Views: 1825|Replies: 1

Can EU’s connectivity strategy work? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2018-10-10 09:16:19 |Display all floors
(GT) Just half way between the EU-China Summit on July 16 and the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) on October 18-19, the EU released on September 19 a strategy titled "Connecting Europe and Asia - Building Blocks for an EU Strategy," aiming at "sustainable, comprehensive and rules-based connectivity," which "will contribute to enhanced prosperity, safety and resilience of people and societies in Europe and Asia." In substance, this is nothing less than the EU alternative to the Chinese BRI project. Can it work?

The project does not openly admit that it is the alternative to Belt and Road initiative (BRI). There is no mention of BRI in all relevant documents - a first and decisive mistake, because this denial eludes comparison between the two alternatives now at hand. But a comparison is inevitable, and it is far from promising for the European idea. The Chinese level of investment comes close to the whole EU budget for the next 7 to 10 years, of which only a tiny share will be available for the implementation of the latest Connectivity Strategy - a dramatic mismatch, to the disadvantage of the Europeans. And indeed, the content of the strategy is disappointingly weak.

For countries that lie between China and Europe, Central Asian nations in particular, the offer of Chinese investment is lucrative. To put it bluntly, China would simply finance railways, highways, airports, cyber-connections, i.e. the whole infrastructure for long-distance trade, and not emphasize too much on political conditions, "good governance," and other "values" - whereas the EU would finance much less and ask much more: human rights, rule of law, respect for rules of all kinds. Europe's assumed "soft power" is much less tempting than the tangible Chinese assets, at least for Central Asia. The EU project is inherently unattractive for Central Asia.

The misconceptions implied by the connectivity strategy are due to a long-standing European self-overestimation. The EU seems to assume that Europe and China are at a comparable level of development, and that both parties have equal rights to go ahead or slow down their growth, use of resources, and extend their networks. This approach neglects that Europe prevented China from development and modernization for more than a century and half, that China feels that it has the historical right to catch up with the West, that it should no longer submit to Western/European pretended moral superiority - right or wrong, it is at least an understandable Chinese mind-set, if not political conviction, and the Europeans should first of all put themselves in the position of those they want to deal with.

The Europeans should finally recognize that they are a club of small players, as long as their foreign policy is not unified at the European level. China has 17 times the number of people on its territory as the biggest of the Europeans - Germany. And even if the Chinese per capita GDP is still far behind Germany's, there is no doubt that China will continue its catch-up development. Only together, a tightly united, federal Europe will be able to establish itself as a partner of equal stature with China over the next few decades.

As much as the Chinese can claim the right to reach the same level of development as Europe, as much it is evident that there is simply not enough stuff on Earth to feed all the more than 7 billion humans living today - food, plants and animals, water, energy, even air (climate) is limited on this planet. Westerners use more than their just share of all these resources, and developing, growing economies, even if they succeed to continue, will simply have no chance to reach the same level of consumption because there is not enough to share at that level. The problem lies with Westerners, not with the developing countries: The West, Europe, must refrain from using too much, and search intensively in cooperation with China and others ways of pursuing well-being with less consumption.

A connectivity strategy, which is aware of historical burdens and of future challenges, must be based not on a competitive approach between competing projects aiming at satisfying incompatible interests - but on the sincere research of a common ground, a common vision for a viable future, united in diversity. Europe and China are inevitably destined to sit together, with the states in-between, and work on a sort of Memorandum of Agreement. Instead of a conflicting connectivity strategy, we need, on both sides of the Eurasian landmass and everywhere in-between, a "Eurasian Charter" of fundamental rules of really sustainable development.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2018-10-10 21:47:28 |Display all floors
project does not openly admit that it is the alternative to Belt and Road initiative (BRI). There is no mention of BRI in all relevant documents - a first and decisive mistake, because this denial eludes comparison between the two alternatives now at hand. But a comparison is inevitable, and it is far from promising for the European idea. The Chinese level of investment comes close to the whole EU budget for the next 7 to 10 years


This is where OP makes the serious mistake him/herself - comparing the projects by their financial commitments, when that's not only the major difference, but also the very reason why European project is needed.

EU's strategy for this connectivity is not to buy support for their own policies by flooding money and buying friends, like China's is.

EU's strategy (and the allocated budget) would be mainly to cover the administative costs of the  project, while using that resource to attract financing from other sources. From EU, from the countries in question, and elsewhere.

What the countries and people located between EU and China are actually interested about, is China's money and European way of life.

This can easily be demonstrated by going there and asking random person on the street, that if they had opportunity/need to immediately relocate/migrate, would they rather go to Europe or China. China would have to pay them to come.

Going west from China, one can easily catch the glimpse of what (besides money) China wants to export, without even crossing the Chinese border. Who'd want that? Nobody that humanity would terribly miss.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.