Connect with us


#BeltAndRoadInitiative – Time for some European realpolitik



“The BRI comes closest to a plan to help mitigate existential threats to the developed world,” Sir Douglas Flint said at a recent talk hosted by British think tank Asia House. The UK’s Special Envoy to the BRI emphasized that this includes “climate change, population growth, and economic inequality”, writes Oliver Stelling.

Today (5 MAy), a few weeks later, he might have added another threat: pandemics. With the terms of its future relationship with the European Union (EU) up in the air, Britain will say what it must to attract Chinese investment but the point is well made. The New Silk Roads between China, Asia, Africa and Europe are not just about movement of goods.

They also offer communication lines, stronger people-to-people bonds, academic exchange and closer cooperation in research, including food security, climate change and public health.  For sceptics this just validates their concerns. An initiative that uses a catchall phrase to reassign hundreds of existing and new projects under this scheme is hard to pin down or be held accountable, causing unease about the CCP’s true geopolitical intentions and growing control of transportation and logistics routes.

President Xi acknowledged deficits in openness, fair tendering and commitment to financial and environmental sustainability at the 2nd Belt and Road Forum (BRF) in April 2019. He specifically pledged the pursuit of more highquality development and debt sustainability, abiding by national and international laws and regulations on open, transparent and non-discriminatory public procurement procedures, and more efforts to combat corruption.

Some commentators called this a ‘rebranding’, suggesting it’s all about optics. But this is not just propaganda. Too much is at stake for an economy that was already slowing before the coronavirus outbreak. As Sir Douglas put it at Asia House: “China, I believe, recognizes that gaining international financial support for BRI is dependent upon confidence around the integrities, sustainability and economic validation of individual projects.”

Public discourse about Belt and Road has evidently turned into a tale of two worldviews, dividing stakeholders along geographic and ideological lines. However, a prolonged impasse is not a foregone conclusion.

In Bridges to Everywhere – Connectivity as Paradigm, Parag Khanna makes the argument for connectivity as a word-historical idea like liberty or capitalism. China is placing Belt and Road in that same realm, portraying the BRI as eponymous with connectivity and in line with its stated vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind.

That also correlates with thoughts by renowned Chinese scholar Zhang Weiwei (quoted by Parag Khanna): “Historical models of order have been built on spheres of influence, but a stable global society today must be based on co-creation across civilizations. Such a balanced system is what […] Zhang Weiwei describes as asymmetrical rather than hierarchical. It is one in which maintaining stability requires self-restraint and mutual trust among diverse powers.”

Part of this is a call for the West to show respect and accept China’s rise. Chinese intellectuals have long insisted that the past 200 years were an anomaly and that China only reclaims its rightful place on the world stage. While no power is entitled to its status based on historical merits, China’s phenomenal rise over the last forty years certainly deserves respect. China is now a key global actor and no longer a developing country. But it is still lagging behind in global discourse power. Belt and Road was supposed to change that and it still might.

If connectivity is right up there with liberty or capitalism then it sure won’t go away anytime soon. Belt and Road is its proxy and failure not an option. Given the escalating tensions with the US and the fact that most belts and roads end in Europe, the EU has a role to play in the reset of the BRI.

Europe should reassess its stance and seek an active role in shaping Belt and Road 2.0. Unlike Trump’s isolationist ‘America First’ agenda, Prof. Zhang’s idea of co-creation, self restraint and mutual trust looks instantly compatible with deep-rooted European values. Europeans also favor a more measured response to China’s rise and hold greater sway in persuading Beijing to uphold the rules-based international order and continue opening its system.

The question is how committed would China be to those principles if put to the test?

A reality-check:


In the years following Xi’s announcement the BRI was seen as ambitious and visionary but also loosely defined and ever expanding. China addressed that lack of a cohesive policy by creating more than a hundred think tanks dedicated to the study of Belt and Road. Beijing also invited global academics, commentators and policy-makers to fill “the amorphous construct” of the BRI with content. This is where the idea of co-creation takes root.

At national level, the concept is firmly embedded in the daily administration of the BRI, which has no formal institutionalized body but one overseeing authority that operates under the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). A number of governmental agencies and ministries are in charge of guiding, coordinating and implementing all work and almost all provinces in China have their own BRI implementation plans.

Belt and Road is not about absolute control but guidance and shared responsibilities. And contrary to popular belief modern China has a highly adaptive and consultative mode of governance that allows for flexibility that could be extended to co-creation “across civilizations”.

The EU already acknowledged that the bloc must adapt to the changing economic realities when dealing with China. Both have entered a strategic partnership called the ‘EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Co-operation’, an open and dynamic framework for dialogue and collaboration in line with the progression of EU-China relations. This provides a platform for the review of all Belt and Road challenges and opportunities.

Co-creation of the BRI would have to be based on clearly defined interests and principles and a commitment to a more inclusive Belt and Road that meets EU standards. Whatever risks remain should be outweighed by the advantages, not least the collaboration on joint initiatives on public health.


China’s shift to more assertiveness has been a matter of debate for years. Since Beijing managed to contain the virus its self-confidence has surged again, with some official statements raising more than a few eyebrows around the globe. The US is not holding back either. The insults and provocations hurled at China by the President Trump and his Secretary of State Pompeo lack civility and seriously undermine the US’ global standing.

Europe, the US and China must work together to defeat the virus and the EU is best placed to take the lead in bringing all parties together. For China this is of particular importance as the ongoing tit-for-tat could further erode international support for its flagship initiative. Belt and Road cannot afford that. Those who stuck with China so far tend to take a more long term view of the BRI and remain convinced that the fundamentals have not changed, that Belt and Road is the engine of regional integration, people-to-people connectivity and a facilitator of economic opportunity for millions along the New Silk Roads. It might even hold the keys to resolving humanity’s shared challenges.

Such patronage is highly valuable but shall never be taken for granted. It is therefore vital to tackle any perceived or real negative feelings head-on. “Support for the initiative will not come without first addressing negative sentiments”, Sir Douglas said at Asia House. That requires a little humility and self-restraint.

Former president and architect of modern China Deng Xiaoping foresaw the backlash. His advice for China was to lie low as it grows economically. “Hide your strength, bide your time, never take the lead”, Deng famously said. That rule still applies.

Mutual trust

Co-creation and self-restraint are trust-building measures in themselves but it takes more: the assurance of factbased, open and transparent communication. If Belt and Road is ever to get back on track, the first priority must be to remove all uncertainty about the origin of the coronavirus and the reasons behind the delayed initial response – full disclosure to get closure.

Next on the list: a verifiable approach to the pledged greater transparency around Belt and Road. This could also help remove the confirmation bias – a major obstacle to broader advocacy. When perceptions of those who seek out information and data are influenced by everything that confirms their pre-existing notions then China can’t win, even if it does the right thing. Take spending for instance.
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Heritage Chinese Global Investment Tracker put total spending on the BRI at roughly $340 billion during 2014–2017.

According to Bloomberg spending was slightly less, “just $337 billion” or one third of $1 trillion, the most common estimate of total infrastructure investment, in the period until November 2019. The “just $337 billion” may be factually correct but insinuates something else: the BRI is failing. To recap, this is about a staggering $337bn spent to date. Compare that with the US.

More than three years after winning the election on his promise to remake America, the US president’s infrastructure plan is still on halt. Trump’s latest push lacks revenue sources for almost half the assigned $1 trillion amount – roughly $450 billion proposed for roads, bridges, public transit and much more. Even US Republicans are unconvinced it will ever pass Congress. But no one argues the infrastructure plan is a failure per se. Such sentiment is reserved for Belt and Road and its architect China.

In a multipolar world, cooperation on shared challenges is the only sensible path forward. Although not perfect, the BRI might just be mankind’s best chance to get started and improve as relations evolve. Zhang Weiwei provided the academic foundation and Europeans are beginning to chart the political course along similar lines: “We face enormous challenges when dealing with China. That is why we need a China strategy. Ideally a Western, but at least a European one, which treats China as partners, competitors and rivals,”

Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the German Committee on Foreign Affairs, said at a recent speech before the Bundestag.
The resemblance is striking. Co-creation is the product of collaboration in the spirit of true partnership. Self restraint is the favored conduct among competitors who pursue common goals. Both are within instant reach. It’s only mutual trust that remains to be a real challenge between strategic rivals. This demands a commitment to hard work, tolerance, open dialogue and a measure of political pragmatism combined with the aforementioned commitment to fact-based, open and transparent communication.

The EU and China should see the opening in this crisis and re-engage on the greatest connectivity project ever envisioned. The time is now. As the Chinese saying goes: ‘The whole year must be planned for in the spring.’


Despite talk of digital sovereignty, Europe sleepwalks into Chinese dominance on drones



In her State of the European Union speech, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered a clear-eyed assessment of the European Union’s position within the global digital economy. Alongside predictions of a European “digital decade” shaped by initiatives such as GaiaX, von der Leyen admitted Europe had lost the race on defining the parameters of personalized data, leaving Europeans “dependent on others”, writes Louis Auge.

Despite that straightforward admission, the question remains whether European leaders are willing to mount a consistent defence of their citizens’ data privacy, even as they accept reliance on American and Chinese firms. When it comes to challenging American social media or e-commerce giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon, Europe has no problem seeing itself as the global regulator.

In facing China, however, the European position often seems weaker, with governments only acting to curb the influence of Chinese technology suppliers such as Huawei under intense US pressure. Indeed, in one key area with serious implications for several economic sectors Commission President von der Leyen cited in her speech – unmanned aerial vehicles, otherwise known as drones – Europe is allowing a single Chinese firm, DJI, to corner the market practically unopposed.

A trend accelerated by the pandemic

Shenzhen Dajiang Innovation Technologies Co. (DJI) is the unquestioned leader of a global drone market predicted to skyrocket to $42.8 billion in 2025; by 2018, DJI already controlled 70% of the market in consumer drones. In Europe, DJI has long been the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) supplier of choice for military and civilian government clients. The French military uses “commercial off-the-shelf DJI drones” in combat zones like the Sahel, while British police forces uses DJI drones to search for missing persons and manage major events.

The pandemic kicked that trend into high gear. In European cities including Nice and Brussels, DJI drones equipped with loudspeakers admonished citizens about confinement measures and monitored social distancing. DJI representatives have even tried to convince European governments to use their drones to take body temperatures or transport COVID-19 test samples.

This rapid expansion in the use of DJI drones runs counter to decisions being taken by key allies. In the United States, the Departments of Defense (the Pentagon) and the Interior have banned the use of DJI’s drones in their operations, driven by concerns over data security first uncovered by the US Navy in 2017. In the time since, multiple analyses have identified similar flaws in DJI systems.

In May, River Loop Security analyzed DJI’s Mimo app and found the software not only failed to adhere to basic data security protocols, but also that it sent sensitive data “to servers behind the Great Firewall of China.” Another cybersecurity firm, Synacktiv, released an analysis of DJI’s mobile DJI GO 4 application in July, finding the company’s Android software “makes use of the similar anti-analysis techniques as malware,” in addition to forcibly installing updates or software while circumventing Google’s safeguards. Synacktiv’s results were confirmed by GRIMM, which concluded DJI or Weibo (whose software development kit transmitted user data to servers in China) had “created an effective targeting system” for attackers – or the Chinese government, as US officials fear – to exploit.

To address the potential threat, the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) has introduced a small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) initiative to procure drones from trusted American and allied manufacturers; France’s Parrot is the only European (and, indeed, non-American) firm currently included. Last week, the Department of the Interior announced it would resume purchasing drones through the DIU sUAS program.

DJI’s security flaws have also sparked concern in Australia. In a consultation paper released last month, the Australian transport and infrastructure department flagged weaknesses in Australia’s defenses against “the malicious use of drones,” finding UAVs could potentially be used to attack the country’s infrastructure or other sensitive targets, or otherwise for purposes of “image and signals gathering” and other types of reconnaissance by hostile actors.

In Europe, on the other hand, neither the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BfDI), nor the French National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL) have taken public action on the potential dangers represented by DJI, even after the company’s products were found forcibly installing software and transferring European user data to Chinese servers without allowing consumers to control or object to those actions. Instead, the use of DJI drones by European military and police forces may appear to offer consumers a tacit endorsement of their security.

Despite an opaque ownership structure, links to Chinese state abound

Suspicions of DJI’s motives are not helped by the opacity of its ownership structure. DJI Company Limited, the holding company for the firm via the Hong Kong-based iFlight Technology Co., is based in the British Virgin Islands, which does not disclose shareholders. DJI’s fundraising rounds nonetheless point to a preponderance of Chinese capital, as well as linkages with China’s most prominent administrative bodies.

In September 2015, for example, New Horizon Capital – cofounded by Wen Yunsong, son of former premier Wen Jiabao – invested $300 million in DJI. That same month, New China Life Insurance, partly owned by China’s State Council, also invested in the firm. In 2018, DJI may have raised up to $1 billion ahead of a supposed public listing, although the identify of those investors remains a mystery.

DJI’s leadership structure also points to links with China’s military establishment. Co-founder Li Zexiang has studied or taught at a number of universities linked to the military, including the Harbin Institute of Technology – one of the 'Seven Sons of National Defence' controlled by China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology – as well as the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), directly supervised by the Central Military Commission (CMC). Another executive, Zhu Xiaorui, served as DJI’s head of research and development up until 2013 – and now teaches at the Harbin University of Technology.

These links between DJI’s leadership and China’s military would seem to explain DJI’s prominent role in Beijing’s repression of ethnic minority groups. In December 2017, DJI signed a strategic partnership agreement with the Bureau of Public Security of the Autonomous Region of Xinjiang, outfitting Chinese police units in Xinjiang with drones but also developing specialized software to facilitate missions for the “preservation of social stability.” DJI’s complicity in the campaign of “cultural genocide” against the Uighur population of Xinjiang burst into the headlines last year, when a leaked video – shot by a police-controlled DJI drone – documented a mass transfer of interned Uighurs. The company has also signed agreements with authorities in Tibet.

An inevitable crisis?

While DJI has gone to considerable efforts to counteract the findings of Western governments and researchers, even commissioning a study from consultancy FTI that promotes the security of its new “Local Data Mode” while sidestepping existing flaws, the monopolistic control of this emerging sector by a single firm with links to China’s security establishment and direct involvement in systemic human rights abuses could quickly become a problem for regulators in Brussels and the European capitals.

Given how prevalent drones have become across the wider economy, the security of the data they capture and transmit is a question European leaders will have to address – even if they prefer to ignore it.

Continue Reading


European Union and West urged to take action against Chinese 'genocide' of Uyghurs



The international community has been urged to respond to the “genocide” being perpetrated by the Chinese regime against the country’s Uyghurs and take “concrete action”.

An event in Brussels was told that up to 3 million Uyghurs are held in Nazi-style “concentration camps” with “insidious” pressure also being applied on those who try to champion the rights of the Uyghur community in China.

Many companies still do business with China and pretend the reported horrors against Uyghurs “is not happening” and Beijing is “not held accountable” for its actions.

Branding the current situation as a “genocide”, Rushan Abbas, a Uyghur activist, even drew a comparison with the Holocaust in WW2, saying, “history is repeating itself”.

In a passionate plea, she said: “China must be held accountable for these unspeakable crimes. If we don’t it will affect all our futures.”

Abbas was speaking at a virtual debate on the issue on 13 October, organized by The European Foundation for Democracy, in cooperation with the U.S. Embassy to Belgium and the US Mission to the EU.

New evidence of China’s persecution of the Uyghurs, its 12 million strong “minority” in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, continues to emerge with reports of torture, forced labour, coercive family planning (including forced abortion and forced sterilization), sexual assault, and attempts to “Sinicise” the exercise of the Islamic faith.

China’s repressive policies and so-called “re-education centres” are described as being like ethnic cleansing and gross violations of human rights targeting its own Muslim population.

Rushan Abbas, founder and Executive Director of Campaign for Uyghurs, began with a quote from a Holocaust survivor, adding, “here we are in the modern age and the most brutal side of human nature is manifesting itself again. You would hope the world would learn from its mistakes but the international community is failing its own conscious.

“The world, after WW2, said ‘never again’ but again a regime is  waging a war on freedom of speech and religion. The Chinese call the Uyghur religion a  disease and say they don’t have human rights and what is happening is a dangerous ideology that will spread with even more people being brutalized.”

“There are 3 million Uyghurs in concentration camps, with crematoria attached. My own sister, a retired doctor who was abducted from her home, is among them.  Artists, intellectuals and successful businessmen are included.  More than two years later I still do not know if she is still alive. Where is my sister? Where are our loved ones?  Will no one call out the Chinese regime?”

She added: “The world continues to buy the Chinese narrative on this genocide. At first China denied the camps existed then, when they had to accept they did, they called them “schools,” and said the world should not interfere.

“But it is not China’s internal issue and the world must intervene.The West is complicit in massed rape, forced marriage and abortion, sterialisation, child abduction and organ harvesting and conducting genocide against Uyghurs. These crimes by a barbaric regime against humanity must be addressed. China’s blood money has won the compliance of the UN and the international community which has failed to stand up to China and its money.”

She suggested that ordinary people can take proactive action by speaking with their local mayors and politicians along with grassroots organizations. They should, she argued, also boycott Chinese products “made from slave labour”.

The coronavirus crisis has brought further suffering as they have been “denied treatment and locked in their homes without food”.

Vanessa Frangville, director of the Research Center for East Asian Studies, ULB, told the meeting: “We know that China resorts to all sorts of strategies to attack academics who speak out including being condemned to life sentences and this is happening to Uyghur academics.

"There are several who have vanished or sentenced to death and that includes Uyghurs living outside China in countries like Turkey.

“The regime also pressurizes scholars who work on the Uyghur situation which forces them to stop their work because they are worried. For example, my university published a public motion to support Uyghurs and the ULB president got an angry letter from the Chinese embassy who sent representatives to meet him and to demand that he remove the motion and my articles from the ULB website. They warned that further collaboration with our Chinese partners could be impacted if we refused.

“They also asked for information on Chinese students at ULB. This is typical of the intimidation by the Chinese. If you complain about such pressure they just mention ‘China bashing.’ Increasingly, this is typical of our situation as scholars who work on the Uyghur crisis. We have to be aware of these sort of insidious things and should not accept it.”

She admitted some universities still work closely with China because they fear that a collapse in collaboration, angry letters or even threats against colleagues in China.

She said: “You try not to let it affect your work but at some point you have to make a choice between speaking out or not. The same goes for the EU. If, for example, Spain or France speaks out and is not backed up by other member states it will be isolated. This is another Chinese tactic.”

On what action might be taken she cited the example of France where she said 56 national MPs had been “mobilised” to support Uyghurs, saying “this is important”.

“China is leading a misinformation campaign and it is important for people to distance themselves from this.”


Further comment came from Ilhan Kyuchyuk, an MEP and Vice President of the ALDE Party, who said, “We have seen enough of what is going on in the region and things are getting worse.”


The deputy, who has worked on the issue for some time and helped draft a parliamentary resolution last year on the Uyghur situation, added, “Europe is not united or consistent. We have to move this matter to the centre of EU debate. I know it is not easy to deal with China but we have to be more vocal and strengthen cooperation on this. Let us support the voice of voiceless people. Europe needs to act on this.”

He said the Uyghur issue was addressed at a recent EU/china summit but said: “Much needs to be done as the situation is deteriorating.”

“The dialogue has not resulted in any meaningful change by the Chinese. It is obvious the EU must act to protect the fundamental rights of the Uyghurs. We must speak out against this unacceptable repression against minorities for ethnic and religious reasons.”

In a Q and A session, he said: "The EU is much more aware of this issue compared with four or five years ago when they did not talk about the Uyghurs. There are no easy answers in how to deal with this though but the EU must get rid of the unanimity rule which requires member state agreement on acting against authoritarian regimes. The problem is at member state (council) level which must come up with a common approach when it comes to China.”

He added: “I am not saying we should sit and wait but to counter this problem you need a strategy and a holistic approach. It is easy for a great power like China to buy a member state. We will get nowhere if we deal with this persecution against the Uyghur minority and China’s counter narrative at member state level alone and that is why we need a European strategy.

He also suggested an EU version of the Magnitsky Act might be useful in its dealings with China.

This is a bipartisan bill passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in December 2012, intending to punish Russian officials responsible for the death of Russian tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow jail.

Continue Reading


EU and China co-operation in research and science is vitally important – in the delivery of economic development.



The EU-China Business Association (EUCBA) today held a highly successful and interactive webinar. The subject under discussion was on the importance of research and science co-operation in the delivery of economic recovery.

Gwenn Sonck the executive director of the EUCBA explained that “the EU-China Business Association promotes trade and investment between the EU and China and vice-versa.

It unites 19 Chinese business associations from 19 different countries in Europe, representing over 20,000 companies. This webinar is timely because both the EU and China are prioritising investment into research and science. Such investment accounts for 2.5% of Chinese GDP while the EU target for investment in research under Horizon Europe is 3%. The innovation co-operation dialogue that is taking place between the EU and China at this time will also set the framework conditions for this future bilateral relationship.”


Frances Fitzgerald MEP is a member of the European Parliament–China delegation and she is a former deputy Prime Minister from Ireland.

She said that “the research, science and innovation sectors are totally inter-linked. Countries and companies cannot do all the research on their own.

International collaboration is a key element in the delivery of new innovative products and solutions. This is particularly the case when the world is seeking to find a vaccine against Covid-19. Researchers from all over the world must work together to find a secure and trustworthy Covid-19 vaccine.

Openness, transparency, reciprocity and a rules based approach to international trade must underpin the EU-China relationship. But there is clearly a challenging geo-political environment. We are at a crossroads with regard to the EU-China relationship and EU leaders will meet on November 16th next to review EU-China relations.

455 Chinese companies took part in the Horizon 2020 research, innovation and science programme during the period 2014-2020. Chinese companies will continue to participate in Horizon Europe which is the new research, innovation and science framework programme that will run between the period 2021-2027.”


Zhiwei Song is the President of the EU-China Association for innovation and entrepreneurship. He said that “his association is supporting incubators and it is bridging the knowledge gap between the EU and China and between China and the EU.

His organisation is also organising online presentations to promote research mobility from the EU to China and vice-versa. It is participating in European Commission supported programmes such as Enrich and Euraxess. The former initiative furthers research co-operation between Europe and China while the later scheme promotes scientific collaboration in an international context.”


Abraham Liukang is the chief representative for Huawei to the EU institutions.

He said “Don’t believe all the press headlines. Huawei is no stranger to Europe. Huawei has been based in Europe for over 20 years.

Huawei has 23 research centres in Europe and we employ 2,400 researchers in Europe, 90% of whom are local hires. Huawei has been an active participant in research projects under the Horizon 2020 research, innovation and science programme 2014-2020.

Huawei has 230 technology agreements with research institutes in Europe and we have partnerships with over 150 universities in Europe.

Abraham Liukang is the chief representatve for Huawei to the EU institutions.

Abraham Liukang is the chief representative for Huawei to the EU institutions.

Our engagement in Horizon 2020 related to research into improving the quality of digital infrastructure and this included 5G and big data research.

The roll-out of 5G has been politicised and this has had the direct effect of slowing down 5G deployment in Europe.

Huawei takes security issues very seriously and that is why Huawei has a cyber-security evaluation centre in the UK and we have an agreement on security isssues with BSI in Germany.

Huawei wants to engage actively in Horizon Europe and in particular in building the smart networks and services of the future.

Over the next 5 years, Huawei plans to invest 100 million euro into our AI eco-system programme in Europe, helping industry organisations, 200,000 developers, 500 ISV partners and 50 universities. Huawei will work with our partners to shape the AI industry in Europe.”


Veerle Van Wassenhove is the Vice-President for R&D and Innovation at Bekaert, a globally leading company with headquarters in Belgium and a strong research foothold in China. She said that “Bekaert’s research operations in China leverage the company’s global innovation capabilities. Together, we are building expertise for both the Chinese market and globally. Covid-19 brought along some difficulties because we, as researchers, want to keep direct contact with our customers in our technology approach, but we manage.”
Yu Zhigao is the SVP Technology Rubber Reinforcement and head of the Bardec (R&D center in China). He said that “Bekaert has very strong confidence in China. There is excellent research and technical expertise in China. The company operates 18 sites in 10 cities in China and employs 220 researchers in the Jiangyin R&D center and 250 engineers and technicians in the Engineering site. The Chinese operations contribute to both world class research actions and to achieving the strategies of the company. Our research teams in China create value for our customers.”

Jochum Haakma is the chairperson of the EU-China Business Association.

He said that “the new EU investment screening regulation has only come into force since last Sunday. This means that from now on EU member states will have to consult with Brussels when screening Chinese direct investment measures in strategic sectors. I believe that it would be a very positive development if China and the EU were to agree the terms of a new trade and investment treaty. This is a matter that both sides are actively engaged in at this time. EU leaders will be discussing this important issue too when they convene for their European Council meeting in mid-November.

But the reality is that we do live in a complex world – where trade, politics and security issues at times seem to be inter-linked.

The digital economy is growing faster than the global economy.

And increased activity within the digital economy is going to play a key role in driving economic growth in both Europe and in China. However, one cannot build a strong digital economy without a sound foundation. And this foundation is built by governments in Europe and in China investing strongly in research, innovation and science. It is through advances in both basic and applied sciences that will deliver the innovation that is driving positive change within society today.”


Continue Reading