The Economist has highlighted the considerable exposure to the Chinese market among leading German companies. Judging from their CEOs public statements, this is not going to change any time soon. A short thread /1
"We never considered to move away from China. We strengthened our China production, especially as an example for the modules for electromobility, and will continue to do so."
"Our company stands for a globalized world with over 650.000 employees, over 100.000 of them in China. Over one fourth of the Volkswagen Group’s plants are located in China."
"Rorsted said Adidas would 'invest heavily' in China, where he saw huge long-term potential. The firm is on track to add 2,000 stores in China and hit 12,000 by 2020"
“As a long-term and well-established partner of China and its industries, we support the call of the Belt and Road initiative and take another solid step forward on a larger scale and a wider scope"
"China remains a large part of the potential pool for carmakers and certainly for Mercedes-Benz. It is a market that we will continue doubling down on and increasing our footprint in"
Journalists should ask CEOs of these big German corporations about the long-term implications of being overexposed to one particular market. How do they avoid unhealthy dependencies? And can they monitor their supply chains in China and ensure that there is no forced labour? /End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@METhorley and I looked at MNC-host government relations through the prism of the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) corruption scandal in our co-authored article for the Journal of Current Chinese Affairs (JCCA) /2 journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
We found that normative bargaining leverage (the use of standards and norms, considered legitimate by both sides, to gain advantage or protect one’s position) in the PR China is illusory and that the Chinese party-state possesses far greater negative bargaining leverage ... /3
I just re-read Professor Auer's @stefanauer_hku fascinating research article "Merkel’s Germany and the European Union: Between Emergency and the Rule of Rules".
His article can help us understand Merkel's advocacy of the highly controversial #CAI /1
Auer writes that "Europe’s many problems are centred around Germany, the reluctant hegemon (Paterson 2011) whose leadership oscillates between acting in the name of the exception and insisting on an apolitical adherence to the rule of law" /2
While he insists that this article is "not just about one particular political leader" he makes clear that "Angela Merkel and her governing style – ‘avoiding politics whenever possible’ (...) – serve as a synecdoche that captures problems inherent in the European project" /3
Western liberal democracies do not have to chose between naive China engagement or blind confrontation.
Western politicians and policymakers have repeated this false dichotomy ad nauseam.
Let me explain why this *binary and reductionist approach to China policy* is flawed /1
Unconditional China engagement is naive since under the conditions of increasing CCP censorship western dialogue with China is no longer free & open-ended. Cooperation with China does not deserve this name when Europeans cannot select their cooperation partners & topics freely /2
That does not mean that the only alternative is blind confrontation and interventionism aimed at regime change, Steve Bannon-style. Chinese citizens have to decide themselves what kind of political system they want to live in. This is not a decision outsiders can make for them /3
This was rather predictable. Following the publication of @edwardlucas Weekend Essay in @thetimes colleagues of mine have received malicious email communications which attempt to smear my professional reputation. 1/10
The malicious email was sent from a spoofed email account in @lukedepulford's name. It states “Please keep an eye on Professor Fulda. over the next few weeks. He’s been showing sign of psychological issues that are symptomatic of delusional negative repetitive thoughts”. 2/10
So what is happening here? State agents and/or non-state agents acting on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) incur penalties for public statements which they consider hostile to the interests of the Chinese party-state. 3/10
The Times has published a thought-provoking editorial titled 'Safeguarding Scholarship'. It references the guidelines 'Managing risks in Internationalisation: Security related issues', which were published by @UUKIntl today 1/10
While there is much to like about this timely and important @UUKIntl initiative, there are also shortcomings which need to be addressed. Let me highlight the strengths of the report and then point out areas for improvement 2/10
The report is country agnostic and calls for 1. Protecting your reputation and values, 2. Protecting your people, 3. Protecting your campuses, and 4. Protecting your partnerships. This is a comprehensive list of activity areas 3/10
Over 100 leading scholars have called for a united front in defence of academic freedoms amid increasing pressure from the Chinese government since the passing of Hong Kong’s National Security Law. 1/32
The group of international signatories includes some of the world’s leading authorities on Chinese politics, law, and modern history. The statement notes that the universal jurisdiction claimed by Article 38 of the National Security Law ... 2/32
... raises the unsettling prospect of students travelling through Hong Kong and China facing the possibility of being handed lengthy prison sentences on the basis of academic work deemed to be ‘subversive’ by Chinese authorities. 3/32