Moscow and Kiev have conditionally welcomed the intervention, but the latter’s chief patrons appear to be bitterly opposed
Throughout the latter half of February, China was increasingly active diplomatically. Its highest-ranking diplomat, the Director of the Office of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission of the Chinese Communist Party Wang Yi, made a European tour. After attending the Munich Security Conference, he traveled to Hungary and Russia. In Moscow, he held talks with Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and finally, Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Yi assured Putin that China is ready to strengthen strategic cooperation with Russia. He stressed that Russian-Chinese relations are not directed against third countries, and will not yield to outside pressure.
The Russian President confirmed that he is looking forward to the state visit of his “friend Xi Jinping” after the session of the National People’s Congress (NPC) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), an event where key government officials will be appointed. According to The Wall Street Journal, this visit may take place in April or at the beginning of May, when Russia celebrates WWII Victory Day.
Zelensky and his cronies are trying to cover up a major corruption scandal in Ukraine – what role is the US playing?
WSJ sources also reported that Beijing wishes to play a greater role in the settlement of the Ukraine conflict, and Xi plans to discuss multilateral peace talks. Soon afterwards, China proposed its peace initiative for the conflict. However, for many observers, Beijing’s proposals generate far more questions than answers.
The Chinese document
While Yi was touring Europe, China published two documents expressing its position on a new global security architecture. On February 21, the Foreign Ministry released the concept of a global security initiative based on six main principles. The document mostly restated Beijing’s neutral rhetoric regarding the conflict in Ukraine.
For example, the principle of the sovereignty of all countries stands next to that of a “serious attitude” towards legitimate security concerns. While the first thesis is occasionally interpreted as China’s rejection of the Russian offensive in Ukraine, the second point refers to the Western leaders’ decision to ignore Moscow’s concerns about the expansion of NATO to the East. At the same time, China has particularly stressed that it remains committed to resolving differences and disputes through dialogue and consultations, not wars and sanctions.
On February 24, the anniversary of the Russian offensive in Ukraine, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs published another document, widely referred to in the media as China’s “peace plan”. In fact, Beijing never offered its text, titled “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis”, as a roadmap.
The document contains only vague formulations tinged with an air of philosophy.
Here’s the outline of the twelve points:
The ‘Great Game’ in Asia: A new struggle between China, the US and India is unfolding in Nepal
• respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and the norms of international law;
• rejection of the “cold war mentality” (including the expansion of military blocs);
• a ceasefire and an end to hostilities (“in war, no one wins”);
• a return to peace negotiations;
• the settlement of the humanitarian crisis;
• the protection of civilians and prisoners of war;
• ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants;
• the reduction of strategic risks and prevention of the use of nuclear weapons;
• the export of food within the grain corridor;
• an end to unilateral sanctions;
• securing the stability of production and supply chains;
• the involvement of the international community in post-war reconstruction.
‘Too much’ peace
China’s peacemaking proposal didn’t spark a positive reaction from all key players. Russia’s reception was polite, but tepid – Vladimir Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow will pay great attention to the “plan of our Chinese friends” but added that so far it does not see any prerequisites for a return to a peaceful course. He added that the military operation would continue, and Russia is moving towards achieving its goals.
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova earlier said that Moscow shares Beijing’s core ideas and remains committed to the principles of compliance with international law and indivisible security. Russia is ready to achieve its objectives through political and diplomatic means, but a peace agreement should imply “a stop to supplies of Western weapons and mercenaries to Ukraine, the end of hostilities, the return of the country to a neutral non-aligned status, and the recognition of new territorial realities.”
Beijing’s initiative provoked an outburst of criticism against China on behalf of US authorities, who wrongly assessed Moscow’s enthusiasm for the proposals.
The Righteous: Smash hit movie tells the story of a Russian who saved hundreds of Jews from Nazi Germany’s holocaust
“Putin’s applauding it, so how could it [the peace plan] be any good? I’ve seen nothing in the plan that would indicate that there is something that would be beneficial to anyone other than Russia, if the Chinese plan were followed. The idea that China is going to be negotiating the outcome of a war that’s a totally unjust war for Ukraine is just not rational,” US President Joe Biden said in an interview with ABC. Adding to the rhetoric, Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan suggested that Beijing stick to the first point about respecting the sovereignty of all countries.
Commenting on China’s plan, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg pointed out that Beijing “doesn’t inspire much trust.” He went so far to state that his bloc suspects Chinese weapons may be supplied to Russia, even though “there is no such evidence yet.” Meanwhile, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that the EU will study China’s document, but only in the light of the “friendship between Beijing and Moscow”.
The President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, spoke out about China’s “reflections” in a more neutral way. Zelensky noted that while he doesn’t share all the ideas outlined in Beijing’s proposals, some are quite suitable for Ukraine – for example, the support of the territorial integrity of all countries. However, Zelensky stressed that unless China’s plan includes a proposal on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine’s territory, it will be unachievable. At the same time, Zelensky said that he also wishes to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Zelensky’s advisor, Mikhail Podolyak, reacted more strongly. He indicated that any proposals should include “a return to 1991 borders”. The head of the the president’s “Servant of the People” faction, David Arakhamiya, dunbend Beijing’s suggestion for both parties to immediately start negotiations “unacceptable” due to the current realities.
Against this background, the position of Poland, one of the closest allies of the US in Europe, came as a surprise. Polish President Andrzej Duda stated that the initiative might become a way towards peace, and that one “should not underestimate a great power like China”. These words may indicate his desire to maintain beneficial economic ties with Beijing.
As Russia celebrates Veteran’s Day, here’s how the country fought in different periods of its thousand year history
What China meant
So why did China’s “peace plan” remain so vague and why did its appeal to “the good of mankind” provoke such a strong reaction from the West?
“What we have seen is by no means an action plan or a peacemaking appeal. Rather, it is a declaration of China’s position. It is important for the world community to see what China has called for and what it wants. It has been rumored that China wants to supply lethal weapons or otherwise intervene in the conflict. With this document, China has demonstrated that it has different intentions, and it stands on the side of peace,” Alexey Maslov, director of the Institute of Asian and African Countries at the Moscow State University, told RT.
According to Maslov, China’s proposal is insufficiently radical for the West and is too mild for Russia since it doesn’t directly condemn Western actions.
“But if you closely examine the text, you’ll see that it includes some anti-Western statements – for example, a call for the non-proliferation of military blocs. We may call this the kind of neutrality that favors Russia,” the expert says.
Vasily Kashin, director of the Higher School of Economics Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies, agreed that for Russia, the Chinese “peace plan” is mostly acceptable, but will likely be rejected by the West and Ukraine. At the same time, he believes the document was originally created with a different purpose in mind.
“China wanted to show everyone that it can come up with good peace proposals which may act as an alternative to the West’s bellicose rhetoric. A number of developing countries that remain neutral may support this initiative,” the Kashin stated.
‘Russia’s last great writer’: The scandalous story of Eduard Limonov – exiled by the KGB, before he shocked post-Soviet Moscow
China’s initiatives directly proceed from the foreign policy concepts of the Communist Party and Xi himself – viewing the world as a community involved in shaping the common destiny of mankind. Only uninformed observers could expect China to take a different standpoint, Alexander Lomanov, head of the Center for Asia-Pacific Studies of the IMEMO RAS, told RT. In his opinion, the negative reception that the proposal received from Europeans and Americans are a result of the general tensions between the West and Beijing.
“China believes that in the future, humanity should solve serious problems together. Xi’s initiatives are indisputable – they talk about joint prosperity, the support of production chains, etc. However, in the modern world, which has apparently lost all mutual trust, it remains unclear how all of this can be implemented. Especially in the context of the current confrontation with the West, which sides against Beijing. Are America and its satellites ready to form such a community, based on the Chinese model? No. Even some third world countries are not ready for it,” the expert said.
Lomanov added that the West has ignored Russia’s concerns about NATO expansion over the past 25 years, and neither will it listen to Beijing’s appeal.
“China is a powerful country. But it can hardly become a broker that all sides of the conflict will trust. For example, the cessation of fire is hardly possible as long as the idea of a military victory over Russia dominates in the West,” he explained.
The experts added that historically, China has never been a mediator and it is not interested in becoming one in the context of the Ukrainian conflict. According to Kashin, the US suggested that China take on such a role at the start of Russia’s military offensive, but there entreaties were refused.
We are allowed to, but you’re not
At the same time as Beijing delivered peace initiative, there was increasing talk concerning possible weapons supplies from China to Russia. Sullivan declared that the US sent Beijing a clear warning regarding any such steps. CIA Director William Burns claimed to CBS News that US intelligence has evidence that China is seriously considering the possibility of supplying weapons to Russia, but has not made a final decision yet. Both Beijing and Moscow deny the existence of such plans.
Under siege: How has Donbass lived through its first year of official separation from Ukraine?
Previously, Secretary of State Antony Blinken had asserted that Chinese companies were already helping Russia fight Ukraine by providing non-lethal military assistance and assisting Moscow in avoiding Western economic sanctions. Some Chinese organizations have already fallen under US sanctions, as a result. For example, on January 26, the US Treasury imposed restrictions against the Tianyi Research Institution (Changsha) and its subsidiary in Luxembourg for supposedly providing the Russian company Terra Tech with images of Ukraine from satellites equipped with synthetic-aperture radars (SAR). Terra Tech, in turn, allegedly transmitted the images to PMC Wagner.
Consequently, China reacted sharply to the West’s attempt to interfere in its policy towards Moscow. While in Russia, Wang Yi said that Chinese-Russian relations are rock solid and will withstand any test proposed by the evolving international situation.
The head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell, claimed that during an informal conversation in Munich, Wang Yi asked him why Beijing should not supply weapons to Russia if the EU supplies weapons to Ukraine. “I had to explain the big difference, telling him what a big threat the war in Ukraine poses to us,” Borrell said.
According to Lomanov, this is China’s way of showing its weariness with the West’s double standards, and its dwindling hope in cooperating with the European Union on equal footing.
“For a long time, China has believed in the strategic autonomy of Europe. But Europe is increasingly becoming an appendage of the American policy in containing China.
That’s how it was with the sanctions: The EU imposed restrictions because of the situation in Xinjiang, but was very surprised to face countermeasures. And now Beijing is demonstrating that theoretically, it is able to take symmetrical action regarding the situation in Ukraine. However, I think that in the matter of weapons supplies to Russia, China won’t go past rhetoric statements,” Lomanov concluded.
For more stories on economy & finance visit TSFT’s business section
PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME
The former premier’s Taiwan trip is nothing but a provocation for Beijing to lash out at London, sinking any constructive dialogue
Liz Truss will always be remembered as a disastrous prime minister who spent only a month in office and was outlasted by a head of lettuce.
Her disastrous budget plans sent shudders through the UK economy, eliciting criticism from the British people, MPs and foreign leaders alike. Her ideology-driven political decisions found little sympathy with the public, which repaid her with abysmal approval ratings.
You’d think someone like that would have little credibility as a political adviser, but that apparently isn’t the case. Taiwan, which frequently pays washed-up Western right-wing fanatics to come and visit them as a political stunt, invited Liz Truss to Taipei on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Truss then gave a hawkish speech where she called for an end to all cooperation and dialogue with Beijing and the preparation of Russia-style sanctions in the event of a Taiwan conflict. She also repeated her suggestion of an “Economic NATO” – despite a track record that makes her the last person you’d want to listen to for economic advice.
‘Economic NATO’ needed to counter China – Truss
Since her brief stay in Downing Street, she has rebranded herself as a full-time anti-China hawk, and now uses her party position and credentials as a former prime minister to try to undermine her successor’s attempts to carefully edge back towards engagement with China. Truss was always a fantasist, a pro-Brexit zealot who embraced a confrontational stance during her time as foreign secretary.
However, as you can imagine, all you need to do to reinvent yourself these days is to become a China basher. It doesn’t matter how much of a joke you otherwise might be. Hence, the UK media made sure that her stay and words in Taiwan were given widespread coverage without the context of her political failures. The UK government has already distanced itself from her trip – a fact that Beijing should take careful notice of (and no doubt has).
The British Conservative Party has always been rife with that sort of factionalism. While the opposition Labour Party tends to hard-line suppress the more ideological wing of its MPs (hence the purge of the left-wing Corbynite faction), Tory ideologues have long held power as a “disruptive” force on the government itself, undermining its foreign policy. It’s a fracture which emerged during the Margaret Thatcher era, where following the breakdown of the “post-war consensus” of economic pragmatism, ideology gained ascendency in the party and soon manifested into Euroscepticism.
This tug of war lasted 30 years, making it harder for Conservative prime ministers to maintain a working relationship with the EU, and eventually culminating in Brexit itself. Once that was out of the way, these ideologues found a new target: China. While Truss has opportunistically jumped on this bandwagon, former arch-Brexiter Iain Duncan Smith had already made himself the UK’s Sinophobe-in-chief. Their common goal is simply to undermine stable ties with Beijing and provoke conflict by spurring on backbench rebellions, making them a challenge for the government to handle.
Taiwan predicts timeline for conflict with China
Consequently, while Truss may be a national laughingstock thanks to her disastrous tenure as prime minister, this new role she is taking on enables her to cause disruption on this issue. Taiwan, of course, knows this, because its entire foreign policy is premised on trying to undermine the ties of other countries’ relationships with Beijing by spending large amounts of money on inviting figures such as Truss. The timing of the trip was deliberate, coming immediately after the British foreign secretary’s engagement with a senior Chinese official following the coronation of King Charles III.
Taipei hopes that Beijing’s backlash over the Truss visit will target the UK government as a whole and punish the country. China has a record for being abrasive like this, having done so with the Czech Republic in the past and not winning any friends there as a result. If Truss is therefore allowed to dictate the flow of UK-China relations, she wins. Besides her, the UK has never been provocative on Taiwan at a senior level such as with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s visit last year for the US.
Thus, rather than causing a crisis, China should wait until the upcoming Taiwan elections take place and hope that the more pro-China Kuomintang Party (KMT), which once governed the whole country, will take power and stabilize cross-strait ties again. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) thrives off creating crises, as does the US with its military deployments, and amidst it all there is no intention for cool heads to prevail. While Pelosi was a blatant violation and huge provocation of the One China policy and US commitment to it, the Truss trip is an opportunistic PR stunt by a washed-up has-been who almost ran her country into the ground in a month. Ignore, move on and forget.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.
You can share this story on social media:
PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is looking at ways to address the most pressing global issues without being a disruptive influence
The upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit promises to be a watershed moment in the bloc’s history, coming amid unprecedented global challenges and new, emergent tensions.
While the SCO Foreign Ministers meeting, which took place on May 4 and 5, was tasked with preparing the agenda for the July 3-4 summit in New Delhi, there is still much work to do to ensure that India’s chairmanship will be a success.
The West has broken virtually all links with Russia because of the Ukraine conflict. Western sanctions against Russia are unprecedented in scope, carrying significant ramifications also for the developing world, including the economic disruptions caused by the weaponization of the US dollar. The European security architecture is in tatters. For the West to seek Russia’s strategic defeat while the country possesses formidable military and material resources makes no sense. Risking a potential nuclear conflict in particular is totally irresponsible.
The European Union has lost its already limited capacity to play an independent role, especially with Germany losing clout and Brussels appropriating more power. The doors of dialogue and diplomacy are being kept closed as NATO seeks military advantage over Russia, and uses Ukraine as a proxy.
At the other end of Eurasia, US-China tensions are rising over Taiwan, regional maritime disputes, strengthening of US-centered regional alliances and NATO overtures to Japan and South Korea. The US and the EU are warning China against supplying lethal arms to Russia under pain of sanctions, even as they seek China’s support in persuading Russia to end its military intervention in Ukraine, and this in the background of the high-level dialogue between the US and China having virtually broken down.
Can Eurasia’s rising political bloc show a united front against the West’s encroachment?
Both Russia and China, the principal pillars of the SCO, are at loggerheads with the West to different degrees, and the summit agenda will inevitably reflect this reality. The SCO represents a building block of multipolarity within the global system at the political, economic and security levels, a goal reiterated at the Foreign Ministers’ meeting.
While the other SCO members have robust links to both Russia and China, their connections with India are not as strong, despite mutual goodwill and shared interests. This is largely due to a lack of contiguity and direct access to Central Asia. With Iran and Belarus joining as full members, the SCO will achieve greater Eurasian depth. Both of these countries have been politically and economically targeted by the West. The SCO Foreign Ministers meeting also agreed on May 5 to grant dialogue partner status to Kuwait, the Maldives, Myanmar and the UAE, in addition to the nine existing dialogue partners. The growing interest demonstrates the appeal of the SCO as a grouping of non-Western countries that provide an alternative platform for nations to pursue their interests outside the Western-dominated international system.
Association with the SCO increases their margin to maneuver, primarily at the political and economic levels. Diplomatic support, hedging against Western sanctions, access to non-Western development banks, benefits from connectivity projects and infrastructure development, cooperation against terrorism, extremism and separatism, are obvious advantages.
India has taken its current presidency of the SCO seriously, organizing and hosting more than 100 meetings and events, including 15 ministerial level meetings. Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has also stressed the great importance for India of developing multifaceted cooperation. He introduced the term ‘SECURE’ SCO on the basis of Security, Economic Development, Connectivity, Unity, Respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and Environmental protection.
As SCO Chair, India initiated an unprecedented engagement with the organization’s Observers and Dialogue Partners by inviting them to participate in more than 14 socio-cultural events. Many of the events hosted by India occurred for the first time in the framework of the SCO, such as the Millet Food Festival, Film Festival, Cultural Festival, the Tourism Mart, and Conference on Shared Buddhist Heritage.
Moscow Region representatives conduct roadshows to entice Delhi and Mumbai investors
Jaishankar noted that as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and geopolitical upheavals, global supply chains had been disrupted, leading to a serious impact on delivering energy, food, and fertilizers to developing nations. He viewed these challenges as an opportunity for SCO members to address them collaboratively, noting that with more than 40% of the world’s population within the SCO, its collective decisions would surely have a global impact.
Additionally, Jaishankar highlighted the unabated menace of terrorism, and that combating it was one of the original mandates of the SCO. He drew attention to the unfolding situation in Afghanistan where the immediate priorities included providing humanitarian assistance, ensuring a truly inclusive and representative government, combating terrorism and drug trafficking and preserving the rights of women, children and minorities. This was echoed by the Chinese foreign minister.
India expressed its willingness to share its expertise and experience in the field of startups having helped cultivate over 70,000, more than 100 of which were ‘unicorns’. Last year, it proposed the creation of a Startups and Innovation working groups as well as one focused on traditional medicines, and the SCO meeting approved plans to operationalize these initiatives.
India believes that the SCO should look at reform and modernization to keep the organization relevant in a rapidly transforming world, and noted that discussions on these issues had already commenced. It also sought support for its long-standing demand to make English the SCO’s third official language, as this would enable a deeper engagement with English-speaking members and would take the SCO’s work to a global audience.
India also proposed the New Delhi Declaration as an SCO Summit Declaration at the meeting, as well as four other thematic joint statements on cooperation in de-radicalization strategies, promotion of millets, sustainable lifestyles to address climate change and digital transformation. India sought support for a timely finalization of these documents for approval at the SCO Summit.
Indian delegation wraps up successful business tour in Russia
According to Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang, all participating parties considered the SCO as an important platform for joint combat against terrorism, separatism, drug trafficking, as well as cyber crimes. All favored more cooperation in such fields as transportation, energy, finance, investment, trade, the digital economy, regional connectivity, deeper cultural and people-to-people exchanges, environmental protection, climate change, sustainable development, and SCO’s strengthened cooperation with the United Nations and BRICS countries.
The meeting also offered the gathered foreign ministers an opportunity for intense bilateral meetings. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov met his Chinese counterpart to discuss the implementation of agreements reached between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in March.
The SCO continues to enlarge its footprint, widen its agenda, and carve out a non-Western space in the international system, but some key points of friction remain between members especially China and India. The two countries are currently embroiled in a border dispute that has yet to be settled. Additionally, India stands in opposition to China’s Belt and Road Initiative due to India’s concerns about connected sovereignty issues.
The other, less important fault line, is India-Pakistan relations. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bhutto Zardari did not help matters by making indirect jibes at India during his speech at the SCO meeting and further criticism of New Delhi in his interviews to the media. His comments elicited a sharp response by the Indian Foreign Minister, but only after the SCO meeting was completed. Pakistan is currently in the throes of a major internal crisis, which may affect its participation in the SCO summit. However, India-Pakistan differences are not germane to the SCO’s growing stature. Far more important is the Russia-India-China triangle.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.
You can share this story on social media:
PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME
Rome is considering leaving the Belt and Road Initiative in a move which will place virtue signaling to other Western states above its own interests
Italy’s membership of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is up for renewal at the end of this year, and Western media outlets are speculating that Rome may choose to leave the pact.
Italy became the first and only G7 nation to join China’s multi-billion-dollar infrastructure vision, signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) just before a tidal wave of anti-China sentiment was unleashed on the world. Indeed, the country’s leadership was in a very different place then, with Italy being led by Giuseppe Conte of the Five Star Movement, whose populism faulted the Euro-Atlantic establishment for decimating the Italian economy through the 2008 debt crisis and the brutal austerity measures which followed. It is little wonder that Italy had decided to look eastwards.
Even 15 years on from the events of 2008, Italy’s economy still has not fully recovered. It was worth $2.4 trillion at the end of that year, but is only at $2.1 trillion now, and barely growing at all. New and concurrent economic crises have taken a toll. Italy’s current leadership no longer believes all roads lead to Rome, let alone to China’s modern-day Silk Road – rather, they lead to Washington. As pressure on the country has grown, its successive leaders, Mario Draghi and Giorgia Meloni, have sought to reset its foreign policy back to transatlantic-oriented goals, ending its rebellion against the establishment and thus contemplating quitting China’s grand initiative.
Italy may exit ‘New Silk Road’ – FT
Oddly enough, the truth remains that it is the EU and US that stand as the biggest threat to Italy’s prosperity, not China. While dumping the BRI will receive plaudits from the US-dominated commentary circles in these countries, the reality is that they offer no alternative, no plans, and no incentives to make Italy a wealthier country. It is the “sick man” of the G7, an advanced economy that has increasingly lost its competitiveness, but also one that has been thrust into decline by being a southern EU country and a net loser of Eurozone policies.
It is precisely because of the economic upheavals that the country has faced over the past 15 years and widespread political dissatisfaction, that radical and populist politics have gained ground. China was rightfully seen as an alternative, a country that could rapidly expand Italy’s exports and invest in crumbling public infrastructure. However, this has quickly become politically incorrect. Italy’s leaders argue that BRI participation has been a waste of time. However, the reality is that when Eurocrat Mario Draghi came to office, he sought to reset Italy’s foreign policy and began using new “golden powers” to veto and cancel Chinese investments in Italy on a large scale. In 2021 alone, he blocked three Chinese takeovers, including a seed and vegetable producer.
Following Draghi, Giorgia Meloni, despite her outward populism, has been even more prone to pledging Rome’s loyalty to the transatlantic cause, having decided to become vocal in support of Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and even visit Kiev. At this stage, it is very little surprise that her country is contemplating canceling participation in the BRI, something which can score political points and help dispel doubts about her loyalty to Brussels and Washington. Predictably, the mainstream media narrative readily depicts the BRI in predatory and malign terms, ignoring the obvious empirical truth that it is the EU that has saddled Italy with a national debt larger than its GDP, and not China. Of course, there is no alternative scheme or plan for Italy on offer should it leave the BRI, meaning it is cutting its nose off to spite its face.
EU defenseless against China – Berlusconi
By forfeiting its BRI membership, Italy will undoubtedly lose the opportunity to massively enhance its trade competitiveness, namely by opting out of projects such as Chinese-owned ports and railway links. As an example of this, Greece, to the southeast, has positioned itself as a “gateway to Europe” through Chinese ownership of Pireaus port and its connecting railways, which allows cargo to go up through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean, into the port and then across Europe. Italy could have competed for a share of this, but it has chosen not to, and it’s not like it will be selling anything additional to the US with its protectionist “America first” policies, is it?
In doing so, Italy has chosen to stop being a leader pursuing its own path in the world to better strengthen its global clout, but instead to be a follower, to play second fiddle to the transatlantic establishment which doesn’t see it as a particularly prominent partner to begin with. Italy joined the BRI precisely because it was sick of being a “rule taker” from Brussels, in a similar vein to what Greece has experienced. Now it appears happy again to hold up the political orthodoxy of the elitist, US-led G7. In doing so, it can kiss goodbye any hopes of becoming a powerful and influential country again anytime soon. Italy is admired mostly for its past, as opposed to what it offers to the world presently, and if its current leadership has its way, that will likely remain the case.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.
You can share this story on social media:
PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME
NEWS3 months ago
FINANCE3 months ago