
Italy Joins China's New Silk Road Project - pseudolus
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47679760
======
pseudolus
Apparently the two parties signed 29 agreements covering a wide variety of
areas - all of which are fairly standard and cover the standard touchstones of
trade, science and culture [0]. That said, there is an undeniable symbolism in
the appearance of renewing, at least nominally, a trade route which has
occupied peoples' imaginations for centuries. In passing, one of the
interviewees in the BBC story (Peter Frankopan) wrote a fantastic book ("The
Silk Roads: A New History of the World") on the history of the Silk Road that
is well worth a read. [1]

[0] [https://www.corriere.it/economia/lavoro/19_marzo_23/tutti-
ac...](https://www.corriere.it/economia/lavoro/19_marzo_23/tutti-accordi-
firmati-la-cina-turbine-gas-genova-86210584-4d5f-11e9-8911-13a101900170.shtml)
(Italian)

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Silk-Roads-New-History-
World/dp/11019...](https://www.amazon.com/Silk-Roads-New-History-
World/dp/1101912375/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=peter+frankopan&qid=1553350691&s=gateway&sr=8-1)

~~~
ideonode
Actually, Peter Frankopan has recently written an even more relevant (though
confusingly named) book, The New Silk Roads: The Present and Future of the
World, which is precisely about China's Belt and Road initiative and the US
(and EU's) lack of pace in keeping up with the scale of China's foreign
infrastructure spend.

------
ardy42
> "The seemingly innocuous move comes at a sensitive time for Europe and the
> European Union, where there is suddenly a great deal of trepidation not only
> about China, but about working out how Europe or the EU should adapt and
> react to a changing world," Prof Frankopan told the BBC.

Forgive my ignorance, but aren't many EU decisions required to be unanimous?
So if China has close ties to Italy, could it use it's influence to convince
Italy to "veto" hypothetical EU sanctions against Chinese human rights
violations or other actions that are good for the EU but against Chinese
domestic and foreign policy?

~~~
eastendguy
Yes. That is my major concern. In fact, it has already happened! We have
already Greece (with its China owned ports) blocking an EU statement:

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-un-rights/greece-
block...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-un-rights/greece-blocks-eu-
statement-on-china-human-rights-at-u-n-idUSKBN1990FP)

~~~
bilbo0s
In fairness, from the perspective of the average Greek citizen, the EU thing
hasn't worked out terribly well for their homeland.

In the West what we need is to restructure our facilities such that if you
participate you will prosper. We need for _everyone_ to prosper. Not
necessarily equally, but what happened to Greece went beyond simply not
prospering as much as other nations. It was legitimately negatively impacted.
(A lot self inflicted, but a lot inflicted by the structure of Western trade
facilities as well.)

Having mentioned all that, I grant you, having all parties prosper at EU scale
is a little difficult to pull off.

~~~
makomk
Also, the whole reason Greek ports are owned by China in the first place is
that Germany forced the Greek government to sell them off to the highest
bidder as part of their great economic fucking-over of Greece. So it's hard to
have a huge amount of sympathy if this causes headaches for the core EU
states.

~~~
BurningFrog
Germany only "forced" Greece in the sense that they didn't pay Greece's debts
for them.

~~~
sampo
> Germany only "forced" Greece in the sense that they didn't pay Greece's
> debts for them.

Germany (and France) also knowingly gave Greece lots of loans, when it was
obvious to everyone that Greece will never be able to pay them all back.

~~~
BurningFrog
Germany the country, or private german banks?

~~~
sampo
German banks.

------
dillondoyle
I feel it's impossible to participate in a balanced discussion with the C word
comes up on hacker news and elsewhere online (China). I was going to reply to
a couple comments but retrained myself because I feel like there's no point
arguing with a shill or what feels like organized, state funded astro turfing.

I do NOT advocate the US getting into this game tit/tat through
manipulating/commenting on US based media but I wonder what other technical
solutions there are to counter what feels like a massive communications
operation to shift all digital discussions concerning China; without throwing
the baby out with the bathwater

This thread - like every other which involves China - is rife with straw man
arguments and a lot of 'so what' false equivalencies.

~~~
ssnistfajen
I agree with your first sentence, but that's about it. What I see on HN and
Reddit when "C word" comes up is endless bashing (some of which are perfectly
legitimate criticism btw) and ignorance. Anyone who dares ask for evidence,
proof, or even just basic objecticity commonly observed in discussions of
other topics, are met with personal attacks and shill accusations. Attempts at
pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards are almost always silenced by
yelling "this is whataboutism" ad nauseam.

------
NicoJuicy
The belt is an excuse they use for modern colonization by debts.

Also, this deal is an entry in the EU which I really dislike. I hope the EU
will step up it's game against china, too bad that our normal partner
currently has an unstable leader. While XI is without a doubt a hard-working
leader. Unfortunate, I do not approve their world vision, at all.

~~~
devoply
There should be a collective effort to put pressure on China to politically
reform.

~~~
coldtea
Isn't that up to its citizens? Was there a collective effort to get YOUR
country to "politically reform"? Would you appreciate one?

~~~
abc-xyz
If my country was engaged in sending Muslims to concentration camps, medical
genocide (organ harvesting), and all sorts of human rights abuses, then I
would very much appreciate if there was a collective effort to get my country
to politically reform. Why wouldn't you appreciate that?

~~~
coldtea
If it was engaged in slavery, and then segregation (up to the 60s), had the
biggest incarceration rates in the world (of hugely disproportionally black
population), had torture sites off limits to the law, send drones to kill
people without trial and without official act of war to the other country, was
the only western country to still have the death penalty, and at great rates,
and even for 15 year olds, plus routine police shootings on innocent people,
SWATing invasions with victims for insignificant offenses, and so on, plus was
established on the deterritorialization, interment, and genocide of a whole
race of millions of natives, ad even did lethal medical experiments on
unsuspecting foreign populations, if it was the only country that dropped
atomic bombs to another (and to civilians at that)?

Would you be OK with a collective foreign effort to politically reform?
Perhaps change the constitution or something based on what some foreigners
insist to be there?

Especially if all cases of such "valiant" efforts on your end in the last 20
years have made things worse, turning stable regimes (Iraq, Libya, Syria) to
hell-holes of loss, civil war, fanatical muslim rule, and turf wars?

~~~
abc-xyz
Yes, I would welcome a collective foreign effort with open arms. I also think
there are other and better ways to save the Chinese people (and the rest of
the world from their government) besides invading the country.

------
Leary
If the US wants to counter China's Belt and Road Project, it should offer a
suitable alternative instead of merely talking about how it's debt trap
diplomacy.

~~~
Barrin92
The US has an overwhelmingly domestic economy and export driven global
infrastructure development isn't exactly an American strength. In so far as
the US influences European or Asian countries it appears to be mostly by
military, cultural or political means.

Up until now the US, economically, has mostly functioned as a consumer of
European and Asian goods, so it is hard to imagine how they could offer an
alternative to OBOR. For China it's a way to offload their export driven
surplus and creating new markets, which is something that the US isn't really
positioned to do.

~~~
sampo
> The US has an overwhelmingly domestic economy

Of the 10 of the World's most valuable companies, 8 are American. Apple,
Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook didn't get there by concentrating only
to American markets.

~~~
Barrin92
Actually they sort of do. Domestic / foreign revenue is about split for
Facebook and Microsoft, and Amazon makes twice as much in NA than outside of
it, tendency increasing.

And most importantly, even those global companies constitute only a fraction
of the entire US economy. Most of the US economy is not organised in publicly
traded, globalized, businesses.

The bottom line is, as can be seen in the American export and import balance,
a strong tendency to consume global goods rather than sell them. The reverse
is true for China. That's why China pursues an expansionist economic foreign
policy, whereas American economic policy is largely divorced from its foreign
politics.

------
throwawawua4234
Is there any knowledge on why East Asian Tiger economies do so well with state
backing ?

The major takeaway from the 'Princes of Yen' by Richard Werner is about how
Japan soared from a destroyed country to an economic powerhouse, before being
brought down by the bankers at the BOJ, ostensibly to change the system from a
'state backed economy' to a US-styled one. Ditto with the Asian tigers in
Thailand, S Korea etc.

Such managed-economies have failed miserably in many other places - notably in
India. China seems to be following the path of its neighbors, however.

On a meta-level, I don't see what the big deal is TBH - whatever floats ones
boat eh ? The argument about 'unfairness' is a bit of a joke, since it is well
known that there are very deep (albeit hidden) connections/interests b/w state
and corporations in Western nations.

~~~
TXV
> I don’t see what the big deal is TBH

The main issue is that Italy is part of the EU, and also one of its major
economies. The argument about unfairness is absolutely not a joke. In fact,
it’s the main point. Doing business in China as a foreign-owned company in
many sectors of the economy is, simply put, a huge challenge, when not
outright impossible. This is mainly due to opaque or protectionist
regulations. State-backed competitors also make the market harder to penetrate
since they will always win price wars. Then add lack of concern for
intellectual property.

Chinese companies don’t have these problems in Europe. Not even close. They
enjoy all the advantages of a (basically) free market, whereas the opposite is
not true. This is where the “unfairness” is.

The EU has been trying to find some leverage against China to balance the
scale for some time now, albeit our efforts have been mild. That’s because the
EU doesn’t have a common foreign affairs strategy and individual member states
are always more concerned with their internal politics to actually go figure
out one.

So China can just come here, pick a country that can be easily enticed by the
promise of bilateral cooperation and handsome investments, and all of a sudden
the EU now has a member who will start voting against anti-China policies.

Without a unified will, the EU member countries don’t have the contractual
power to demand and obtain anything from China. We will be an easy game for
them.

~~~
throwawawua4234
It's not that I understand the argument, my point was that many of the
mechanisms that provided enormous advantages to Western nations is often
rarely spoken about. For instance, US can often infuse large amounts of cash
through the central bank because it's position as the global reserve renders
it very unsusceptible to inflation. There is also the inexorable power of
WTO/IMF and these "international" agencies that are often steered entirely for
the benefit of the US and its allies.

I understand this may not apply to EU nations to the same extent, but then
there are all sorts of historical inequities in their favor (esp. Britain)
that one wonders if this new found "righteousness" is a bit ahistorical.

Consider India - it's basically run by erstwhile cronies of the British
empire, who basically transferred all of its generational wealth to the city
in little under 200 years. This while it was made into a cocaine tanker to
destroy China. It was made to fight European wars, while being footed with the
bill, and now the British groan about the pittance they pay India in foreign
aid. Never mind that this aid, is mostly geared towards the Anglo-Saxon
eugenics schemes of all sorts.

India currently owes about half a trillion to the IMF, after being run by a
IMF crony, and his Italian mistress for 10 years. It's easy to guess what the
IMF will ask for (far more loudly) when it inevitably goes belly up.

------
cl42
> _The European Union is also worried about unfair competition from Chinese
> companies, which are controlled by the Chinese government and benefit from
> the state’s financial backing. EU leaders in Brussels are preparing a
> strategy to counter the growing influence of China, which they describe as a
> “systemic rival.”_

Most of the Western articles I've read express concern over Italy's
involvement in the BRI. However, I am cautiously optimistic: maybe having
_one_ of the G7 countries participate in the BRI is a good way to cooperate
with China and bring a more inclusive and globalistic approach to working with
China? I think it's too early to tell how this will end, but I'm less
pessimistic than most.

~~~
dghughes
Look at Sri Lanka where nothing has been done except environmental disaster.
Now Sri Lanka owes its soul, and land, to China.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/world/asia/sri-lanka-
chin...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/world/asia/sri-lanka-china-
port.html)

Montenegro has a bridge to nowhere built by Chinese workers instead of locals.
Billions owed to China for a useless bridge.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-silkroad-europe-
mon...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-silkroad-europe-montenegro-
insi/chinese-highway-to-nowhere-haunts-montenegro-idUSKBN1K60QX)

It seems to be China "invading" countries to gain territory only in a
roundabout way. Like the Godfather China made an offer that couldn't be
refused.

~~~
ssijak
I’ll take useless bridge any day over so many destroyed bridges that US left
in montenenegro in yugoslavia bombings and wars elsewere in the world.

~~~
nradov
Technically the bombing was done by NATO. The US forces which participated
were just one of several militaries acting under overall NATO command.
Ironically Montenegro is now a NATO member.

------
screye
The biggest problem with the BRI initiative as sold by China, is it puts money
in the hand of the least trusted entity with developing economies. The
Government.

China for certain, knows that the optimistic promise of the BRI initiative
will be met, and that they are trading long term debt with strong political
influence.

What happened in Srilanka should be a warning to any other country intending
to enter BRI.

There is a reason these countries would never start these projects without
outside support. It is because, within the framework that the country
operates, such a project will objectively speaking, never be profitable.

~~~
justicezyx
Was the oligarchy in those nations any better than their government?

Government at least is a more observable entity than oligarchy.

And let's not pretend uneducated citizens know any better to manage
investment...

------
coliveira
China is doing what is a great advancement for the world: integrating east and
west, and in the process bringing the long forgotten areas in the middle east
into the world trading order. The more investment in the Silk road, the more
we will have a robust economic system integrating countries that until now
were forgotten by the previous world order.

~~~
dmix
They weren't 'forgotten' they were made irrelevant through technology
(airplanes, shipping containers, etc) and geo-political trends (the fall of
the ottoman empire).

As great as it sounds on paper there are quite a few economists who are
skeptical about the ROI from all of these investments.

But I do like how bold it is, which you rarely find in western countries
(large scale infrastructure projects). They can barely build a stretch of road
without it costing 10x the budget and getting caught up in years of political
horse trading.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
'There are quite a few economists who are skeptical about the ROI from all of
these investments'.

Yes but the BRI is not designed solely for economic gain, but to lay the basis
of a new Sino-centric order.

The closest comparison is with the Marshall plan. The US spent huge sums to
rebuild Western Europe, countries that by the 1970s began to undercut the US
economy. But it was essential to the post-war US order, the defeat of Soviet
Union, and other long-range strategic goals.

------
jjcc
There is some information that usually won't show up in BBC but discussed in
other places which might worth some attention for HNers:

Some part of the cooperation is on development of Africa which probabley is
part of China's current plan or even part of OBOR. We know that Italy is major
victim of the wave of iligle immigrants accross the ocean. An inductrialized
and stable Africa is also in the interest of Italy. That could explain why
Italy is more interested in OBOR than other Eurapian countries.

Does that make sense?

~~~
oh_sigh
Why aren't migrants shipped around proportionately to the various EU
countries?

~~~
MagnumOpus
Because (a) borders in Schengen are open so migrants who get shipped can move
somewhere else without issue and (b) many EU countries have xenophobic
governments at the helm which would prevent such a solution (just like they
prevent being a migrant destination by treating them as inhumanly as
possible).

~~~
kanjus
Your (a) is untrue.

For one, borders are difficult for migrants to cross: trains and coaches near
borders are often checked for migrants, some borders are under police
surveillance (like between France/Italy), etc.

Second, Dublin agreements force migrants to apply for asylum in the first EU
country that they give their fingerprints in (ie the one where they have their
first encounter with police). Most migrants have fingerprints in Italy,
Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Spain, ie the countries on the outskirts of Europe.
So migrants can’t just walk to the country of their choice and claim asylum,
as they will be “deported”, as a rule, to a country they explicitly don’t want
to be in (Italy had high acceptance rates until recently but can offer no
work, Hungary is known for extreme racism and violence against migrants, etc.)

Your (b) is on point though. Italy has been asking for a fairer distribution
of migrants among the Member States for some time, but the most powerful
Member States like their South/Eastern European moat a lot

------
hemantv
China need to win over India if it wants Belt and Road.

------
outwebbyyou
Hmm. Italy allies with an evil dictatorship that has a concentration camps for
millions of minorities, and prosecutes religion by shutting down churches and
jailing pastors. Sounds familiar...

~~~
coliveira
The US has allied itself with China since the 80s...

~~~
adventured
The US is not an ally of China. It cooperates with China to maintain peaceful
military and political relations in Asia and it has vast trade with China.
There's a dramatic, fundamental difference between being an ally and being a
global competitor that you try to get along with (ie try not to go to war with
as you collide repeatedly on matters of perceived national interest).

Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South
Korea, Philippines, etc. Those are allies of the US. I don't think there's
actually much confusion in the difference between a US ally relationship like
Britain and the modern US relationship with China.

~~~
coldtea
> _There 's a dramatic, fundamental difference_

Yes, the difference being "when it suits the US it's OK, when it suits
somebody else, it's bad".

~~~
coldtea
> _China is built on thievery and finally after decades of escalating theft US
> is looking like we’re being more aggressive, maybe._

Yeah, more proving my point.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-02-01/piracy...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-02-01/piracy-
and-fraud-propelled-the-u-s-industrial-revolution)

[https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-
too/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/)

Not to mention that the same exact argument was once leveled at the "subpar"
"copycat" "ripoffs" of Taiwan and Japan (regarding cars, electronics, etc)
back in the 60s and 70s. Funny how that turned out...

------
3o4xkp
> The European Union is also worried about unfair competition from Chinese
> companies, which are controlled by the Chinese government and benefit from
> the state’s financial backing.

So... like many European companies and even entire sectors?

~~~
seppin
Besides Oil and Gas, which companies are state owned? Bonus points: which of
those states are authoritarian?

~~~
3o4xkp
I didn't say state-owned, I said they had economical backing from the state.
Many of them. Just look at the bottom of many European websites and you'll see
the logo of the EU.

Whether the states are authoritarian or not is irrelevant to me and to the
question.

------
purple-again
The weakness of centralized planning is what allowed the western way of life
to dominate in a world where technology hampered its effectiveness.

In this new world we may need to accept that our individualistic nature has
become that very same weakness that dooms our way of life in the great game of
life.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Maybe it's getting late, but I can't seem to parse your first sentence.

What is the _its_ you are referring to when you say technology hampered _its_
effectiveness.

Secondly, I don't believe it is widely accepted that our _nature is
individualistic_. Individualism is a moral stance, political philosophy,
ideology, social outlook.

~~~
CptFribble
I think the GP means that central planning was hard to pull off without modern
communication tech like phones and internet. So, the western style of
federated semi-autonomous regions proliferated, since it didn't depend on
strong central control.

However, in the age of instant global communications, it may be that effective
central planning is "better," or at least possible.

And now, the individualistic model may not be compatible with the planet-scale
adjustments we need to make to prevent catastrophic environmental change.

Also, I agree individualism is not necessarily humans' natural state. We
probably self-organize into loosely affiliated extended family units in the
absence of imposed hierarchy, but humans are nothing if not adaptable.

~~~
wenc
Centralized planning works if leaders are "right" about things, and have a
certain measure of benevolence. Many East Asian economies (Singapore, South
Korea, China, Taiwan, etc.) had dictators that did the "right" thing and
brought about huge economic growth.

However, centralized planning has one fatal evolutionary flaw -- any errors
from the top are amplified. The biggest example of this was China closing its
ports in the 1400s following imperial decree, which started China's long path
to civilizational decline because it cut off trade and new ideas. (China's
thinking was: we're big and diverse enough internally -- we don't need no one
else. This kind of insularity always brings about downfall.)

In Europe, because there wasn't a single monolithic power but instead many
independent jurisdictions, as a whole it was more robust to errors. When a
certain nation-state was on the rise, another declined, but overall there was
progress. There were many golden ages, e.g. Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and
English, and they each had their time in the sun. Europe as a whole
progressed.

Centralized planning is always more efficient; but if the leaders get it
wrong, errors can be catastrophic.

Decentralized/democratic systems are always less efficient; but are ultimately
more robust to changing environments and errors in the system. They are self-
correcting to some extent.

Many successful countries start out with centralized systems, and often
transition to decentralized/democratic systems (often not without some
upheaval). The United States (and a few other countries) are unique in the
sense that they started with a democratic ideal, but as far as I can tell they
are exceptions to the norm.

~~~
CptFribble
Agreed. I feel modern tech could enable a style of government that combines
central planning with fast cycles of democratic leadership selection, allowing
a sort of "fail faster" approach to policy experimentation so-to-speak, but
only when combined with a strong safety net to catch the people who fall
through the mistakes.

But such a thing would probably require forming a new society from scratch. As
you mentioned, the USA was the "Great Experiment" that many old-world
royalists scoffed at. Maybe the time will come for another?

------
vicpara
Centralised planning will beat democratised decision making if they indeed
manage to respond in time to a changing environment. The advancements in tech
and communication allows you today to be more effective than ever. Think about
global corporations with offices around the world. They are effectively
operating under a centralised model and they do it very well.

What China learnt in the past 4 decades was how to manage the beast, not
behead the messenger and have an effective planning anchored in true market
signals.

Another point worth mentioning is that the Four Tigers are working with a
planning and investment horizon of 30-50 years. Since they don't have to
justify every four years about what they've been up to, they can be more
effective in chasing bigger investments that have a longer-term ROI such as
research, education, strategic industrial branches.

Now how do you compete with that?

~~~
thetechlead
Some people still think China's economy is a centralized one. No it's not.
It's a mix of state owned and private - the former really good at long-term
planning for national strategic goals, maintaining economic stability and
building infrastructures with no short term returns, AND vibrating private
sectors that drive innovation and employment. How they keep the balance of the
two is mythical to many. However the Chinese came to this mixed system not by
design, but with some luck. It needs to be studied and whether it can be
replicated elsewhere remains a question.

~~~
chessturk
My understanding is that the Chinese economy is an "artificial" Free Market
economy to bridge the gap between Maoism and here-to unforseen Communist
Utopia. Hegelian/classical Marxist thinking requires a society to pass through
a capitalist phase in order to industrialize to the point that the populace
begins demanding socialist concessions.

It was my understanding that the Post-Mao creation of free-market-like
conditions in China was an admission by Communist leadership that the Hegelian
model of history could not be short circuited (as Lenin and Mao attempted),
and capitalist style economics was required to industrialize, but that the
capitalist economics was a temporary solution.

I could be mistaken though, and I'm curious why you thought they arrived there
by luck.

------
thetechlead
If you look really closely, and look at the right index, the development of
homosapiens today is in a very dare situation. In gross industry out, which
should be the true measure of national power, most major economis grow less
than one percent even recession after deducting inflation. We human beings are
at a historical low since the last industrial revolution. The reason is
simple. We are no longer building amazing infrastructures in a large scale as
we used to do.

However there's one exception, China. The gross output of China will soon be
equivalent to the rest of the world combined. China consumes more cement and
steel in five years than the US did in the last 100 years, and China has built
more than half of the world's high-speed rails, in just 20 years. It's really
a miracle.

That's why I think the BRI could be a real opportunity for many, where China
tries to replicate its model of development to other countries through
infrastructure building, and investment that those countries desperately need.
The new silk road project will be the project of the century. For sure the
Chinese will build influence upon it, even a new world order. Time to perfect
your Mandarin skill!

