More from @MacaesBruno

Bruno Maçães

@MacaesBruno

22 Dec

A bit of history: it was actually the EU that pushed Beijing to have a deal in 2020 as part of its toughening up on China since 2018. One could argue things have changed, but formally it’s a Chinese concession, not the opposite

Remember also that the EU made a wager in 2018 that it could get better results than Trump using its own methods. Many in DG Trade feel it worked and difficult to back away from triumph. In sum: a really critical moment for EU as a global power

@jakejsullivan

.@jakejsullivan tweet raising eyebrows in Brussels: people will insist the EU negotiates its own trade and investment deals...

Read 6 tweets

Bruno Maçães

@MacaesBruno

17 Dec

Difficult to see the EU signing an investment treaty with China if Trump has won the election

Yes, the EU has been interested for a long time and China became more committed to the idea over the last two years. But there was still a lot of trepidation in Europe. Biden was reassuring:

1. Allies will no longer be unilaterally punished for their decisions by Washington. 2. Biden will recover the search for an embedded global order including China. The EU is just contributing to that
(...)

Read 6 tweets

Bruno Maçães

@MacaesBruno

15 Dec

If there is indeed an investment treaty between China and EU this month, buckle up for all the media stories on how the Belt and Road will take over the world (after having died last week)

Will be a difficult story for the EU to manage - at exact moment when it also wants to revive the transatlantic link

You may ask how the EU could sign a major international agreement with China during a pandemic that started in China. But that is in a way the point: businesses in Europe are drawing the conclusion that if the Chinese economy is thriving during Covid, then it can’t be avoided

Read 5 tweets

Bruno Maçães

@MacaesBruno

14 Dec

@ft

Final comments on @ft China story: 1. Database seriously underestimates loan books. Loans are not transparent and authors have a stringent requirement which will miss a large loan volume. This is not the way to proceed if you’re interested in China’s international position

2. Policy banks are not the crux of the Belt and Road. Much more important to look at commercial banks and FDI. That FDI is at the core of BRI was explicit from the start and only intensified in recent years

3. Infrastructure is only one pillar of BRI and not the most important one. Initiative is fundamentally about industry and technology. Industrial parks, value chains, acquisitions and trade are critical

Read 4 tweets

Bruno Maçães

@MacaesBruno

13 Dec

@ft

That Boston University study that was quoted by the @ft last week can only be described as a joke. I just spent one hour looking at annual reports and the numbers don’t add up. They seem completely made up

At first glance there is something odd about the database. Ostensibly it’s about biodiversity and indigenous lands. Why are these metrics being used to measure Chinese financial presence?