was a case brought forward by the European Union at the World Trade Organization, which was recently dropped under slightly mysterious circumstances. We know that the European Union has an anti-coercion tool or mechanism, which we've not seen work. We also know that the G7 has come forward with various proposals to try to combat economic coercion, but we've not really seen it happen. All of that is to say, there's a lot of talk and not much action. Economic coercion is extremely difficult to deal with.
I tend to rather agree with the former secretary-general of NATO, who spoke about an economic article 5, that we need to find a way of ensuring that when one of our democratic number is bullied or singled out for economic coercion, we will all come together and do what we can to support them.
Quite an interesting example of this, without going on too long, was the Australian wine tariffs. After Australia had asked for an investigation into the origins of COVID, China imposed 220% tariffs on Australian wine, which could have caused some economic damage, but the rest of the world seemed to pick up and buy more Australian wine to deal with it. That would be a slightly fatuous example of an economic article 5 that might be something we can look at.
Briefly, we need to find a way of coordinating our response to economic coercion, and we need to make sure that the commitments we've had at the G7 and the European Union amount to something.