RSS

Tue, Sep 15th 2009, 15:55

Member deleted

There are some deep-seated prejudices that seem to be at work here. China usually seems to be evoking this kind of reaction from most "western" commentators and one wonders why. The more rational reason - when faced with products from China - would be about product quality and that kind of concern is a valid one. This is simply Chinese business making inroads or what one terms as Foreign Direct Investment. Just like there is no homogeniety when one talks of European business or US business or japanese business (they all compete rather strongly within their own states as well - the perks of a free market ina free world), there is no homogeniety of Chinese business either. Views that link 'national interests' with investment and trade-relations can not be merely allowed to throw forth a notion of 'national interest' without having those states explicitly state out their aims and objectives as well as their national interests.
The moment one speaks of states elucidating their national interest - one is speaking about world views and certain directions/trajectories of 'affecting' events/outcomes that also affects the future of not only those states but the world at large. Hence, the clear enunciation of 'national interests' should be made and that also assuages apprehensions of a new kind of "racism" from elsewhere that also carries religious overtones. The protection of the domestic market and Foreign Direct Investment are not equal or the same. Hence the concerns over 'Chinese' presences in the world of investment and trade seem to mirror the concern that China may be forming the new 'OTHER' - just like the soviet Union earlier was and Russia continues to be in many senses. The creation of too many powerful states into the OTHER marks a threat to world security and peace in the long run. One suggests that one should be careful before one elucidates certain views over trade and investment and tying that up with the issue and notion of national interest.
All of this commentary because existing laws in Europe already ensure that organizations (including business concerns, etc.) within the territory of the EU function within the ambit of the host states and the applicable EU laws. Hence tying up the domestic political structures of trading entities with the notion of business opportunities and environments within Europe would be severely restricting the ability of most states that are outside the transatlantic region. Moreover, such a filter would need to be in place for every state - and not merely states that act as the trojan horses for the global uncivil society. Important concern that has more meat for the strategic security of Europe than tactical paranoia coupled with 'democratic ' myopia.

Tue, Sep 15th 2009, 17:49

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

@Acharya,

It's a sign that the chinese economy is maturing. One usually sees this when an upstart starts buying up every dodgy company in sight. Europeans were writing the same thing
about the US multinationals in 1968, the US wrote it about Japan in 1987, and now it's the Chinese turn.

The deep irony is that when the upstart goes on their buying spree, history shows that it usually ends up hugely overpaying. Not surprising, the locals are hardly going to sell you the
good stuff, are they?