“Double-track strategy” of “partnership” on climate change and “critical dialogue” on HK, human rights & market access etc. Such terms are frequently used by German politicians and diplomats, but in fact they obscure rather than elucidate Germany’s China policy /1
Germany's foreign trade policy towards China isn't "strategic" but transactional. German gov't seems beholden to narrow corporate interests of German car manufacturers & chemical industry. Putting so many eggs in the Chinese market also enhances the CCP's leverage over Germany /2
Or let's talk about "partnership" on climate change. An insane amount of coal power plants are currently under construction in China. Whenever the economy needs to be stimulated the Chinese party-state ignores international climate change agreements /3
wired.com/story/china-is…
wired.com/story/china-is…
Let's also critique "critical dialogue". Sounds good in theory, but talk without action is verbalism. The current German government lacks an important lever in the diplomatic toolbox: the ability to make credible threats to impose targeted sanctions against key CCP personnel /4
As I have argued in the @ConversationUK we need to overcome the overly binary and reductionist choices between China engagement vs containment. Instead western governments should move towards China constrainment (which is not the same as containment) /5
theconversation.com/playing-hardba…
theconversation.com/playing-hardba…
The Merkel/Maas administration should engage in China constrainment: "Tell China that the outside world has interests that will be defended by means of incentives for good behaviour, deterrence of bad behaviour, and punishment when deterrence fails." (Gerald Segal, 1996) /End
Compile @threader_app
@threadreaderapp unroll
