Source: Capital News    Published: 2023-10-14

On the sidelines of the recent Group of Twenty (G20) summit, a U.S.-led program entitled “India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor” (IMEC) was inaugurated. The program grandiosely aims to build a commercial route from India to Europe via the Arabian Peninsula, Israel and then the Mediterranean Sea. Along the way across the Arabian Sea, through deserts, through a region of geopolitical complexity, the goods have been manage to reach Europe by shipping and rail transport with 3 times of laborious  loading and unloading.

As of yet, the United States, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France and Germany have signed a memorandum of understanding in this regard. However, the MOU does not list the sources of funding for the project, but only states that a working group will discuss the specific details and timetable within the next 60 days.

The program has been unsurprisingly touted as a “historic” one by the Western media. And yet since 2021, the US and Europe have launched a number of “historic” programs, such as Global Gateway, Build Back Better World (B3W), Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), etc. Why is it that none of them have been followed up? What is the point of launching new programs year after year when it is difficult to move forward each time, and is there any hope that IMEC will ever rival the Belt and Road Initiative?

In collaboration with RDCY, Capital News has launched the “Global Governance Forum” section. Hussein Askary, vice chairman of the Belt and Road Research Institute in Sweden, shared with us on the Belt and Road Initiative, the IMEC plan and other issues.

The Inclusive and Practical Nature of the BRI

Capital News: What is your impression of the “Belt and Road Initiative”(BRI)?

Hussein Askary :My impression of the Belt and Road Initiative since the start was very positive. I had been working for many years prior to its launch on the concept of the New Silk Road and the integration of the world, Eurasia, and Africa. In my view, the Belt and Road Initiative represents one of the most significant development initiatives in history.

What sets it apart is its inclusivity. It welcomes every nation in the world to participate in it, without forming exclusive alliances or being based on geopolitical or zero-sum games. This inclusivity is a distinctive feature of the BRI. It has the potential to bring together nations from around the world, each with their unique strengths and weaknesses, to build community for a shared future for mankind.”

Additionally, the BRI is firmly grounded in practicality. It produces tangible results through the construction and production of various infrastructure projects.

However, it's important to acknowledge China's remarkable journey over the past 40 years, transforming from a poor nation into the world's most advanced industrial economy. This transformation provides crucial context for understanding the BRI. China's achievements in this regard are truly unprecedented. They also serve as a beacon for other nations, demonstrating that it is possible to surmount the obstacles and challenges of development. The monumental feat of lifting 800 million people out of extreme poverty in just 30 to 40 years is an incredible accomplishment, not only for China but for the global community. This is a prospect that all nations eagerly anticipate. This stands as an exemplary model for national development, illustrating how to overcome obstacles and achieve leaps in technology, science, and every facet of progress. China's achievements over an extended period of time serve as a testament to this.

While duplicating China's trajectory may be challenging, it demonstrates to other nations that escaping the cycle of poverty is indeed possible. It instills hope for a brighter future. This is one of the important achievements of the BRI.

The other concrete achievement is that it has set examples on how to overcome formidable challenges faced by landlocked nations.

One notable flagship project is the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railway, connecting Djibouti and Ethiopia. Ethiopia, with a population exceeding 100 million, historically grappled with the significant hurdle of being landlocked, impeding economic progress. Remarkably, this railway was constructed in record time, in just under four years, even amidst challenging terrain.

Another milestone is the construction of the railway linking Mombasa to Nairobi, extending further to Uganda and the African Great Lakes region. This region, marked by geographical challenges, has seen transformative impacts.

Furthermore, the BRI has successfully tackled perennial issues, such as the chronic lack of electricity. In the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, this initiative has prioritized the construction of power plants, effectively resolving Pakistan's enduring energy crisis, which had long hindered its development. Pakistan was previously trapped in a debt trap, compelled to borrow 12 to $14 billion annually from international banks, solely to purchase oil and gas from abroad.

Fortunately, with the implementation of the CPEC projects, Pakistan is now in a position to generate its own electricity. These are revolutionary achievements, accomplished in record time and with relative ease. Many of the United Nations' development goals for 2030 are embedded within the BRI itself. These accomplishments hold immense importance.

Don't forget Laos as well. China's initiative in constructing a railway has transformed Laos, a nation previously double-landlocked, into a connected hub. It now serves as a bridge linking China to Southeast Asia, a truly remarkable achievement. This railway doesn't just facilitate the movement of goods and passengers; it's a vital component of a larger development corridor.

What's crucial to understand about the BRI is that it's not solely focused on trade promotion. It's fundamentally about economic development, uplifting regions that have faced disadvantages. Whether it's due to a lack of connectivity, energy, water resources, or technology, the BRI aims to address these issues. This is particularly evident in the economic corridors, which stretch all the way from Europe to West Asia, the Mediterranean, and Africa. They will bring the necessary technology and resources to regions that have long sought to escape from their backwardness.

Capital News：Could you tell us about the benefits and opportunities that participating in the BRI has brought to Sweden and Europe? Can you share some examples of successful and high-quality Chinese involvement in infrastructure projects in Europe or Sweden?

Hussein Askary：There is substantial collaboration between China and Europe, even if it doesn't always fall under the label of the BRI.

For instance, consider the Piraeus Port in Greece, once on the periphery, especially during Greece's financial crisis post-2008. Chinese company COSCO took over the project, acquiring shares and developing a significant transformation and expansion. Today, it stands as one of the Mediterranean's largest ports.

Additionally, China plays a pivotal role in the construction of the Serbia-Hungary railway connection, a project that was initially part of EU plans. However, the EU faced challenges in realizing these endeavors, and China has stepped in to contribute, providing vital connectivity to Eastern Europe.

We've seen substantial Chinese involvement in a range of projects, even right here in Sweden. One notable endeavor is the “Golden Bridge” in the heart of Stockholm, where I reside. This bridge links the southern and northern parts of the city, including the historic Old Town. It's a remarkable engineering feat, constructed as a single piece in China and then transported by ship all the way to Sweden, where it was seamlessly integrated into the cityscape. Chinese companies have also played a pivotal role in tunneling projects for Stockholm's subway system, including the development of a new line.

Moreover, their contributions extend beyond Sweden's borders, with involvement in the construction of a major bridge in the northern reaches of Norway, situated in the Arctic region.

These projects serve as powerful demonstrations of Chinese efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and their capacity to achieve construction milestones.

There are abundant advantages for Europe to engage in collaborative efforts with China. We possess excellent construction and technology firms in Sweden and throughout Europe that, when partnered with counterparts in China and other BRI partner nations, can collectively tackle significant challenges. Africa, in particular, has an immense need for infrastructure development and technology transfer.

And China alone cannot address all the complex issues faced by Africa and Asia, it becomes increasingly imperative for nations to work together. This collaboration would not only be invaluable for the nations directly involved, but would also yield substantial benefits for Sweden, China, and the global community at large.

For example, there's an ongoing debate in Europe about immigration. Many African young people, in search of better opportunities, are taking enormous risks, often risking their lives, to cross the Mediterranean in hopes of making a living in Europe.

Many politicians, particularly in Italy, echo the sentiment of experts who assert that curtailing immigration from Africa isn't merely a matter of intercepting boats. Instead, the focus should be on enabling African nations to develop, to harness their resources, foster robust economies, and establish vital infrastructure, both in industry and agriculture.

Empowering young people to remain in their home countries, leading decent lives and contributing to their economies rather than risking their lives to come to Europe. The allure of Europe is often idealized, but the reality can be far more challenging. Initiatives of this nature are crucial to ensuring that people in Africa can thrive within their own border.

Achieving this, however, demands extensive effort, including technology transfer. The BRI presents a remarkable opportunity for European nations to collaborate with China in this endeavor, extending assistance to these countries and propelling them toward prosperity.

IMEC: A Geopolitical Endeavor

Capital News:At the recent G20 summit in New Delhi, U.S. President Biden announced a new project aiming to construct a large-scale railway and shipping corridor linking India with the Middle East and Europe. Forbes magazine referred to this project as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which will consist of the eastern corridor connecting India to the Arabian Gulf, and the northern corridor linking the Gulf to Europe. In simple terms, it involves loading goods onto ships, unloading, loading onto trains, unloading again, and repeating the cycle multiple times. Why is the Biden administration pushing for the establishment of IMEC?

Hussein Askary: This is a glaring example of politicians losing touch with the realities on the ground. They seem detached from economic, social, and practical realities, as you aptly pointed out. It's an absurdity.

Imagine that, you want to make things more efficient, the cheaper and the quicker, but you load the goods on ships, unload them on trains, and for many countries along your line are in unstable and conflict-ridden areas, and then load them again on a ship. And then further, they can just continue going on the sea through the Red Sea and Suez Canal.

What we're witnessing here is what I'd term a geopolitical game—an attempt to embroil India in a project that counters China's interests. There's also a move to draw nations that already have strong partnerships with China, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and even Israel.

However, this scenario of IMEC seems detached from reality. Consider the significant investments China has made in critical infrastructure, like ports and railways.

In Europe, for instance, many ports and railways either have Chinese companies at the helm or China holds substantial stakes in them. Even in Israel, where discussions about certain ports being part of this larger project circulate, it's worth noting that some of the most modern ports, like those in Haifa and Ashdod, were constructed and are managed by Chinese companies.

In Saudi Arabia and the UAE, China is involved in building railways, with companies like CRRC playing a pivotal role. Additionally, China is also involved in other infrastructure projects, including Jizan ports in Saudi Arabia, and the Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi. China will benefit. Why not? China always welcomes others to participate with these projects.

Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have made it unequivocally clear that they intend to maintain and strengthen their partnerships with China.

For a deeper understanding of the scale of joint efforts between China and Arab countries, one needs look no further than the China-Arab Countries Summits, especially the China-Gulf Cooperation Council summit in December of last year. The range of the projects presented at the summit is unprecedented in international relations.

They believe it primarily pertains to trade, but in reality, it encompasses much more. For instance, if the aim is to establish a swift trade route, the China-EU railway stands as the most efficient option available today. Stretching from China’s city, through Kazakhstan, Russia, and Belarus, and into the EU via Poland, it offers unparalleled speed and efficiency. However, it's important to note that this railway carries a relatively small volume of goods compared to sea routes.

The key point is that China has been actively cultivating such connections with partner nations. Notably, even the conflict in Ukraine did not derail these efforts. It's crucial to understand that the BRI isn't primarily a trade operation; it's fundamentally a development initiative. Its core objective is to construct infrastructure that empowers the partner nations, enhancing their resources and ultimately fostering economic growth.

When examining the railway systems in Saudi Arabia, it's evident that their purpose extends beyond mere container transshipment between countries. These railways are designed to connect mines, facilitating the efficient transport of raw materials like phosphate to industrial zones. It's in these zones where value addition occurs, as these raw materials are transformed into products with much higher value, which are then exported as industrial materials.

The Jizan port Special Economic Zone project in Saudi Arabia, where China is actively involved, exemplifies this approach. In addition to the port, there are plans for a substantial industrial zone focused on petrochemicals. This means that Saudi Arabia stands to benefit ten-fold from working with China, not only from the transit of shipments between India and Europe but also from the establishment of these industrial facilities. A similar principle applies in Ethiopia and numerous other partner countries of the BRI.

It's crucial for people to differentiate between trade, which is an outcome of enhanced connectivity, and development projects.

So, this IMEC represents a substantial political endeavor, which the United States and Europe will not be able to contribute anything to, because in the United States and Europe itself, they are facing significant challenges in financing and undertaking comparable infrastructure projects within their own borders, let alone contributing to endeavors of this magnitude elsewhere. How can we expect them to finance and build infrastructure in other parts of the world? So, it's not likely to work.

Take for instance the initiative “Build Back Better World(B3W),” which had to be rebranded as the “Global Infrastructure Partnership.” This was prompted by the failure of B3W within the United States. The US Congress could not reach an agreement with President Biden on financing and building infrastructure domestically. Consequently, it would have been embarrassing to pursue an international project after an unsuccessful attempt at home. Hence, the name was changed. These are political tactics that are unlikely to lead to actual projects.

Capital News：Whenever American media reports on IMEC, they always mention BRI. Do you think the U.S. proposal of IMEC is targeting the BRI?

Hussein Askary：Yeah, but definitely, even if they don't mention it explicitly in the declaration, it is clearly targeting the BRI. It was the same with the other initiatives. They want to compete with China and even replace the BRI. But it won’t work because there is no substance in these so-called alternatives.

We propose that the United States and Europe join China’s BRI and work together in these nations, because it would be beneficial for everyone. But there is an ideological problem, such cooperation is not allowed in the United States. And now they used to understand why this is important. In a deeper sense, it's also a philosophical problem, because they don't really believe in the Chinese idea of win-win. The harmony between nations and peoples is a real thing, and it's beneficial for everyone. They otherwise believe in the zero-sum game, which has its historical roots in the colonial era, especially in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes that it's naive to think that human beings and nations and societies can work together. Such philosophy is to believe that everything is based on egoism, and everybody should fight for their own better in battlefield of interests at the expense of others.

This is deeply-rooted thinking of the political elites in the United States and Europe. That's one of the big obstacles to understanding the BRI. It was one of the reasons that these so-called alternatives to the BRI will not work. Because in their declarations, they claim that the private sector will be the key element in these projects. This is a recipe for failure because the private sector is not interested in building infrastructure like railways, ports, airports, highways, which is practically not profitable in monetary terms. Companies cannot make money from infrastructure. Infrastructure should be supported by states, because they serve to facilitate and enhance the economic activity and productivity of society. That's where you get the so-called money from the agricultural industry and innovation. It will grow around the prospect.

As the Chinese saying goes, if you want to get rich, build a road first. You don't get rich from the building of road such as making people pay a toll for the road, but the road will facilitate economic activities. This is the first element leading to failure of these alternatives. And therefore, even in Europe, the private sector is unable to support big infrastructure projects. All the major infrastructure there was built by the United States after World War II, through the great deal of reconstruction of Europe. These infrastructure projects were based on state finances and were state-centered projects, which is the correct one. This is what China's doing.

Therefore, the notion that you have to rely on the private sector for support is the first factor contributing to failure. The second issue is that these Western proposals place excessive emphasis on formalities, such as so-called transparency and financial sustainability.

For example, there's a new trend where the United States is pressuring all nations facing financial difficulties through the International Monetary Fund. They argue that it's not viable for impoverished nations to undertake significant infrastructure projects due to financial constraints. In other words, if your country is in dire financial straits, it should never build infrastructure.

But the question remains: how do you escape poverty, even at considerable costs, without infrastructure? This is the game they play.

These countries had to cancel contracts with China for building infrastructure such as hydropower, telecommunications, roads, and railways, because they argue it's financially unsustainable for nations like Zambia to embark on these projects by borrowing money from China.

How would nations be able to come out of poverty if they don't build infrastructure, especially when they lack the resources for it? This is the second point that renders these American and European alternatives unworkable. Under such proposals, all nations would be condemned to perpetual poverty.

Furthermore, they argue for concerns about transparency, democracy, and various formalities, which would render financing and executing infrastructure projects in Africa, for example, almost impossible. Because there is no flawless society that possesses democracy, freedom, security, unlimited resources, and no corruption, as the Europeans demand. Such a society simply does not exist in Africa. So, what is the alternative? To abandon Africa, or to press on despite the challenges of limited security, financial resources, corruption, and what is referred to as non-democratic governance?

That's how the BRI differs from these other proposals. The BRI regards poverty as the primary adversary facing people. That's the crux of the matter.

In 2015, at the Africa-China Summit in Johannesburg, President Xi Jinping outlined three critical barriers to Africa's development that need to be surmounted in order to break free from poverty and transition into an industrialized era. These hurdles are the lack of capital, inadequate infrastructure, and a shortage of skills. By addressing these three issues, a pathway to industrialization and prosperity opens up.

This stands in stark contrast to the European and American perspective on how to tackle these challenges. They think that by implementing formal changes in the socio-political system, things will magically improve. We've witnessed how this approach played out in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, where attempts at regime change and social-political reforms led to disaster. Thus, the starting point must be economic development.

This is precisely why China's initiatives are so distinctive and well-received. They embody a symbiotic relationship between economic development and security. Without economic development, security cannot be achieved, and vice versa. These two facets cannot be separated.

Capital News：In recent years, both the U.S. and Europe have thrown out quite a few ambitious "grand strategies." There's the EU's "Global Gateway" plan, aiming to raise a whopping 300 billion euros, then we've got Biden's "Build Back Better World" initiative (B3W),You just mentioned，not to mention his "Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership" proposal from the G20 summit in Bali last year. All of these initiatives claim to focus on infrastructure development in developing countries. B3W has failed, how far have they actually come in progress?

Hussein Askary：There has been zero progress in these areas for the reasons I mentioned. The proposals lack substance because the possibility of financing these projects doesn't exist in Europe. Neither the United States nor Europe were able to secure the financing for the necessary infrastructure projects here.

China, on the other hand, is different. China possesses the financial resources, technical expertise, engineering capacity, and, most importantly, the intention and willingness to execute these projects for these nations. And it has happened.

The problem is that we don't have enough of these projects to tackle all the challenges in such vast regions, like in Africa and Asia. For example, Africa's landmass is three times larger than that of China, and it is home to 1.4 billion people. Africa’s population, predominantly composed of young people, is set to almost double by 2050.

We need more projects like the ones offered by the BRI rather than these superficial political initiatives presented by the United States and Europe. Europe needs to comprehend how the BRI operates, particularly its methodology, and they can choose to follow suit. The challenge lies in the fact that politicians in Europe and the United States seem detached from the realities of people and the economy.

To illustrate this, consider a straightforward example: when former U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Africa during the Trump administration, there was a common joke that went around. It was said that Rex Tillerson landed at an airport in Africa that was built by China. Then he took a road in the capital of that country, which was also constructed by China. Finally, he attended a conference in a building built by China, and he just warned Africans not to work with China. It's not merely a joke, because this happened earlier this year, when the US treasury secretary, Janet Yellen went to Zambia to convince the Zambians not to take loans from China for infrastructure development, warning of a so-called “debt trap”.

Now, where did Janet Yellen land when she arrived in Lusaka? She arrived at the new terminal of the Kenneth Kaunda International Airport, which was constructed by a Chinese company with a loan from the Chinese Export-Import Bank. Without that airport, Janet wouldn't have had a comfortable journey into Zambia.

These politicians often fail to see the reality right under their feet. They live in the clouds, wrapped up in their ideologies and economic theories, without considering the people. That's why I refer to these initiatives as political projects, because in reality, they lack substance. Initiatives like “Global Gateway”, “Build Back Better World”, “Partnership for Global Infrastructure”, and so on, lack substance because the politicians who present them have limited understanding of economics and often lack a grasp of geography.

During the G20 summit, U.S. President Biden spoke about another project, stating that it would connect Africa from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, linking Angola to Zambia and Tanzania with a railway.

By the way, there already exists such a railway from Angola to Tanzania, which was built by China. President Biden was misinformed by his advisors who drafted the speech for him. What they are actually referring to is another project, which involves extracting raw materials from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia to Angola. That's the true plan. These types of projects are quite popular in Europe and the United States because they enable the extraction of wealth from Africa and its exportation. This is a significant difference between them and China. China's interests encompass the development of local industries for the benefit of the local societies.

Now, some countries in Africa are realizing that instead of simply exporting raw copper, cobalt, and lithium, they should establish industries to process these raw materials into finished goods, like batteries. Zimbabwe, for instance, recently prohibited the export of raw lithium. They've stated that those interested in their lithium should come to Zimbabwe and establish battery factories, similar to what China has done. This marks a significant departure from the practice of merely extracting resources by Western countries. It represents a move towards a win-win situation.

However, to establish these industries and work with metals, you need essential resources like electricity, necessary infrastructure such as transportation, and a skilled workforce—precisely what Chinese President Xi emphasized in 2015. Without providing these elements to Africa, what you would be doing is akin to the old colonialist practice of plundering wealth from Africa and transporting it elsewhere. This is a big difference. Nations in Africa and other developing regions are increasingly waking up to this reality.

Capital News：Since we've noticed this issue like they are unable to get financing, the United States and Europe should have discovered it long ago. Why is it that every year, the U.S. and the West come up with these big infrastructure proposals, but they always make a big fuss without following through?

Hussein Askary：These projects are essentially political propaganda aimed at delaying and obstructing nations from collaborating with China. When they propose these initiatives, they provide false assurances to those nations, particularly to certain elites within them who may be corrupt and susceptible to bribery from the EU or the United States.

By doing so, these elites can fill their pockets or allow their political parties to maintain their hold on power. This has been an enduring form of corruption persisting for 60-70 years under the guise of so-called aid programs for Africa. These programs serve to keep specific elites in power while their countries’ natural and human resources are being looted. This is what these proposals entail. They are not just deceptive, but they also serve as a dilatory tactic to make sure that nations don't accelerate their cooperation with China, such as with the BRI, and enhance their own development programs. Africa has its own apt development strategy.

Nations have their own development strategies, but they are being told that if they abandon these fantasies, they might get some money. For example, there’s a typical attempt at a recent climate conference in Kenya, where African nations were informed that instead of developing and building industries by using their coal, oil, and gas, they should keep these resources in the ground and get some money from Europe and the United States through so-called CO2 certificates. These countries are being induced to sell their right to development to Europeans. In exchange for not developing their own resources and their economy, these countries might receive some money. This is indeed a satanic plan that would condemn African nations to eternal poverty.

African nations should leverage their coal, oil, gas, uranium, and everything within their lands to leapfrog into high-speed industrialization, rather than surrendering their development right to Europeans. The European proposal implies that these countries cannot continue to burn coal, oil and gas without purchasing carbon certificates. Essentially, Europeans would have the privilege to burn more fossil fuels while Africans are denied the same opportunity.

These countries are currently being restrained from using fossil fuels indefinitely, but this is an important stage of development. This is how China's economy developed, which is based on coal. The industrial revolution in Europe also had coal at its core, and countries like Germany continue to use coal to this day. This is not a crime, and naturally, nations in Africa can utilize their coal, oil, and gas resources. Yet, they also have the opportunity to utilize the enormous hydropower potential, such as that found in the Congo River, the Grand Inga Dam. This could generate a great deal of electricity, benefiting many of African nations and fulfilling their needs of electricity.

However, Europe and the United States show little interest in financing and building plants in the Congo. The World Bank even withdrew its support for that project. Only China has come forward to undertake that construction project, but Democratic Republic of Congo is being prevented by these promises from working with China to build these plants.

This underscores the other side of the proposals advocated by the United States and Europe. They are utilized to hinder African nations and other Global South nations from moving towards the BRI of China. However, it may be a bit too late now because every country is witnessing that the tangible results delivered by the BRI, the BRICS-plus development expansion, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

More nations are expressing the desire to abandon this neo-colonial system. What we witness the upheavals in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, though it’s a challenging part of Africa, is a manifestation of the rejection of the old, Neo-colonial system. These nations now deserve to utilize their natural resources for the benefit of their people.

The world is undergoing rapid change, but the European politicians attending these conferences have not yet realized it.

Europe's Dilemma with China and Economic De-risking

Capital News: I remember you once said something really classic. Not all that glitters is gold, and not all shiny infrastructure initiatives have substance. This’s enough to conclude their proposals. And the last question is about the China and Europe relations. We know that In June this year, the EU rolled out its first-ever "Economic Security Strategy," with a key focus on restricting sensitive technologies like cutting-edge semiconductors from being exported to third countries. Given the intensifying global geopolitical competition, this document is widely seen as a policy blueprint for the EU's economic de-risking path. Does this mean that Europe's ideas about economic security are getting more in line with the United States? Given all this, where do you think China-Europe relations are headed?

Hussein Askary: Unfortunately, it's true that the European policy within the EU is increasingly dictated by American and British elites who aim to prevent Europe from charting their own path towards international economic cooperation. Europe, especially countries like Germany, Sweden, and France, have no interest in keeping the old system. France still maintains a post-colonial presence.

For example, Germany has no interest in maintaining the old system. Germany's future as an industrial powerhouse lies in cooperation with the East, including Russia. A significant portion of Germany's prosperity has been founded on getting cheap gas from Russia. Without the East, Europe, especially Germany, would face significant challenges. Unfortunately, politicians are aligning with the United States, putting their nation, people, and economy in jeopardy. This is a big problem.

Now, in terms of the question of de-risking, we did research on global supply chains, with a special focus on the international chips production of the semiconductor industry. It’s quite an interesting and funny story, because our research actually shows that it's physically impossible to decouple from China. In the semiconductor industry, every component of a chip is manufactured in a different country.

In the grand scheme of things, the Americans excel in designing these semiconductors, as well as the machinery used in their production. Europeans are adept at producing specific components and using them. Then there’s Taiwan province of China, South Korea and Japan, which possess enormous capacity of production.

But what happens once all these chips are produced? They are sent to China. Why? Because a substantial portion of machinery, cars, and appliances we use are manufactured in China. Consequently, you need to send these chips back to China and integrate them into the products that we require.

However, we also issued a warning in our research. If you try to isolate China from this market, the likely course of action for the Chinese would be to develop their own capabilities. They would initiate a crash program, marked by massive investments in terms of money, manpower, intellectual resources, and innovation. This crash program would be geared towards achieving self-sufficiency, thereby becoming independent from external suppliers.

This is precisely what we’ve witnessed with Huawei’s development of their latest chips, achieving self-sufficiency in this area, which has sent shock waves throughout the industry. This is the natural course of events. If you try to isolate China, you’ll find yourself isolated instead. China is now spearheading the creation of a Global South where it won’t rely on European and American markets. Gradually, Europe’s significance as a technology producer and a major market will shrink, leading to Europe’s marginalization and a missed opportunity.

This isn’t a desirable outcome. Our advice in the study was clear: in high technology, including scientific fields, there’s mounting pressure on scientific and cultural institutions in Europe and the United States to sever ties with Chinese universities. This included initiatives like Confucius Institute, but also extends to crucial domains such as medicine and space technology, among others. Institutions are being threatened to abandon cooperation with China. In doing so, we will lose, as China is poised to become the epicenter of the most advanced technologies in the world. Just take a look at China’s space program. China is a global leader in space exploration. In the future, Europe and the United States will need China. Similar to how we currently need Russia to send astronauts into outer space, we will need the Chinese space station for research. We will look to China for collaborations in lunar exploration.

So, it's a bit absurd to assume that if we cut China off, we won’t end up being the big losers. This goes for the entire international community, especially nations like India. I sincerely hope that India and China will resolve their differences. Their cooperation is of paramount importance. India’s achievement in putting a rover on the moon is fantastic, particularly for a developing nation. Similarly, countries like Brazil, Argentina and others are on the trajectory of development and have the potential to replace Europe and the United States.

Here in Europe, we fear the potential disaster of being left behind and not joining this enormous progress that’s taking place. Our problem doesn’t lie with the people, the scientists, or the companies. Our problem lies in the politicians who often lack a true understanding of economics, geography, and history. Their philosophy can be quite destructive. Hence, there’s a pressing need for a reflection on our way of thinking it.