12 ms·
As Chinese investment pours into the EU, the Europeans are beginning to worry
- hguhghuff 8y agoAnd Africa, the pacific and everywhere else. No doubt the long term goal is to colonize the world. And they’re clever enough to do it slowly, lots of small transgressions, giving each time to be accepted before moving on to the next quiet domination. Perfect example is taking control of the South China Sea. And they’re smart enough to colonize in the most modern of ways...... buy the politicians and thereby remove all possibility of government resistance.
- thefounder 8y agoI think China is worth a shot on Africa and perhaps also on Afganistan. US/EU didnt't fix the major issues(i.e poverty& education). Even more U.S is sending a clear message that it's no longer interested in supporting other countries unless they pay so I don't see why the world would not wellcome China's initiative.
- Arnt 8y agoWhat's your reaction to http://archive.is/0bLXL http://archive.is/0bLXL ? It was posted here on HN three days ago.
- RobertoG 8y agoI'm not the one you are answering to, but if you check the data, the poverty reduction is, mainly, due to China and some to India. They did it by not following the recommendations for development of the IMF and the World Bank (that are, basically, American institutions).
- Arnt 8y agoSure, I've seen that. No disagreement in that are. However, you can see both poverty reduction and improved education almost everywhere, even in countries where that's made mode difficult by steep population growth. Look at this, for example (GP mentioned both poverty and education so I was curious and went to look at the second of the two): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-enrollment-selected-countries?country=SLV+HUN+IND+NER https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-enrollment-select... Niger is far behind Hungary and the UK, but Niger's curve doesn't look like failure to me, it looks like a success starting later than the others on the graph, and all the more impressive considering Niger's population growth. Faster growth than Hungary despite despite population growth. I'm perplex. There's a general argument, GP's is an example, that goes a little like this: "(something) may be the best ever, but it's (a failure/not good enough/...) and it's clear that (someone else/another approach/...) will achieve much better results". I don't see that it's clear not at all. But I don't see that GP is stupid either. So... I'm perplex. What is it I'm missing about GP's comment?
- RobertoG 8y agoObviously I can't tell what GP means, but I can try to explain my position. you say: 'will achieve much better results". I don't see that it's clear not at all.' If you check the policies promoted from the international institutions (and those are, in essence, a product of the USA) they are the opposite of what the developed countries did to be developed. Check Ha-Joon Chang(1) work for a study of this. Of course, the issue is very complex, but a case could be made, that the small development we see in those countries is despite the American order, instead of because of it. That's before even talking about all the invasions and coups in countries that didn't follow the interest of USA capital. A country is not developed by opening its markets, don't protecting its industry and "specializing" in exporting their natural resources, but by stability and investment. So, from the point of view of small countries, what is the problem with changing masters? And China is, for now, really investing. For instance, check your example, Niger: https://www.businessinsider.com/niger-oil-and-chinese-investment-in-africa-2015-9/?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/niger-oil-and-chinese-invest... Of course China is just following their interest, but so do the Americans. (1)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang
- Arn_Thor 8y agoWhy do you use the word 'colonize'? That's most definitely not the aim. China wants access to resources on competitive and secure (for them) terms, without having to worry about governing foreign territories. (notably except the territories China considers historically hers, such as HK, Xinjiang, Taiwan and Tibet). China only cares about foreign governments to the extent they may block China's ability to buy resources. But as long as China can buy the resources it needs unencumbered it's shown no interest in domestic issues overseas.
- dgudkov 8y agoI don't necessarily agree with the term 'colonize' here, but if you buy resources and depend on them, you would definitely want to control as much as possible the territories the resources are coming from. Especially if they are currently governed by weak and unstable governments. It's state-level risk management 101.
- Arn_Thor 8y agoA weak government is easy to buy. The less "skin in the game" China has, the more easily it can buy the favor of whoever is in power. The only way China could screw up that dynamic is by overplaying its hand through excessively unfavorable credit terms or starting projects in said country (such as outsourcing production) that draws the ire of the local population. Granted, that is happening in some places
- xiaq 8y agoWith your definition of "colonize", the US has already colonized the whole world.
- adventured 8y agoThe US inherited its superpower role by default, due to the destruction that occurred in WW2. It was the last power standing and had the resources to expand into the vacuum left behind. It didn't seek that status out, it was dropped in the US lap. Nobody would have defined the US as a global superpower in 1930. The US had to be pulled out of its shell for WW2 (a shell a sizable percentage of the population would like to return to now). The reason the US positioned its large troop contingent in Europe and formed NATO, was due to WW2 and the cold war that followed, trying to hold off the Soviet Union from further annexation of Europe. The politicians in DC are now interested in preserving that superpower status of course, long after the death of the USSR. China is aggressively seeking that superpower global positioning, at a time of peace between great nations. They're not inheriting a position of power by default, they're strategically trying to acquire it - a very different context. They have a multi-decade plan to build military bases all over the planet, to enable global power projection. They've openly stated that it's their destiny to become the global power - it's a wide-spread cultural belief that has been written about ad nauseam for two decades - supplanting the United States.
- growlist 8y agoWhat's your point? That China's current behaviour is somehow 'worse' than US Realpolitik? Obviously I'm happy the cold war went the way it did, but let's not pretend the US didn't have to break eggs to make its omelette.
- adventured 8y agoThe US broke a lot of eggs post 1950, that's pretty well been written about ad nauseam as well - it's universally understood. The point is, acquiring the power that China wants, at a time of peace, while other great powers exist, requires an entirely different effort than having superpower status dropped into your lap by the default of everyone else having been blown up. China has to take that power away from other existing powerful nations, with economies that are essentially all at or near all-time highs in terms of output. If China is serious about becoming the global power, they have to go through the US and EU to do it in one manner or another. That sets up a very large global clash of cultures, clashes regarding beliefs in governance, notions about individual liberty, democracy, etc. etc. The US and Western Europe were far more aligned in ideology in the post WW2 era than what China & the EU are today. China and the EU are near polar opposites, with the EU being liberal and China being hyper regressive and authoritarian. The point is, that clash isn't going to go well, the US was welcomed into Europe due to its protector status in and after WW2 and because of its ideological and historical kinship with Europe. America in 1945 was a cousin to Europe, consisting of large parts of Europeans and European culture; China is an entirely foreign element, with very little shared in any regard.
- ElBarto 8y agoChina has been continuously shafted for the last 200 years. They have just finally put their foot down and are learning from the West how it's done. A case in point is the South China Sea: They know that the best claim is the 'fait accompli', that's how the West did 'colonize the world' and it's telling that the only remaining land available are a few islands and reefs in the South China Sea. These are the crumbs we left over.
- jimmydef 8y agoExactly, I'm a citizen of one of the countries in southeast Asia not involved with the whole south China sea tussle and it's amazing how skewed the reporting has been regarding the issue in the English language media. Going by those reports, you would think that it's only China that has been claiming everybody's else's territories and nothing else. But the truth is everyone in the region is claiming everyone else's territories. Vietnam is claiming Philippine territory, and vice versa. Malaysia snatched Brunei's islands several years ago and so on. And you would think that China is the most aggressive in grabbing islands judging by those reports. But the actual fact is that honour goes to Vietnam. It has grabbed the most contested islands in the South China sea and theyre the earliest to militarise them but I don't hear a single word of this in the English media. As if some narrative is being pushed.
- spangry 8y agoSounds familiar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics
- forkLding 8y agoIn terms of the South China Sea, everyone wants to "colonize" that area from China, Vietnam to the Phillipenes. For Africa, if you're referring to "debt trap diplomacy", you know what's an easy solution? Stop taking Chinese money and loans. Problem solved.
- illuminati1911 8y ago"Last year Greece stopped the European Union from criticising China’s human-rights record at a UN forum. Hungary and Greece prevented the EU from backing a court ruling against China’s expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. Faced with such behaviour, it is only prudent for Europeans to be nervous." Well that's one way of saying thanks for all those bailouts they received...
- coldtea 8y agoYeah, unemployment at 40%, massive GDP drops, German banks happy, all kinds of anti-labour laws passed, exorbitant taxation, 5% of the most productive/young population left the country to work abroad, political supervision, those Greeks sure benefited much by those bailouts. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/08/11/greece-debt-crisis-bailout-germany-benefits/31449779/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/08/11/greece-debt-c... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-bailouts-idUSBRE9410CG20130502 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-bailouts-idUSBRE... https://global.handelsblatt.com/finance/germany-profits-from-greek-debt-crisis-796637 https://global.handelsblatt.com/finance/germany-profits-from...
- thefounder 8y agoI don't think defaulting could have turned out better. Once you take money you have to pay back. They got debt reduction as well so it's not like they are pay back the full amount. It's simply the result of bad governance that pilled up over the years.
- coldtea 8y agoThe worse estimation of defaulting (by people warning against it) where still better than today's numbers. And defaulting would have started a path towards reconstruction, whereas Greece now is just indefinitely held in life with an "artificial lung". (And the debt is actually the same than it was when the crisis started, so all the "bailout" did was to save the banks exposed to it using European's people's money, so instead of DB and other private banks now it's owed to ECB, the IMF and so on -- the same debt but under a much worsened infrastructure and economy, so even less chance of ever coming over).
- EliRivers 8y agoThe Czech president, Milos Zeman, wants his country to be China’s “unsinkable aircraft-carrier” in Europe. I understand a fuller quote is "an unsinkable aircraft carrier of Chinese investment expansion". We have not yet reached the point where the ambition of European countries is to become a military base for China.
- coldtea 8y agoNo, it's just the US still that has that privilege, with military bases all over Europe and direct involvement in European politics ever since WWII (and even before). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio for some of the most shameless cases...
- kodablah 8y ago> Some Europeans take this to suggest that China is a useful counterweight to an unpredictable Uncle Sam. That is misguided. Although misguided, it is quite easy to understand citizens' anti-Americanism which is borne out of effects they experience compared to China's relatively domestic-only policies. Right or wrong aside, this has always been the cost of globalism and projection. I don't think it helps to present it as an either-or, weight-counterweight situation (which the article doesn't do and is warning against of course). > Transparency should be demanded [...] I've found this is just too much to ask anyone dealing with China. I don't care if you're Marriott or Apple or a politician or whoever, the leverage of an entire country weighed against your ability to even disagree publicly is an unfair fight. Sadly, if you want to demand transparency you are in effect forcefully removing a market. Consumers and journalists are going to have to just continue naming and shaming, which does little good, until that transparency is demanded of the true oppressor. > That is misguided [...] however much Europeans may dislike the occupant of the White House. > Ideally the Trump administration would stop treating Europeans as free-riders on American power who deserve a good kicking. While ideal, sure, I think the author should heed their own thoughts on not focusing too much on the current occupant. In general US policy has no anti-EU slant (though the inverse seems less true).
- pokemongoaway 8y agoAnd Europeans I've met are much more willing to be publicly pro-Trump than Americans. This article is basically fake news. As another commenter said, "The EU and the IMF pretty much screwed up Greece." Trump is not treating Europeans like free riders, he is saying "rich" European countries should pay for their own defense... Which is liberal! Amazing to see a so-called conservative against military expansionism, and then see all the leftists jumping on him for saying so. They beg for him to bomb Syria, to be pro-globalism, to be higher tax, to be for more social programs, and to not enforce border laws... Insanity. We are truly in Kali Yuga.
- pokemongoaway 8y agoAnother extremely political article at the top of hacker news... As usual. And the moderators of hacker news continue to censor comments they deem as "political." Such sweeping political generalizations like "Europeans don't like who is occupying the white house." This is silly when Trump is anti-globalist and the EU is globalist, and it is the anti-globalist EU countries that are most protected from the influence of China! I can't call it reading between the lines anymore - when nearly every line of an article is riding on political trends.
- alkonaut 8y agoThis is what you need a union for. We have a union. So instead of a single country being blacklisted from trade or diplomatic relations due to criticizing China (e.g on human rights) it should just do so as a union. China obviously can’t blacklist the EU. A good first step would be for the EU to put its foot down and recognize Taiwan as an independent state with full diplomatic relations. As it stands, no individual country dares do it.
- expertentipp 8y agoEU countries acting unanimously towards China would mean the "predatory exporter" countries would grab the whole cake, the rest would be traditionally losers at their own fault. Only acting individually the countries like e.g. Czechia or even Poland can get a chance to trade with China. The long term negative consequences are irrelevant as this is perspective exceeding the duration of their parliaments' terms of office.
- thefounder 8y agoIndividually they get the worst deal. Just ask average Joe to do business with a big corporation and see what kind of deal he gets.
- expertentipp 8y agoActing as a union Germany, France, and UK would get everything, some hand outs for Spain and Italy, any profits skillfully funeled through Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and Netherlands. The general population getting low quality tat "Made in China".
- emn13 8y agoSomewhat aside: it's a bit of a shame the netherlands gets the blame in these tax-dodging stories, because the issue is actually that laws differ between countries (i.e. countries with laws identical to the netherlands aren't vulnerable to the tax dodge), and as it so happens, the netherlands' tax system is... not quite as crappy as that of most other countries. Still crappy, mind you. Just not as bad. I.e. the appropriate solution would be for (e.g., to pick on a particularly bad tax code) the US and germany to simply dump their tax codes wholesale and copy the Netherlands, rather than the converse. Because seriously, some tax codes are just asking to be abused. Plug this hole, wait for the next one... The cynical side of me doesn't think it's coincidental that the loopholes are so gaping. Oh well.
- expertentipp 8y agoThe future is agreeable and unanimous.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lnsru 8y agoLet’s be honest: Europeans never had plan for themselves. Since WW2 it was American plan, now it will be Chinese one. Look at very simple problem - outside border control and refugees. Europeans are clueless. And that’s almost about every serious topic. Ok, Roaming fees were slashed, but that’s imho not enough.
- icebraining 8y agoOn the contrary; we have too many plans. Almost each country - and even regions of countries - has their own, and they don't align, hence the lack of coordination.
- gonvaled 8y agoAh, cool, China bashing in HN again. These kind of things usually drop out of the homepage in seconds, if it is US- or UK-related, with the usual off topic arguments. Let's call it as it is: HN is a political instrument for anglocentric views. Not a particularly strong one, since topics are usually not about politics, but biased nontheless. Which is fine, but let's stop denying it.
- krapp 8y ago>Let's call it as it is: HN is a political instrument for anglocentric views. Not a particularly strong one, since topics are usually not about politics, but biased nontheless. ...but most of this thread is "bashing" the US and EU. The best you could say about HN is that it hosts a pro-China contingent and an anti-China contingent, each of which believes the site is biased towards the other. But the site itself and the userbase is too diverse to be accurately labeled one or the other.
- gonvaled 8y agoMaybe, but the article setting the tone of the discussion, the one with (currently) 70 points, is bashing China. A similar US-bashing political article would never get that much upvoted. Methinks.
- krapp 8y agoI wouldn't assume that upvotes for the article correlate to an implicit agreement with it. If that were the case the tone of the thread overall would probably be different. Also, I see criticism of China in this article, but I don't see anything I would interpret as "bashing" China. For that matter I also see criticism of the US and EU in the article as well.
- gonvaled 8y ago> The best you could say about HN is that it hosts a pro-China contingent and an anti-China contingent, each of which believes the site is biased towards the other. But the site itself and the userbase is too diverse to be accurately labeled one or the other. I would argue that your pro-China camp does not exist. Those who criticize the US (myself included) are perfectly aware that China is not a role model. We simply refuse to accept the view good (US) vs bad (China / Russia, depending on the weather). And we argue that the US has a much bigger footprint on geopolitics. both good and bad. And we criticize the bad parts, of which there are plenty.
- John_KZ 8y ago>Last year Greece stopped the European Union from criticising China’s human-rights record at a UN forum. Hungary and Greece prevented the EU from backing a court ruling against China’s expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. Maybe if the EU hadn't forced Greece to sell their largest port to the highest bidder they'd do better. Some German lobbyists thought they'd get it for pennies, then the Chinese stepped in and bought it for a half-decent price. Also Greece, Hungary and Czech Republic would be much fonder of the "European" side (a euphemism for "Franco-German Bank interests" at this point) if they weren't treated like second-class colonies to be milked and dumped to the trash. I can assure you that the cental European lobbies will abuse the periphery up until the very last drop of patience runs out. In this case, they lost a piece of the carcass they were tearing up because they were too sure no other preditors were around. But if they keep pushing the smallest countries this way, nobody will care about allegiance to "Europe" (whatever that means) in the future. I wish the US would step in and stop them from destroying the EU, but I guess they don't care much, which is disappointing.
- thefounder 8y agoI think the real issue is that we still talk about small countries instead of small states with the same European citizens. There wouldn't be such a big issue if a corporation from CA(i.e Apple) were to buy the Long Beach port or some big factories from Detroit, MI. I may be wrong but I believe China is not paying only for the value of the asset itself. It's also paying to get better access to the EU market and/or even buying political support from Greece, a kind of "strategic aquisition"
- John_KZ 8y agoI have to disagree with 2 parts about your argument. One is that centralization and capital concentration isn't a problem. The other is that the origin of ownership is irrelevant. That's also not true. If interests of one region buy up all the production of another, they inevitably move all production to one place, their original base. Ports, mines and railways are a generally an exception to a the rule, but still lots of positions on management, engineering, logistics etc are lost in the selling country/region and moved to the buying one. To elaborate on the US-EU analogy: In US, some regions concentrate more wealth and power than others, having the majority of production and/or headquarters based there. But in the US there's real freedom of movement. You can work in Montana one day, move to Florida the next, and it's no big deal. The residents of economically disadvantaged areas have to carry the burden of moving away for work, but that's the only burden they face. In the EU there are 24 official languages. Simply put, you can't just move anywhere you'd like to be. Learning a new language takes many years. I've been using English almost daily for 10+ years and I still come across new words quite often. Primarily due to this reason, in the EU, freedom of movement is allowed only on paper. Workers from disadvantaged areas have to take on a huge burden if they decide to move. They have to learn a new language, a new tax system, a new everything from workplace H&S rules to mains outlet types. Also they often face a lot of discrimination (even if language skills aren't a dead giveaway, ethnic differences are usually visible to us, even if they would seem minute to an American). So essentially when a factory moves from Italy or Slovenia to Germany, the locals lose a lot more than just the inconvenience of having to move across a couple states for work.
- dakics 8y agoInteresting overview of China as "an island." https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-china-great-power-enclosed https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-china-gre...
- ch2521482 8y agoPity. Your worries actually come from not facts, but imagination. Just replace China with US in those sentences, much less worries will be arisen. Furthermore, there's no facts about China's threat emerging yet, compared to US/NATO's several military operations against quite a few sovereignties, and numerous military bases all over the world, which ensure their bombs to blow your bedroom wherever you are within 1 hour. Just be honest to your heart. You feel worries merely because they are yellow while you are white, and that uncomfortableness needs some time to be relieved.
- T-A 8y agoNo, we "feel worries" because "they" are an authoritarian party-state whose record on little things like freedom of speech, rule of law and human rights speaks for itself - and that's when it's dealing with its own citizens.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoExactly. The US is willing to prop up some pretty brutal despots in the name of stability or access to resources. China is going to be as bad or worse. The actions of the Chinese government overseas are not nearly as constrained by the need of partial approval or lack of disapproval at home the way the actions of the US are. Someone like Pinochet wouldn't even give China pause.
- AlexB138 8y agoOr perhaps people feel worried because they have a basic familiarity with history. China is run by a party of brutal authoritarian murderers with no regard for human rights. Their actions are antithetical to almost all Western Liberal values. Standing by your morals and refusing to play nice with a power hungry dictatorship has nothing to do with racism, regardless of your delusional whataboutism.
- pvaldes 8y ago> China is run by a party of brutal authoritarian murderers with no regard for human rights. You are totally right, and I will add just one word: Guantanamo.
- pjc50 8y agoInteresting how everyone was in favour of FDI when it was flowing out of Europe and the US into Africa and South America, and now people are admitting that the downside is loss of autonomy?
- diminish 8y agoActually copy the text of the Economist article and replace the "China" with "Europe" and "Europe" with "Africa" or "East Europe" or similar and it will be funny.
- baud147258 8y agoRight now, you can keep China and replace Europe with Africa and it will be still quite relevant.
- JumpCrisscross 8y agoWell yes, when you replace a diverse set of democracies with a single dictatorship, that tends to end badly for those on the receiving end.
- apexalpha 8y ago2018: Greece accepts billions in loans from China, despite clear EU warnings. 2028: Greece wants help from EU after China strongarms it over loans. "Why does the EU do nothing to help us?"
- kentrado 8y agoChina can't embargo, sanction or put tariff on Greece without doing the same for the whole single market.
- derEitel 8y agoI have not read a single economist.com article in the last couple of months but the paywall tells me I've reached my limit. How badly can your paywall be implemented? This is I guess the most disencouraging thing from me getting a paid subscription. Anyone else having the same issue?
- qubax 8y agoSometimes it's hard to tell when propaganda begins and ends. 10 years ago, the media was scaremongering over chinese investment in brazil. I remember thinking that china was buying brazil and then I found out that the largest foreign investors in brazil was the US and the netherlands and china was a distant third. Don't remember reading articles about how we were taking over brazil or how the dutch were though. 5 years ago, the media was scaremongering over chinese investment in africa. Oh no, china is taking over africa. Turns the largest investor in africa was the EU by far and that european business dominated the african market. Also, there was hysteria over china leasing farmland in africa. Turns out the saudis, koreans and a bunch of other countries also lease land all over the world. Now it's the chinese investment in the EU. Nevermind that the EU is a much larger economy than china and the EU invests far more in china than vice versa. I mean come on.
- Apocryphon 8y agohttps://thediplomat.com/2018/10/mines-money-mandarin-china-in-zambia/ https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/mines-money-mandarin-china-i... https://www.voanews.com/a/zambia-sovereignty-concerns-put-china-in-crosshairs/4586797.html https://www.voanews.com/a/zambia-sovereignty-concerns-put-ch...
- chodeboy 8y agoEurope is easy pickings really. Citizens have very little confidence in an already relatively weak "government". This has led to the fact that the EU has become a battleground for world powers. In the latter half of the 20th century it was Russia vs. USA and today it is a three way battle with China throwing its hat into the ring. The real dangerous thing is a common goal all these powers have: divide and conquer. By dividing Europe through questionable investments and subversive propaganda the gap between EU countries widens making it weaker as a whole.
- tw1010 8y agoHuh. Is it really valid to think of investment or cash as tainted by the norms that they originate from, affecting the characteristic parameters of the system it flows into (norms of the institutions and people in the EU)? In what manner is it valid to think of the trojan-horse-cash as spreading, like a dirac pulse which only affects the first node touched by it (the person or institution who gets the cash), or as something with a long half-life, which spreads widely and with a lot of influence once in the system?
- Gokenstein 8y agoJust like gravity, its not the influx of cash that causes fear, its the sudden stop at the end.
- navigatorSL 8y agoIn Portugal we sold our electric grid and production. Lol.
- marcosdumay 8y agoIn Brazil we sold our electric grid, and it was great! We also leased our production and we got ripped off by politicians. Basically, YMMV, as the details matter much more than the large picture here.
- zekevermillion 8y agoI highly recommend Yannis Varoufakis' books, especially Adults in the Room. Varoufakis was the Syriza finance minister who resigned when Tsipras caved to Eurogroup pressure to accept another "extend-and-pretend" bailout (as in, extend the debt maturity, pretend that Greece will be able to pay when it comes due). At one point, as Varoufakis tells it, the Chinese informally committed to provide a large investment that would have allowed Greece to exert more bargaining power vs. the Eurogroup in debt negotiations. It was a good deal for Greece and China, but someone in the EU bureaucracy pressured China not to go forward with the deal -- the reason being that the Eurogroup wanted to preserve its own power to force extreme austerity on Greece in perpetuity. Now of course this is just regurgitating Varoufakis' description, but I find it rather compelling. China is only a small player in the Greek debt drama, but it seems to me that they are one of the few friends that Greece has that is both willing and able to play a helpful role. (But limited by political considerations within Europe itself!)
- hourislate 8y ago> China is only a small player in the Greek debt drama, but it seems to me that they are one of the few friends that Greece has that is both willing and able to play a helpful role. Is/was their role charitable because they are nice guys? or is there something there for them also? I would imagine that they had a long view and would have really liked to get control of Greece as a gateway to Europe by taking advantage of the Greek financial crisis. I don't believe China has any friends, just business partners they cooperate with to benefit them in the end.
- zekevermillion 8y agoYes, I'm sure you are correct. Saying a country is a "friend" is a poor metaphor, in the world of realpolitik. But Varoufakis certainly appeared to view China as a helpful partner, whatever state interests were advanced on the Chinese side. Of course even "charity" in the form of direct aid is never without strings of dependency, other geopolitical aspects.