When then-Italian prime minister Giuseppe Conte signed up for China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2019, Italy became the only G7 country to become a BRI member. Then-White House National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis responded to the news by saying that Italy should not be legitimizing “China’s infrastructure vanity project.”
The BRI is no vanity project, and it is a dangerous mistake to underestimate it. While flawed, it is an audacious, innovative and effective mechanism for promoting Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) attempt to subvert the established international world order.
The BRI has been called the New Silk Road. It has also been dubbed “globalization with Chinese characteristics.” It consists of two railroad routes extending from China through Asia into Europe, one via Russia, Belarus and Poland, the other taking in Central Asia, Iran and Turkey. There is also a maritime route between China and the Mediterranean via the Indian Ocean and the Suez Canal, as well as air freight routes between China and Europe. The BRI brings together 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 35 in Europe and Central Asia, and 25 in East Asia and the Pacific region.
Essentially, the core concept of the BRI is to provide investment in infrastructure projects in participating countries to fabricate a sprawling trade and supply chain network that ostensibly benefits those countries, but ultimately consolidates centralized control of the entire network in Beijing.
Just as it is a mistake to disregard the scale and audacity of the BRI, it is a mistake to regard it as simply being about trade. More importantly, it is about enhancing China’s power and influence throughout the globe, not only by controlling the supply chains, and conjuring up trade and an export destination for China’s construction sector surplus capacity, but also by promoting loyalties among member countries and thereby providing an alternative to the US’ global influence and the narrative of how the world can most effectively be ordered.
Beijing recognizes that the US’ strength derives from its network of alliances. It wants to play the US at its own game, and must have been delighted at getting a G7 member EU country on board, because of the opportunity it presented to drive a wedge between Washington and the EU. Italy’s decision to join in 2019 was significant enough for Xi to make the trip to Rome and deliver a speech to mark the event.
However, Italy’s experience with the BRI has not been entirely positive. Chinese exports to Italy have soared, but there has only been a very modest increase in Italian exports to China since 2019.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said that her government is considering withdrawing from the BRI, and that she would make a decision by December.
Washington would be happy if she removes the country from the initiative. This would not be because of the trade aspect; it would be because of the geopolitical implications of the withdrawal.
Meloni’s December deadline is part of the original agreement: Italy’s membership is due to automatically renew in March next year, unless Rome officially declares its intention to withdraw, at which time it can renegotiate the terms. Everything she has said before suggests she is serious about leaving.
In an interview published on Sunday in the Corriere della Sera newspaper, Italian Minister of Defense Guido Crosetto described Conte’s decision to join the BRI as “improvised and atrocious.” It is telling that it was the country’s defense minister making the comment.
Taipei would also be relieved if Meloni pulls Italy out: With all the progress made recently with internationalizing the Taiwan Strait issue and improving ties with EU countries, having Beijing controlling supply chains into the center of Europe is cause for concern.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS