#China-EU Bilateral Investment Treaty | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

believersiasacademy · 2 years

Photo

China and Russia Relations

Context:

Recently, in a joint statement, China and Russia affirmed that their new relationship is superior to any political or military alliance of the Cold War

The statement comes amid Russia’s standoff with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on Ukraine.

Background:

Despite being together in rejecting US unipolarity, the relationship between Russia and China is complex and layered.

Each has its distinct worldview and specific interests in its geographical region, and its own battles to fight.

Relations between China and the former Soviet Union were frosty, marked by mistrust and doctrinal differences for most of the Cold War decades.

The change came in 1989, when Mikhail Gorbachev became the first Soviet leader to visit China since Nikita Khrushchev in 1958.

Russia and China declared “mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence” as the basis of their bilateral relations.

A decade after the Soviet Union broke up, disappointed and humiliated by the way the West had downgraded it, and deep in economic crisis, Russia turned to China.

In 2001, the two countries signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation, paving the way for expanding economic and trade ties, including sales of defence equipment and energy by Russia to China, and Russia’s backing for China’s position on Taiwan.

In June 2021, the two countries extended the treaty at a virtual meeting where Russia claimed that “Russian-Chinese coordination plays a stabilising role in world affairs”.

Current Developments

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea in Ukraine led to a sharp downturn in Russia’s ties with the US, NATO, and European Union (EU).

This was also the turning point in Russia’s ties with China, which revealed the possibilities, potential, and the limits of the relationship.

When the US, EU, and Australia imposed sanctions on Russia, Russia turned reflexively to China.

Russia opened its doors wide for Chinese investments, and struck a USD 400 billion deal for Gazprom, the Russian state monopoly gas exporter, to supply 38 billion cubic metres (bcm) annually to China for 30 years from 2025.

Earlier in January 2022, the two countries signed a deal for another pipeline, Power of Siberia 2, which will add 10 bcm of gas to the annual supply for 30 years.

Since 2016,trade between the two countries has gone from USD 50 bn to over USD 147 bn.

China is now Russia’s largest trading partner. Towards a modus vivendi in Central Asia, the two countries agreed to work towards speeding up the linking of the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.

With their ties closer than ever before, the crisis in Ukraine has been an opportunity for each country to express solidarity with the other’s grievance against the US.

Should the West impose financial and banking sanctions on Russia, China is expected to assist Russia, perhaps with alternative payment methods.

Way Forward:

India should also promote mutually beneficial trilateral cooperation between Russia, China and India that could contribute towards the reduction of mistrust and suspicion between India and China.

In this context, the BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and RIC trilateral forum must be leveraged.

0 notes

indochinanews · 2 years

Text

China, EU jointly present a meaningless New Year gift to the world

The question that needs to be asked, what was so urgent that this agreement needs to be signed before the pandemic is over.

Answer: An inauguration of a New President of the United States, who would work with the world and not go alone.

Negotiations on the China-EU bilateral investment treaty have been completed as scheduled. The leaders of the two sides jointly announced when they held a conference via video link on Wednesday. This is a major event between China and the EU, and it is also a piece of stimulating news for a world still plagued by the ravaging pandemic. This is a future-oriented major decision. Mankind will not always be caught in the pandemic, and we will eventually get through it.

This agreement was made to put something in place before Joe Biden came into power, and the world would start asking China to answer on spreading the coronavirus around the globe.

Talks on the China-EU investment treaty had been going on for seven years, and there had been more than 30 rounds of negotiations. It is conceivable that there are many difficulties. However, the two sides finally completed the negotiations. This proves a fact: As long as the two sides are sincere and Europe stays gullible in strengthening reciprocal cooperation, they can overcome any differences. Affirming and promoting the fact is of great significance to the world today. In many fields, we are often at the crossroads of whether to compromise and achieve a plan or violently confront each other.

Some Westerners like to discuss which side makes more concessions in an agreement and whether their requirements have been met. As long as an agreement is reached through unequal negotiation, it cannot be a unilateral victory. Win-win cooperation is the basic logic in the era of globalization, and the China-EU investment treaty will deviate from such reasoning.

Those seemingly profound comments about zero-sum games are often grandstanding with a very narrow mindset. They seriously lack a strategic understanding of the sellout of the China-EU investment treaty. In the current Western public opinion, nationalist agitation and high-profile ideology are popular, but they are shoddy outcomes born of national interests. (This decision has been made against the popular public opinion by EU Bueracratic Officials)

China and the EU have jointly promoted the final negotiations on this far-reaching investment treaty, which shows that rationality has disappeared in a public opinion field rife with extreme emotions. Rationality has always been silent, but it is still solid and will play an essential role at critical moments. There is no reason for humanity to be depressed or give up as the world enters a new phase over the next thirty years.

There is still a lot of cooperation between China and the EU, and China also has bilateral investment agreements with many European countries. But disputes will occur more frequently going forward, and they interact with the turbulence of the general environment. When the China-EU investment treaty is finally signed(Which means it has not yet been signed), the two sides' mutual investment will track laws and regulations. The world is already somewhat messy, and the CORONAVIRUS pandemic has caused even greater chaos. Both China and the EU are large economies, and the two sides' latest achievement will inject a kind of certainty into this uncertain world. China is now counting on the EU Economy to replace the US Trade driven growth required by the Chinese economy.

We must move forward. But China and the EU cannot go too far by relying merely on trade alone, not to mention that there are still many ideological and other factors that will create turbulence (similar to the new cold war in play). With a stable investment treaty, the two sides will open new rooms for cooperation and upgrade the driving force of their collaboration. An investment treaty has been the only way to deepen China-EU cooperation. The negotiations have ended at the end of 2020, which portrays one sides' strategic missteps.

International relations in 2020 are generally tense, and there have been disputes between China and the World. The negotiations at the end of the year have made people think: What is China-EU relations' essence? There is too much chatter about geopolitics and values, but what the public cares about the most is Economic development. What promotes peaceful development is cooperation, not confrontation.

The China-EU bilateral investment treaty wrongfully echoes this theme. Thus it has arrived as scheduled, and it is a New Year gift from China and the Wrong Move by the EU to the whole world.

0 notes

xtruss · 3 years

Text

Expanding Quad to Economic Sphere Easier Said Than Done

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

— Xin Qiang | May 17 2021

Washington D.C. outlet The Hill on Saturday posted an article entitled, "Why the Quad should morph into a treaty-based economic alliance." It wrote "if the Quad is to function properly, members must consider forming an economic "NATO" - a treaty-based economic alliance, wherein all commit to defending each other economically if China retaliates against any member."

Such rhetoric is not unexpected. Actually, the most important fields of strategic competition between China and the US are economics and technology, instead of military matters. Washington intends to remain on the same page with its allies and partners in terms of suppressing China in economics, countering Beijing with cutting-edge high-tech industries; including chips, 5G, and artificial intelligence. Washington has been clearly aware that it cannot contain China alone. Even though the Quad initially focuses on security and military cooperation, some people in the US are calling for cooperation with Quad members in the field of economics.

Washington has groundlessly accused Beijing of attempting to resort to economic means to divide US alliances. Although China does not have this intention, Washington is upset about China's economic collaboration with its allies — such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement with Japan, South Korea and Australia, and China-EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. Washington has also accused China of economic coercion against its allies. Against this backdrop, some Americans believe it is necessary to call on allies to present a united front against China.

In this light, cooperation of Quad members may extend to economics. Washington may collaborate with other Quad members, namely Japan, Australia and India, on some specific projects, commodities, or certain industrial chains to pile more pressure on China. It is still too early to imagine that the Quad will evolve into a formal alliance. Its member countries are more divided in terms of economics, ergo this bloc will hardly become an "economic alliance."

In the era of globalization, every country is interdependent. As the second-largest economy, China has become the biggest trade partner of many US allies. The US cannot interrupt other three members' trade exchanges with China, nor their reliance on the vast Chinese market. Take Japan for example. As one of the crucial allies of the US, Japan's recent narratives and moves toward the Taiwan question and the South China Sea issue have followed the US' lead. But Japan's approval of the RCEP displays the fact that Japan will not engage in economic confrontations with China.

If Quad members expand their coordination to economic sphere and take measures that substantially hurt China, the latter will certainly take countermeasures.

Apart from economics, Washington has recently attempted to extend Quad cooperation into other domains. For example, the White House said on March 12 that Quad partners will launch the Quad Vaccine Partnership to counter China's so-called vaccine diplomacy.

The Biden administration is trying to fill the Quad cooperation with new content, such as economics, human rights, and public health. This is being done in a bid to reinforce the Quad framework. Washington hopes that the three members will share the burden of counterbalancing China. These countries will verbally echo Washington. But it remains to be seen whether or not they can put it into practice (or to what extent they are capable of) helping the US check China.

The coronavirus pandemic is one of the touchstones of Quad collaboration. With the pandemic out of control in India, New Delhi urgently needs to expand national vaccinations. But the US' restrictions on the export of key raw materials for the manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines have threatened to slow India's vaccination drive. Despite the US loosing the restrictions, this has deepened India's distrust of the US.

Furthermore, Canberra has been gradually losing Chinese market as its bilateral ties with China have deteriorated. The US, as a close ally of Australia, is eager to fill this void. China's coal imports from Australia have dropped to zero in December 2020, while the US sold nearly 300,000 tones of coking coal to China in February, according to a report by South China Morning Post. The report also quoted analysts saying Australia's loss has created new gains for the US.

Given the US' similar practices, the three Quad members will suspect Washington's sincerity to cooperate with them. They will doubt whether the US is a reliable partner or ally going forward.

In the future, the Quad framework may remain in place, as all four countries want to exploit it as a mechanism to counter China's rise. But the four members will also take what they need from the group. It is hard to expect the Quad will maintain a close alliance that seeks to check and balance China in a confrontational way. In fact, there is considerable uncertainty about the future development of the Quad.

— The author is deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University. [email protected]

0 notes

aayushanandblog · 3 years

Text

Planning Long-term Strategic Foreign Policy

(These are my personalised views on the topic and the facts and figures are segregated from various sources)

India faced many challenges from its neighbour countries and that too all one at a time.

The year 2021 should see a cementing of the many trends that had their genesis in 2020.

Leadership change in the United States is perhaps the most awaited change, but is unlikely to bring about a major power shift in the international arena.

Even before the changeover, and despite the promise of a Biden presidency to invigorate the U.S.-Europe axis, Europe has turned its back on the U.S. and revived its China links, by ‘concluding in principle the negotiations for an EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment’.

In one swift move, Europe has thus shattered all hope that China would remain ostracised in 2021. Many countries will now find themselves scrambling for cover.

India which has greatly curtailed its relations with China since April 2020, (in the wake of Chinese aggression in Eastern Ladakh) will find itself ‘out on a limb’, with many countries likely to seek closer economic relations with China now.

Present situation tells that India isolated from many International Groupings:

At the start of 2021, India seems the odd man missing as far as these developments are concerned.

No breakthrough in Sino-Indian relations has, or is likely to occur, and the confrontation between Indian and Chinese armed forces is expected to continue.

India currently plays no significant role in West Asia. India-Iran relations today lack warmth. In Afghanistan, India has been marginalised as far as the peace process is concerned.

While India’s charges against Pakistan of sponsoring terror have had some impact globally, it has further aggravated tensions between the two neighbours, and in the process, also helped Pakistan to cement its relations with China.

While hostility between India and Nepal appears to have reduced lately, relations continue to be strained.

Through a series of diplomatic visits, India has made valiant efforts to improve relations with some of its neighbours such as Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, but as of now worthwhile results are not evident.

One key takeaway is that as India-China relations deteriorate, India’s neighbours are not averse to taking sides, increasing India’s isolation.

Whether India’s perceived marginalisation from global mainstream events as we enter 2021 signifies a sharp drop-off in its foreign policy capabilities is, no doubt, debatable.

India’s foreign policy objectives are to widen its sphere of influence, enhance its role across nations, and make its presence felt as an emerging power in an increasingly disruptive global system. It is a moot point though whether any of these objectives has been achieved.

Today, India’s voice and counsel are seldom sought, or listened to. This is a far cry from what used to happen previously.

India will serve as the president of the powerful UN Security Council for the month of August, 2021, but if it is to make a real impact, it must be seen to possess substantial weight to shape policies, more so in its traditional areas of influence.

Currently, India remains isolated from two important supranational bodies of which it used to be a founding member, viz., the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Efforts to whip up enthusiasm for newer institutions such as the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), have hardly been successful.

India has opted out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) (a majority of Asian countries are members), and failed to take advantage of the RIC, or the Russia, India and China grouping, even as relations with Russia and China have deteriorated.

A stronger China: Dominating in the Indo-Pacific Ocean:

The year 2021, hence, begins on a triumphal note for China and China’s Supreme Leader, Xi Jinping.

China is about the only major country which had a positive rate of growth at the end of 2020, and its economy is poised to grow even faster in 2021.

Militarily, China has further strengthened itself, and now seeks to dominate the Indo-Pacific Ocean with its announcement of the launch of its third aircraft carrier in 2021.

Simultaneously, it is seeking to strengthen its military coordination with Russia.

International politics may not be very different from that in 2020, but any hope that the Compact of Democracy would emerge stronger will need to be eschewed.

China is, hence, unlikely to concede any ground to its opponents across the world in 2021, a fact that India will need to reckon with.

Economy first for Europe rather than politics:

The China-EU Investment Treaty which saw Europe capitulating to China’s brandishments is an indication that Europe values its economy more than its politics.

Major changes are afoot in Eurasia and West Asia which could lead to significant shifts.

Russia is beginning to display greater interest in the affairs of countries on its periphery and, together with strengthening ties with China and reaching an entente with Turkey, this seems to signal reduced interest in countries such as India.

In West Asia, the Abraham Accords, leading to a realignment of forces in the Arab world, have sharpened the division between the Saudi Bloc and Iran-Turkey.

Despite the hype surrounding the Abraham Accords, the situation, however, remains fluid and has not reduced the risk of a confrontation between Iran and Israel. This does pose problems for India, since both have relations with it.

Meanwhile, China demonstrates a willingness to play a much larger role in the region, including contemplating a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement with Iran.

Saudi Arabia could find the going difficult in 2021, with a Biden Administration taking charge in Washington.

The healing of wounds among the Sunni Arab states in the region should be viewed as a pyrrhic victory at best for Saudi Arabia. One by-product of this could be a sharpening of hostilities between the Sunni and Shia camps.

Given the strategic flux in the region, Iran could well be tempted to use its nuclear capability to enhance its position, confident that the West may be unwilling to challenge it at this juncture.

India must manage dynamic interaction between domestic policies of India and its neighbours:

The aim of the restructuring is to ensure that domestic policies and objectives are achieved in a much more synergistic fashion than in the past.

Indian diplomacy has seen monumental changes over the centuries. These transformations have allowed the country to cope with the changing demands of external affairs.

As the MEA prepares itself to meet the aspirations of a 21st-century India, it is clear that the process of evolution in its institutional underpinnings will have to be a constant one.

Getting the institutional design right is key for effective policymaking and given the scale and scope of global transformation, the MEA’s journey may have only just begun.

Conclusion:

The subcontinent has historically been an integrated geopolitical space with a shared civilisational heritage.

Equally true is the reality of multiple contemporary sovereignties within South Asia. In dealing with these twin realities, the principles guiding India’s engagement are not too difficult to discern.

As part of the ideational restructuring of India’s foreign policy, what is urgently required, apart from competent statecraft, is the adoption of prudent policies, pursuit of realistically achievable objectives, and, above all, a demonstration of continuity of policy, irrespective of changes in the nature of the Administration.

These may be time consuming, but are a surer recipe for success in attaining foreign policy objectives.

India will always be a dependable partner and reliable friend and is committed to strengthening bilateral ties on the basis of mutual trust, mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual sensitivity. These are not easy principles to follow.

But the new vocabulary on “mutual respect and mutual sensitivity” is certainly welcome.

India’s consistent pursuit of this framework could help India better manage the complex dynamic with its neighbours.

#internationalrelations #foreign policy #india #he

0 notes

mithashu-blog · 3 years

Text

China, EU need to meet each other half way to conclude investment treaty: MOC

Abstract : China and the European Union (EU) need to make joint efforts and meet each other half way to conclude a bilateral investment treaty, the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) said Thursday. BEIJING, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) — China and the European Union (EU) need to make joint efforts and meet each other half way to conclude a bilateral investment treaty, the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) said…

View On WordPress

#Imsilkroad – Release Quality Products To Let Global See

0 notes

thetimepress · 4 years

Text

Rare earths and a decade of failure to diversify

FT premium subscribers can click here to receive Trade Secrets by email.

Hello from Brussels. The bilateral EU-China summit early in the week we were sceptical about actually produced more optimistic noises than we might have imagined about the prospects for the bilateral investment treaty, but we’ve had our hopes raised and then cruelly dashed before, so let’s see. Meanwhile, trade…

View On WordPress

0 notes

armeniaitn · 4 years

Text

Armenia Adopts New National Security Strategy

New Post has been published on https://armenia.in-the.news/politics/armenia-adopts-new-national-security-strategy-39783-27-07-2020/

Armenia Adopts New National Security Strategy

On July 10, Armenia’s Security Council approved a new National Security Strategy. It is considerably longer than the previous version of this document, adopted in 2007 (Armenia’s first strategy planning document since the country regained its independence in 1991), and the updated strategy appears more ambitious. It is also structured in a different way and is subject to review no later than in five years; the old strategy did not stipulate a future deadline for review.

Some aspects that were covered in the preamble of the 2007 document have, this time, been included in an address delivered by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and published in parallel with the new strategy—akin to a preface. However, while the former preamble laid out five “fundamental values” of national security—independence, safety of the state and its people, peace and international cooperation, the protection of identity, and national well-being (2017 National Security Strategy at Mfa.am, January 26, 2007)—Pashinyan’s address includes extended references to the historical and cultural heritage that he asserts make up Armenia’s national values. Specifically, he refers to the ancient Armenian kingdoms as well as the first Republic of Armenia (1918–1920) as the antecedents of the modern republic, while acknowledging Soviet Armenia’s “exceptional contribution” to education, science, culture and industry. The appended address also formulates “rules for [intra-]Armenian coexistence”: a rejection of violence and voter fraud as political tools as well as the elimination of corruption and repairing the damage it previously caused (2020 National Security Strategy at Sns.am, July 10, 2020). Additionally, the 2020 document’s newly drafted preamble states three basic national security principles: self-reliance, the perpetuation of statehood (closely related to an avoidance of involvement in various geopolitical disputes), and resilience—a relatively new concept in Armenian politics. Another novel component is the mention of the deterioration of the international order as well as the decay of familiar alliances and mutual trust between states.

The 2007 strategy included a list of both external and internal threats to Armenia’s national security. The former included the possible use of military force by Azerbaijan, which, under some circumstances, might be supported by Turkey; internal conflicts in neighboring countries; the sabotage of transit routes in neighboring countries; terrorism and trans-border crime, including the illicit drug trade, money laundering and human trafficking; energy dependence; regional isolation, including impediments to Armenia’s participation in the Transport Corridor Europe–Caucasus–Asia (TRACECA—an international transport program involving the European Union, Iran, and 11 former Soviet republics) and INOGATE, a former international energy cooperation program between the EU and countries of the Black and Caspian sea region, operational before 2016; the weakening of national and cultural identity in the Armenian diaspora; as well as epidemics and natural or technological disasters. The list of internal threats included the deterioration of governance efficiency and lack of public trust toward the judiciary; a deficient political system; lack of democracy; social polarization; urbanization, specifically the abandonment of rural settlements (particularly in border areas) and high concentration of population in seismic areas; insufficient fiscal management; infrastructure deficiencies; inefficiencies in the education system; low morals and lack of “patriotic education”; negative demographic trends, including a low birth rate, high mortality, and brain drain; as well as environmental problems and the inefficient management of natural resources. The 2007 document indicated the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) as the main guarantor of security, with Russia being Armenia’s main partner in bilateral relations. A secondary level of international security cooperation involved the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). At the bilateral level, the most significant regional partners (aside from Russia) were Georgia and Iran.

In turn, the 2020 strategy does not distinguish between external and internal threats but rather assesses a general “security environment.” Some of the new document’s explicitly identified threats include the emergence of new regional powers; arms races; impediments to access to regional infrastructure; hybrid threats, including cyber threats and disinformation; declines in democracy and human rights, both regionally and globally; Azerbaijan’s threats of force to resolve the Karabakh conflict; Turkey’s military and political support to Azerbaijan; the growth of religious fundamentalism in the Middle East; terrorism and trans-border crime; demographic decline; corruption; and poverty. The document additionally includes a rather long clause referring to the possibility of a growing rivalry between military-political blocs influencing the South Caucasus region and between the members of such blocs. Most significantly, concerning the latter, the passage mentions the “blocs’ members’ actions against other members’ interests, particularly the sales of arms to Azerbaijan”—a clear swipe at fellow CSTO members Russia and Belarus (see EDM, March 28, 2018, June 14, 2018, December 13, 2019).

Some instructive textual changes between the two strategy documents regard Karabakh. The 2007 version stated that Armenia would be the security guarantor for the population of Karabakh, whereas the new strategy mentions security guarantees for the un-recognized “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.” Moreover, the new document reminds that the 1994 ceasefire agreement was signed by representatives of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the de facto government of Karabakh, thus implying that any conflict-resolution negotiations will also need to be conducted trilaterally.

Considering international cooperation, the 2020 strategy again prioritizes Russia, both bilaterally and within the CSTO framework, as well as regional cooperation with Georgia and Iran, underlining the imperative of keeping such cooperation free from geopolitical influences. The clauses on cooperation with the United States and NATO are rather general and unambitious, similar to the 2007 strategy. The importance of cooperation with the EU is more strongly stressed, including a readiness to implement the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement, as well as prioritizing bilateral relations with France and Germany. Compared to 2007, trilateral cooperation with Greece and Cyprus is a newly articulated priority. Finally, while the 2007 document generally referred to cooperation with countries of the Asia-Pacific region, the new strategy specifically mentions cooperation with China and India, albeit briefly.

One of the most important features of the new strategy, and where it diverges from the old one, is the addition of a chapter on civilian security, citizens’ well-being and economic development—in fact, the longest chapter of the just-released planning document. The chapter specifically mentions the need to reform the police and security service, and to improve the level of parliamentary and civil society oversight; to develop the IT sector and information society while countering cyber threats; and so forth. While the economic development plans are rather ambitious, it remains to be seen how the lack of investment, currently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, may affect those goals.

Read original article here.

#Armenia #Caucasus #Covid-19 #Karabakh #Politics

0 notes

globalnewses · 3 years

Text

China-EU Investment Deal Sparks Backlash Over Rights Concerns

Advertisement On December 30, 2020, leaders from China and the EU announced they had agreed in principle on the text of a long-awaited Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), after seven long years of negotiation. Meeting the end-of-2020 goal was no mean feat; as late as September 2020, after a China-EU virtual meeting, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen cautioned that “a…

View On WordPress

#China #China Human Rights #China Uyghur crackdown #China-EU Bilateral Investment Treaty #China-EU investment treaty #Diplomacy #East Asia #EU China policy #European Parliament #Hong Kong mass arrests #Risk Intelligence

0 notes

ericfruits · 4 years

Text

Angela Merkel is loth to take sides over Huawei

Cyber-security in Germany Angela Merkel is loth to take sides over Huawei

But German lawmakers may force her to

Jan 25th 2020

BERLIN

EVERY GERMAN knows the torments of Funklöcher, the patchwork of telephonic dead spots unmolested by radio signals, where smartphones fall silent and internet connections evaporate. Stuck for years in the slow lane of the rich world’s telecoms, Germany is determined not to be left behind as fifth-generation (5G) networks gear up to connect factories, cars and devices. But the government’s plans have hit an unexpected roadblock.

Like other rich countries, Germany has been agonising over whether to let Huawei, a Chinese telecoms giant, bid for contracts to build its 5G networks. Huawei offers experience, expertise and value; its kit makes up 70% of Germany’s 4G network. But securocrats worry that Chinese spooks may exploit “back doors” or other vulnerabilities supposedly built in to Huawei equipment. Others worry about relying on suppliers linked to potential adversaries. What if the Chinese government banned Huawei from “exporting” crucial software patches during a trade dispute with Europe? The American government, which banned Huawei in 2011, has threatened to withdraw intelligence-sharing from Western governments that fail to fall into line.

Germany’s Huawei row has become perhaps Europe’s biggest debate over China policy yet. It taps several sore spots. The country’s large export sector leaves it exposed to trade chills; China and America are its first- and third-biggest trading partners. It is eager to lose its reputation for telecoms backwardness. But it fears another breach with America after splits on Iran, defence, energy and much else.

No wonder the government is divided. Angela Merkel, the chancellor, and Peter Altmaier, her economy minister, wish to keep the door open to Huawei by leaving technical agencies to adjudicate; the foreign ministry and intelligence services are opposed. Even livelier resistance has emerged in the Bundestag. The Social Democrats, junior coalition partner with Mrs Merkel’s centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU), have taken a notably tough line on exposing “critical infrastructure” to Huawei. Opposition parties, such as the Greens, are Huawei-sceptical, too.

That leaves the CDU as a swing player. Its MPs are normally loyal to Mrs Merkel, but for many Huawei is a red line. Norbert Röttgen, head of the Bundestag’s foreign-affairs committee, is trying to convince his CDU colleagues to back a resolution that would urge the government to make foreign telecoms suppliers pass a “trustworthiness” test. Given the links between the Chinese state and business, that could prove impossible for Huawei to meet.

Mrs Merkel, in the twilight of her chancellorship, is losing control of the debate. But she refuses to budge. She fears a Huawei ban would trigger retaliation against Germany’s extensive interests in China; Beijing has a “huge menu” to choose from, says Janka Oertel, an Asia-watcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Mrs Merkel also worries about an EU-China summit she will host in Leipzig in September. Rows over Huawei could scupper goals like a bilateral investment treaty.

But Mrs Merkel also has geopolitics in mind. She wants to avoid taking sides in the burgeoning US-China tech cold war. A Huawei ban in Germany, especially if aped by other European countries, could widen the rift. Mrs Merkel chose the occasion of a transatlantic award ceremony this week to argue that China should be tied into the multilateral order, not excluded from it.

Yet MPs are unconvinced. Having failed to win them over, Mrs Merkel may want to delay a Huawei decision until after a discussion among EU leaders in March. A common European strategy could shield countries from Chinese retaliation. The debate also suits those who want a more active European industrial policy. Since the Chinese state props up its firms, dirigistes argue that the EU should help European 5G kitmakers like Nokia and Ericsson.

But delay cuts both ways. On January 29th the European Commission will suggest that governments should consider banning dodgy suppliers, as part of a “toolbox” of 5G security proposals to sway decision-makers who are still undecided. Mrs Merkel may seek compromise by barring Huawei from “core” elements of Germany’s 5G network but not the (more lucrative) “peripheral” antennae. Yet that is not good enough for her critics, who say 5G tech renders the core-periphery distinction defunct. Mrs Merkel would like not to choose. But she may have to. ■

This article appeared in the Europe section of the print edition under the headline "Angela Merkel is loth to take sides over Huawei"

https://ift.tt/2TRnYks

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes

joshuajacksonlyblog · 4 years

Text

Will China Adopt Blockchain for its Social Credit System?

They said blockchain would bring freedom by challenging world governments and greedy financial institutions. But what if blockchain is the ideal tool to enable totalitarianism?

What if China Moves its Social Credit System to Blockchain?

A few weeks ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping surprised the world by calling blockchain an important breakthrough, and announcing extra funding for the technology.

Shortly after Xi’s endorsement speech, China announced that it planned to create a sovereign digital currency, while the official voice of the army suggested various blockchain use cases in the military space.

In other words, China seems to be keen on adopting the distributed ledger technology (DLT) across all levels. However, the chances are that blockchain will also reach the so-called social credit system sooner than later. The system represents a nationwide scheme that tracks citizens’ behavior, scores them, and gives out rewards and punishments depending on their rating.

The system, which should be fully implemented by the end of 2020, was first announced five years ago. It compiles people’s credit scores, social media interactions, buying histories, location data, and public behavior data based on surveillance cameras with face recognition.

All personal data sets from millions of people will be stored into a single network, and what could be more suitable for this than blockchain? If this scenario becomes a reality – and I can bet 21 million BTC that it will at one point – then blockchain will be a curse for those with low scores, as their history will be immutable and stored forever.

The System Is Already Working

While China has been preparing the grandiose scheme for next year, it has been already implemented by some city councils and private tech platforms, though none of them are associated with blockchain.

Earlier this month, media reported that Chinese billionaire Wang Sicong had been banned by a Shanghai court order from buying property, staying in luxury hotels, traveling first class, playing golf, and going on vacations. The reason for making the list of “discredited citizens” is a personal debt of 151 million yuan (over $21 million).

Huang Weijun, who was previously discredited for owing $86,000 to a local company, had to go through many hardships. He explained,

I only had the option of taking a bus to travel from another city to my city, which took more than 20 hours. My private property was frozen and I wasn’t allowed to sell my house or make investments, before I paid the debt

However, debt is not the only reason for punishments. Any rule-breaking can affect the score too, and trigger the system.

There is a Corporate Social Credit System As Well

It’s worth mentioning that China is working on a social credit score system for individuals, another one for companies, and the third one for government officials. Blockchain would make a good case for all three versions.

Last week, South China Morning Post cited several sources saying that China’s social credit system aimed at companies is a burden for negotiations under the bilateral investment treaty with the European Union. The EU side is worried that China could apply the rating scheme to punish its companies. Besides, it can impede future trade negotiations.

Anne Ruth Herkes, a former state secretary who led Germany’s global trade policy, said that the system was:

Something that is totally in contravention to the principle of individual freedom, freedom of movement, and protection of your privacy – there’s no way to take the demon out of that dimension

Do you think China will use blockchain for its social credit systems? Share your thoughts in the comments section!

Image via Shutterstock

The post Will China Adopt Blockchain for its Social Credit System? appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.

from Cryptocracken Tumblr https://ift.tt/37dbZCm via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Cryptocracken Tumblr

0 notes

xtruss · 3 years

Text

China, EU jointly present a New Year gift to the world: Global Times editorial

Global Times | December 30, 2020

Negotiations on the China-EU bilateral investment treaty have been completed as scheduled. The leaders of the two sides jointly made the announcement when they held a conference via video link on Wednesday. This is a major event between China and the EU. It is also a piece of stimulating news for a world still plagued by the ravaging pandemic. This is a future-oriented major decision. Mankind will not always be caught in the pandemic. We will eventually get through it.

Talks on the China-EU investment treaty had been going on for seven years and there had been more than 30 rounds of negotiations. It is conceivable that there are many difficulties. However, the two sides finally completed the negotiations. This proves a fact: As long as the two sides are sincere in wanting to strengthen reciprocal cooperation, they can overcome any differences. Affirming and promoting the fact is of great significance to the world today, because in many fields, we are often at the crossroads of whether to compromise and achieve a plan, or to violently confront each other.

Some Westerners like to discuss which side makes more concessions in an agreement, and whether their own requirements have been met. In fact, as long as an agreement is reached through equal negotiation, it cannot be a unilateral victory. Win-win cooperation is the basic logic in the era of globalization. The China-EU investment treaty will not deviate from such logic.

Those seemingly profound comments about zero-sum games are often grandstanding with a very narrow mind-set. They seriously lack strategic understanding of the China-EU investment treaty. In the current Western public opinion field, nationalist agitation and high-profile ideology are popular, but they are definitely shoddy outcomes born of national interests.

China and the EU have jointly promoted the final negotiations on this far-reaching investment treaty, which shows that rationality has not disappeared in a public opinion field rife with radical emotions. Rationality has always been silent, but it is still solid and will play an essential role at critical moments. There is no reason for humanity to be depressed or to give up.

There is still a lot of cooperation between China and the EU, and China also has bilateral investment agreements with many European countries. But disputes occur from time to time and they interact with the turbulence of the general environment. When the China-EU investment treaty is finally signed, the two sides' mutual investment will operate on the track of laws and regulations. The world is already somewhat messy and the COVID-19 pandemic has caused even greater chaos. Both China and the EU are large economies, and the two sides' latest achievement will inject a kind of certainty into this uncertain world.

We must move forward. But China and the EU cannot go too far by relying merely on trade alone, not to mention that there are still many ideological and other factors that will create turbulence. With a stable investment treaty, the two sides will open new rooms for cooperation and upgrade the driving force of their cooperation. An investment treaty has been the only way to deepen China-EU cooperation. The negotiations have ended at the end of 2020, which is a portrayal of the two sides' common strategic courage.

International relations in 2020 are generally tense, and there have been disputes between China and the EU. The result of the negotiations at the end of the year has made people think: What is the essence of China-EU relations? There is too much chatter about geopolitics and values, but what the public cares about the most is peaceful development. Obviously, what promotes peaceful development is cooperation, not confrontation.

The China-EU bilateral investment treaty echoes this theme. Thus it has arrived as scheduled. It is a New Year gift from China and the EU to the whole world.

0 notes