“Hungary’s willingness to enter security arrangements with Xi Jinping and do the bidding of Vladimir Putin while, simultaneously, maintain membership in NATO and the EU is deeply troubling and presents an existential crisis for those alliances,” writes Elaine Dezenski, senior director and head of the Center on Economic and Financial Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in the U.S.
The €3.8 billion Serbia-Hungary railway project, financed by Chinese loans under the BRI, is expected to be completed by 2025, but some estimates suggest that it will take a further 979 years — or nearly a millennium — for Hungary to break even on the project.
Hungary’s BRI issues are not unique. As described in a new report on the BRI, “Tightening the Belt or End of the Road”, many BRI projects around the world face serious challenges, from hydroelectric dams with thousands of cracks in Ecuador, to promised infrastructure that was never built in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to massive debt distress in Zambia.
“Despite the problems for host countries and the large portfolio of failing loans for China, Beijing has still been successful at building influence across authoritarian-leaning regimes, who are eager to follow the Chinese model of single-party state control and high-tech domestic repression,” Dezenski says…
While Western states have awoken to the risk of overreliance on Chinese supply lines, Hungarian officials are taking the opposite approach, going so far as to call de-risking suicidal.
This position, however, doesn’t impact Hungary alone. The entire EU market is open to Chinese manipulations through the Hungarian economy, such as dumping of cheap goods to prop up the failing Chinese economy or undermining domestic European industries with subsidised competitors.
As German chemical giant BASF seeks to disengage from China’s Xinjiang region, leaked documents indicate that China is planning to build a chemical hub in Hungary.
Just to push back, a littie, on an easily caricatured picture.
China is looking far less strong economically than it was just a few years ago. In the coming years the Chinese economy will face challenges at least as big as any facing the West. The notion that China will buy up and thus vassalize Europe is not, on balance, very rational. In the 1980s the USA was seriously concerned that Japan would eat up the world. Japan.
The Economist looked into the BRI recently and came to the conclusion that the scheme was essentially economic rather than political - a way to get rid of excess capital in the 2010s, with some potential political benefits on the side. Not the other way round.
None of this justifies Chinese abuses or Hungary’s anti-EU antics.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
China’s grand vision of the world-changing BRI may have not been realised, but something else is emerging in its wake — a powerful lever to bend authoritarian-leaning countries toward Chinese interests, Elaine Dezenski writes.
But as the infrastructure and ambitions for the BRI fade, something more dangerous may be rising up to take its place — an authoritarian alliance of security, surveillance, and repression that puts Europe at risk.
But despite the problems for host countries and the large portfolio of failing loans for China, Beijing has still been successful at building influence across authoritarian-leaning regimes, who are eager to follow the Chinese model of single-party state control and high-tech domestic repression.
Hungary, a member of both the European Union and NATO that has been sliding deeper into authoritarianism over the past decade, is a perfect target for Beijing’s security-based BRI aspirations — the export of political repression with Chinese characteristics.
Furthering their mutual interest in preventing domestic dissent, Beijing announced new bilateral cooperation between China and Hungary on “security and law enforcement capacity building under the Belt and Road Initiative”.
Hungary’s willingness to enter security arrangements with Xi Jinping and do the bidding of Vladimir Putin while, simultaneously, maintain membership in NATO and the EU is deeply troubling and presents an existential crisis for those alliances.
The original article contains 843 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
I agree, China has been fueling conflicts in modern times like no other country in the world. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba, Ukraine, N&S Korea… (The list is too long to even be written down). Chinese secret services have always been mendeling around for the interest of big chinese corporations and weapon sales. Let’s remember how they also tried to invade their geographical neighbour Taiwan in '61 in whats today remembered as “The bay of pigs invasion” (look it up on wikipedia), just because they were politically aligned with us (and they should be free to do so!); simply inacceptable and outlaw by our international laws.
Not to mention how with its powerful army the CPC imposes its control over the world’s trade, even on the other side of the world, where they clearly have no business in controlling it.
Not to mention africa, where after hundres of years of stealing african resources, the Chinese are now upset that we are actually building their infrastructure and instead complain that those countries will have to repay the debt to us (duh, we arent doing it for free!). It’s so ironic that after thousand years of chinese colonization it must be us treating african countries like actual political partners rather than broke savages to just send aids and charity etc.
God, this is obviously possible due to the fact that in China, there is no democracy, but a one-party system that always stays in power. I don’t understand why they are not smart enough to at least pretend there is two parties (that would actually be the same, obviously) to give the people and the international press the impression of a functioning democracy (like here in the west, where we can choose between tens of parties that don’t radicalize on idiotic minor non-issues to pretend to be different but actually all doing the same interests).
wow, as you just proved
I can imagine this kind of thought from the Europe and the US. But many of the countries in Asia, at least from South East Asia, don’t see it that way. Although some these countries have territorial disputes With China, diplomatically and economically they are very close. One of the big reasons is they have a policy of ‘enriching your neighbours’ where if the neighbouring countries are prosperous, then by ripple effect the country itself will prosper.
I know I’ll get downvoted for stating this, as it has always been before. My intention is just to explain that the world is bigger than what evolve around us, and not everyone thinks the same. It better to understand the complexity and study why rather than making a generalized statement.
Yeah, I think the milk tea alliance would disagree with you. Don’t conflate overwhelmed compliance with neutral coexistence. That’s just rhetorically dishonest.
I stated before of ‘diplomatic and economic relarionships’ as that what usually dictate how the country move forward. In a simple words, the ASEAN governments don’t see China as a threat to their economic growth. This is different that the way EU see China - seeing as enemy that will directly jeopardise their economy. You just need to read the title of this post to simply acknowledge that.
Yes, the milk tea alliance will definitely disagree with me. In some Asean countries, democracy has been suppressed, e.g. in Myanmar and in notable but lesser extend and longer period in Thailand. We can see that China has been backing these countries and logically will be seen as enemy by the citizens that has been suppressed. However, I don’t think things would change much. The ASEAN leaders still consider China as important towards the stability of the region, and ASEAN has a policy to turn a blind eye on what domestically happens in its member countries, unless its very serious like in Myanmar. So, as long as each members remains friendly to each other, nothing much would change - business as usual.
Dear sir, “backing” is doing a lot of legwork for compliance. It would be silly to acknowledge US imperialism and ignore China’s Belt and road imperialism. We know the playbook, it’s been done. Soft power above hard power, and so it goes. The only difference is those manufactured islands that are designed to expand China’s landmass, which is at the very least original.
I wonder what you think about the Chinese concept of the “central kingdom”… not the “middle kingdom”, which is a dishonest translation, but the murmurs made by Chinese officials and party members everytime they dream or usurping US imperialism to become new the imperial force.
As a European, both can get fucked. No lie, I don’t want any unsanctioned police station in my country. If I find out that’s actually a thing, there’s a couple of molotov cocktails with the Chinese embassy’s name on it, because not even the yanks go that far.
It would be silly to acknowledge US imperialism and ignore China’s Belt and road imperialism.
I don’t ignore China’s act. In fact I acknowledge both. It’s normal that some powerful countries would want to exert control upon others. The question is their methodologies and how long can they sustain the approval.
The only difference is those manufactured islands that are designed to expand China’s landmass
Yeah, none of the SEA countries are happy with this. But they’re dependent on the relationship and they don’t have the capacity to resist. The best they can do is, “We’ll solve this diplomatically”. I think what’s currently happen with Philippines
withwill set the precedence for the future as they have gone beyond just claiming the territory.I wonder what you think about the Chinese concept of the “central kingdom”…
I don’t know much about this. need to read more on this.
BTW, in no such way that I say that I supported what China does. But I try to convey the sentiment towards them is not just one sided. You’re knowledgeable enough that you understand this, but some people are in denial that they think that the whole world is united to go against the oppressive China when in reality China has been slowly gaining support in non-traditional places such as in African continent for example (let’s not touch about it just to keep it short). If the best line of defence is by shouting ‘China is a fascist country’, like what sub-OP has done, that’s
nownot going to work for obvious reason.And I think I need to correct my words earlier - For me, unlike the US, the Europe are still friendly in the way the treat their relationship with China. However, we can see that at one point, one has to take side, or least becoming neutral. These coming years we’ll be seeing more and more issues being brought up to set the tone for the future.
deleted by creator
Man, no need to react aggressively. Why don’t you keep the discussion healthy by giving your arguments instead.
If you read my history, I am not even a Chinese. However I like to keep abreast of what happened around the world and discuss and give my opinion on wide area of subjects, simply to understand what going on around us. Of course some of my opinion are not always popular to certain communities, especially on certain issues like this, but I appreciate better intellectual response.
deleted by creator
I have to admit that I downvote this because I have to google for a non-existent term ‘Faschists’. No heart feeling.
deleted by creator
Elaine Dezenski, senior director and head of the Center on Economic and Financial Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in the U.S.
hmmm, i wonder if this ‘researcher’ for a warhawk and Israeli lobbying organisation is trustworthy!
FDD was founded shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001. In the initial documents filed for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, FDD’s stated mission was to “provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations”. Later documents described its mission as “to conduct research and provide education on international terrorism and related issues”.
‘the Center on Economic and Financial Power’ sounds like a ministry from Nineteen Eighty-Four.
i also find this quote amusing:
“Despite the problems for host countries and the large portfolio of failing loans for China, Beijing has still been successful at building influence across authoritarian-leaning regimes, who are eager to follow the Chinese model of single-party state control and high-tech domestic repression,” Dezenski says
the pot calling the kettle black. let me reword this:
“Despite the problems for host countries and the large portfolio of failing loans for the [United States|IMF], [Washington|Davos] has still been successful at building influence across authoritarian-leaning regimes, who are eager to follow the [American|Western|liberal] model of corporate state control and high-tech domestic repression,” someone says
Would be great if you could post sources you trust more. What do you read?
Whataboutism.
no, it’s called information literacy and recognising insincerity. what you’re doing is called deflection and splitting.
believe it or not: one does not have to pick which colour empire they like best, because one does not have to like an empire at all. no one is forcing you to consume hypocritical fearbait.
You’re right israeli lobby organisations are very trustworthy. The more anti Iran they are the more trustworthy. Cooperation and trade is bad. War is good.
By the way can we start nuking Iran yet? That will improve global safety by a lot.
