This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://voxeurop.eu/en/2019/china-eu-5123837
Yes, that’s the Chinese way to achieve dominance: unlike Russia that relies on rather primitive confrontation (despite using latest technologies in particular in propagandidistic and hybrid operations), China’s has adopted the strategy to achieve economic dominance and control of global resources, technological, information and transportation infrastructure, trade routes and globally important corporations.
It is sad that this approach was allowed primarily by Western arrogance, ignorance and stupidity with which West agreed with highly asymmetric business relations in which Western companies had to hand their know-how to China if they wanted to invest in China (by being forced to create a joint-venture with at least half of the share belonging to Chinese) and agreeing with numerous other restrictions while Chinese didn’t have any restrictions. Yes, at first it seems advantageous because the corporations could cut costs and had big market, however, sooner they found out that Chinese have gained the know-how, learned from them - and now not only they don’t need the Western companies but they have their own (often highly innovative) products selling in the Western companies’ home markets on the territory of EU and the USA.
The case of Huawei is best known but its typical for many others: originally company founded by Chinese army to produce and sell copies of Western products has achieved such a level of development that basically neither country in the world can exist without its technologies because there is no adequate replacement not only in term of price but also real availability (it applies in particular for 5G). And while the core R&D is done in China (btw. houses in their main campus are built to resemble EU historical sites - probably because they think that only history is interesting in EU, see- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwgAaUetoQk) but - as the article itself mentions - Huawei built also numerous R&D sites directly in EU employing ingenuity of EU citizens for the glory of profit of China.
And EU? Instead of trying to counter with preparing more welcoming environment to technological companies is coming with additional regulations (like the rather non-sensible GDPR) and higher taxation, instead of reducing bureaucracy and and accelerating constructions (both private and public) requires additional red-tape due to various environmental assessments, etc. (China has just opened the largest airport in the world completely built in 4 years while new Berlin airport is still used as a playground for skaters; btw how long would it take to built the Huawei-sized Chinese campus in EU if it was eventually permitted?), instead of channeling money to its own technological and infrastructural development, EU aims to redirect even more tax payers money to migration, development help, environment funding help around the world … and other spending that is absolutely useless for EU and that no other competing power does; and instead of protecting its corporations and making clear distinction between running business within the common EU markets and elsewhere, it is signing free trade treaties with countries that are small to be significant export market for EU companies but developed enough to significantly import to EU (e.g. Canada, South Korea, Japan) and gives preferential treatment to developing countries so that it is more advantageous for EU companies to invest in Turkey or Maghreb than in EU members that have high unemployment or are less industrialized (like Balkan or southern EU members) …
So can anybody be surprised that EU citizens highly distrust EU and disdain European mainstream political elite?!
Ericsson has issued a report about 5G outlook in EU, recently. It clearly states that the main reason why EU is falling behind is in policies of national states as well as EU:
"To prevent Europe falling behind other developed regions when it comes to rolling out 5G, policymakers need to adjust spectrum and infrastructure policies to alleviate the financial burdens on mobile operators, improve cross-border coordination and reduce regulatory hurdles to site buildouts. "
Ok. Lass sie reden.
Was soll den ein Telko-Lobbyist, gleich der Wetterlage, sonst behaupten.
The “Telko-Lobbyist” is objectively right that EU is falling behind America and Asia in digitization and about the reasons (high initial investments due to auctions lead to insufficient funds for a good coverage and high prices for customers which leads to lower usage and thus lower revenues and hindrance for development of digital economy; and excessive bureaucracy leads to long times before any infrastructure construction can be completed).
Of course, there are many models that can be opted for in order to improve the situation. A good option can be the model where instead of selling the frequencies to operators in auctions, the state would keep the frequencies and build the core digital infrastructure under its own control and leased the prepared infrastructure to final operators. Thus the valuable resource would not get out of public control, the administrative processes could speed up (due to making it priority) and the telco operators would not have so high initial costs. Note that building and maintaining the core digital infrastructure would be much cheaper than building and maintaining physical infrastructure (roads, highways, railways) which the state already builds under its own control. And it could get priority in EU in the name of fighting the climate change because well working digital economy and e-government could eliminate need for significant amount of physical transportation.