At times, the European Union makes a tortoise look like a Toyota. Speed has never been a quality associated with the EU. After all with 27-member states, once the United Kingdom leaves next year, it takes time to reach a consensus.
Still, the rapid expansion of Chinese investment in the world’s largest integrated economic and political bloc has raised alarm bells in Brussels.
Last year, in his annual State of the Union address, the EU President Jean-Claude Juncker spelled out the dangers.
“Let me say once and for all – we are not naive free traders,” he said. “Europe must always defend its strategic interests. This is why today we are proposing a new EU framework for investment screening.
“If a foreign, state-owned company wants to purchase a European harbor [such as the Greek port of Piraeus], part of our energy infrastructure or a defense technology firm, this should only happen in transparency, with scrutiny and debate,” he added. “It is a political responsibility to know what is going on in our own backyard so that we can protect our collective security if needed.”
Nearly a year later, European leaders decided to call on both executive arms of the EU, the European Council and the European Parliament, to thrash out guidelines before next year’s elections.
The issue has become critical.
In the past decade, transport and infrastructure giants China Ocean Shipping Company, known as COSCO, and China Merchants Port Holdings have acquired stakes in 13 European ports, a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development highlighted.
Chinese involvement centers on 10% of the continent’s shipping container capacity.
“There’s a phrase, ‘pre-emptive obedience,’ that’s often used to discuss relations with the Chinese,” Theresa Fallon, a China analyst in Brussels, told National Public Radio, a nonprofit media station based in the United States.
“It means making decisions with the idea of not upsetting China. That’s already happening, and it’s worrying if you consider the stakes. If you think of China’s growth strategy [in maritime ports], they’ve invested all along the peripheries of Europe. So it’s like an anaconda strategy: Surround it and squeeze it,” she added.
Yet, this investment in key European transport hubs should come as no surprise.
In 2013, President Xi Jinping launched the Belt and Road Initiative in a fanfare of nationalistic pride.
Since then, it has become an extension of China’s global ambitions and the centerpiece of its economic foreign policy.
At the heart of the blueprint are ‘New Silk Road’ superhighways, connecting the world’s second-largest economy with 68 countries and 4.4 billion people across Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe in a labyrinth of multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure projects.
Major developments include direct rail and road links across Europe, Central and Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, as well as a controversial port-construction plan across vast swaths of the region.
Ostensibly about trade, commercial B&R ports in Djibouti, Sri Lanka and Pakistan have witnessed Chinese naval deployments. PLA Navy warships have also paid a friendly visit to Piraeus on the Mediterranean.
This is the jewel in COSCO’s crown after the state-owned behemoth clinched a US$1 billion deal for the strategically sensitive harbor in 2016.
“As the only multi-billion dollar port investment in the EU, the acquisition of a 35-year lease of Piraeus certainly represents China’s flagship project in this field,” academics Simone Tagliapietra and Shivali Panda wrote in a blog post for Bruegel, a think tank based in Brussels.
“Since its acquisition by COSCO, the port has experienced unprecedented growth due to new technology and infrastructure upgrades. In six years, port traffic grew by over 300%. Under new management and with millions of euros spent to expand port capacity, COSCO aims to have Piraeus rank as one of the busiest ports in Europe,” they added.
But with Chinese investment comes Chinese risk. Many in Europe question Beijing’s motives behind the Belt and Road program.
Greater transparency is needed, they argue, while the rising superpower’s militarization of the South and East China Seas is a cause for concern.
“Despite stating his support for increased EU-China cooperation, France’s President Emmanuel Macron expressed his hesitations by stating that the new ‘roads cannot be those of a new hegemony’ and ‘cannot be one-way,’” Tagliapietra and Panda said on the Bruegel website.
“Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel has taken a similar stance, pushing for reciprocity and stating her worry that economic relations will be linked with political questions.”
The EU tortoise can be slow but it just might end up running rings around the Chinese dragon.
It is normal for shipping companies to take long term leases on port facilities. Besides, what do European ports have to do with Djibouti, the South China Sea, Sri Lanka and the PLA navy? Nothing. Only useful for scare mongering.
Richard Truong So would the reaction be the same if Japan were involved? Probably not. It is mostly an anti-communist Cold War thing.
Richard Truong So would the reaction be the same if Japan were involved? Probably not. It is mostly an anti-communist Cold War thing.
What cheap journalism. At the end of EU concern & hands wringing it could only come up with "The EU tortoise can be slow but it just might end up running rings around the Chinese dragon.".
What cheap journalism. At the end of EU concern & hands wringing it could only come up with "The EU tortoise can be slow but it just might end up running rings around the Chinese dragon.".
It is a political thing.
The EU is wary of China because it is China, not because they are Chinese. It is a small distinction that makes a big difference.
In essence, it wouldn’t matter if China was populated by White European settelers, black, Indians, or anything else; it would still get the same treatment as if it was populated by people of East Asian heritage. Because it isn’t the RACE that is the (percieved) problem, it is the GOVERNMENT.
It is a political thing.
The EU is wary of China because it is China, not because they are Chinese. It is a small distinction that makes a big difference.
In essence, it wouldn’t matter if China was populated by White European settelers, black, Indians, or anything else; it would still get the same treatment as if it was populated by people of East Asian heritage. Because it isn’t the RACE that is the (percieved) problem, it is the GOVERNMENT.
I think you would find that the EU would make a big peep if the US sent that amount of hardware, Thomas. That racist term is not applicable here in any regard. China has a habit of buying up other countries industries, ports, etc and flooding them with her own cheap products. If you were a sovereign nation, surely something like that would concern you.
I think you would find that the EU would make a big peep if the US sent that amount of hardware, Thomas. That racist term is not applicable here in any regard. China has a habit of buying up other countries industries, ports, etc and flooding them with her own cheap products. If you were a sovereign nation, surely something like that would concern you.
Juncker is just a US appointee to head the EU and is an arselicker!
And same thing:
no results
And same thing:
no results
Thomas Daniel Kuhn,
It IS a racist thing.
Thomas Daniel Kuhn,
It IS a racist thing.
If the US were to send 100,000 troops, 500 tanks and 100 F35s to Europe the EU government would not make a peep. But here is China investing in EU infrastructure and making the EU more competative and whoa on there, gotta be careful? Could I express an opinion that that is a racist thing?
If the US were to send 100,000 troops, 500 tanks and 100 F35s to Europe the EU government would not make a peep. But here is China investing in EU infrastructure and making the EU more competative and whoa on there, gotta be careful? Could I express an opinion that that is a racist thing?
Quote:
"We live in a world where port operators from one country own and operate terminals in other countries. PSA (Port of Singapore Authority) operates terminals in 15 countries, Denmark’s Maersk Line has 76 ports in 41 countries, Switzerland’s Mediterranean Shipping Co (MSC) has 35 terminals in 22 countries, while Dubai’s DP World runs 77 ports in 40 countries. "
Quote:
"We live in a world where port operators from one country own and operate terminals in other countries. PSA (Port of Singapore Authority) operates terminals in 15 countries, Denmark’s Maersk Line has 76 ports in 41 countries, Switzerland’s Mediterranean Shipping Co (MSC) has 35 terminals in 22 countries, while Dubai’s DP World runs 77 ports in 40 countries. "
A lazy person will always think a diligent person as a threat, because a diligent person make lazy person look bad.
A lazy person will always think a diligent person as a threat, because a diligent person make lazy person look bad.