Living by the walls that would fascinate the world
China felt so different from the rest
Expecting fellow man was the basis of their plan
It was one of my
frustrations of the last decade: the naïve stance of most European countries
and – in particular – The Netherlands towards the “stealth” expansion of the
Chinese economic and political influence on the European continent.
China, with its
inconspicuous masterplans that could have time horizons of decades, was using
soft power and smart investments to stealthily increase their economic – and in
the process political – influence on the European continent, without the
Europeans even noticing it initially.
China’s investments have
always been smart and well-chosen and with a keen eye on the future of their
trading empire, which was traditionally based upon the manufacturing, export and distribution
of mass-produced consumer goods and
(increasingly) on the development and distribution of (in)expensive technology:
- The German
industrial robot manufacturer Kuka;
- The French supplier
for the nuclear waste industry Manoir Industries;
- A currently developed €20+ billion British
nuclear plant that must become the successor of the infamous Sellafield plant;
- Avalon, a large Irish
leasing company specially for the aviation industry, as well as a few other companies in
the same business;
- The port
of Piraeus in Greece, when Greece was strapped for cash due to
the Euro crisis;
- Large shares in seven other European ports (a.o. Rotterdam, Genua, Napels en Marseille), where Chinese stateowned companies usually purchase complete quays, that change overnight in a little pieces of China; fully controlled Chinese trade and import areas, carefully hidden away from governmental oversight by the hosting countries.
And there were other, far-stretching plans to take over European railroads in (a.o) Greece and finance the
construction of highway infrastructure in the traditionally cash-strapped Eastern
Europe.
These takeovers and financing operations always meant
some desperately needed billions of Euros in cash for the countries involved. Consequently most
countries dearly wanted to believe in the benevolent smiles of the Chinese
government leaders and their willingness to operate as a partner, thus in fact giving away some of their strategic assets to China.
And the proverbial pot of gold at the end of
the rainbow of doing business with China was unlimited access to the vast
Chinese market, with its 1.3 billion inhabitants. This would mean additional labour for their own companies and sales
coming from their own exports, as well as a slice of the pie from the enormous
Chinese distribution networks building up around the world (i.e. the new Silk Route).
Yet, the open access
to the Chinese market always seemed to be a mirage: when you came close to it,
it vanished again. When companies moved to China or opened a subsidiary over there, things also did not go hunkydory. High tech manufacturing companies regularly became victims
of theft of their patents, ideas and construction methods, while true access to the
open market never seemed to have lift-off.
The aggressive Chinese
policy concerning the Spratly Islands and Taiwan should have been a warning signal for the European countries, that their Chinese partner was not so benevolent and "trade-driven" as the European might think.
The reef-based islands belonging to the former were
suddenly invaded by the Chinese, who waded millions of cubic meters of sand and
constructed runways, villages and factories, while scaring away everybody who came too
close (read: Vietnam, Malaysia, the Phillippines).
In Africa and
Latin-America, the Chinese neocolonialism was based upon “beads and mirrors” in the form of new roads, railways and other
infrastructure of which… China itself profited most. The country did so, while
shutting up the leaders overthere with unlimited personal wealth for them and
their families and soft loans for their country to pay for their new
infrastructure projects.
In exchange the Chinese “confisquated” their supplies of soy
beans, rice, palm oil and other agricultural produce, as well as gold, silver and copper, rare earth
metals, minerals and oil. Most of these trade deals of African and Latin
American countries with China were (imho) extremely unbalanced, with China and the local rulers
having the winning hand, while the country was plundered of its natural resources.
But the European
countries seemed to ignore all these warning signals emerging from the rest of the globe
and kept on smiling against the Chinese government representatives. They
dreamed golden dreams of bedazzling exports and unlimited influence on the
second most powerful country in the world, while ignoring that not everything
was so well with China. And so did The Netherlands.
Until last week… It
seemed that the Dutch government suddenly had a brainwave
about what is at stake in the Chinese-European trade policies and especially with
regards to China’s increasing industrial espionage at one hand and their mounting
influence on the European economies and politics on the other hand, via China’s
recent network of participations and takeovers.
De Volkskrant wrote
this about it:
The [Dutch] government comes with a new China
strategy, as it is worried about the mounting Chinese influence on The Netherlands.
The Cabinet especially wants to focus on economic espionage and risky, hostile
takeovers by China. This was stated by Minister Eric Wiebes of Economic
Affairs.
“Chinese companies, which appear with a backpack full
of subsidies and state support, can do almost everything what they want
overhere”, Wiebes warned.
The Cabinet is seriously involved in this approach,
with eight officials, under guidance of the Prime Minister”.
As far as I’m
concerned this is not a second too early!
This is not a sign of
emerging protectionism of the Dutch government, but rather the realistic insight that
international trade should be “quid pro quo’, with mutual burdens and benefits.
Not a one way street, in which the majority of the benefits lands at only one
of the two parties involved.
On top of that, the
Dutch government should finally get rid of their blind eye for the unavoidable
drawbacks of doing business with China:
- their locust-like neocolonialism in the Third World countries in Africa and Latin America;
- their extremely brutal and intrusive policies against minorities within their own country...
- and their aggressive stance against Taiwan, Tibet and other neighbouring countries, in case of political and territorial conflicts.
This, in combination
with the unstoppable dominance of the Communist Party, their economic restraint
towards their trade partners, as well as the opaqueness of their policies and their
future agenda, makes that China as a “friend” is far more dangerous than Russia
as an enemy, to these eyes.
All this, however, does not
mean that the European Union cannot do business with China... It only means
that you should not give too much away to someone of whom you are not sure
that he will repay you to the same extent.
In other words: do business, but don’t be naïve about
your business partner!
My late mother had
this old and beautiful expression: “When
a fox preaches about world peace, the farmers can better take care of their
chickens”.
Think about China and the European Union and think for yourself which one is the fox and which are the chickens?! I think you will know the answer to that question!
No comments:
Post a Comment