"The agreement with China for the Silk Road is a positive fact, but to give meaning to the operation now it is absolutely necessary to proceed to the collection". He explains to FIRSTonline how to get paid Giuliano Noci, pro-rector of the Chinese territorial pole of the Milan Polytechnic and among the leading experts on Italy-China relations, who first of all recognizes the merits of the previous governments as well ("The operation had been incubating for several years, it was not new to this government") and then dismissed the reaction of the European partners: "Macron a few days later he also welcomed Chinese president Xi Jinping with great pomp, signing an even more substantial agreement for Airbus: from his point of view he did well, but after having preached well, the facts said something else. It is clear that France and Germany want to maintain their lead on the Chinese market, but a unified position is needed. Having said that, we too could have done more and managed communication better…”.
Professor, while the French president took home 30 billion for Airbus, our Memorandum of understanding in the end is worth only 7 for our companies. How do you judge the agreement reached with Xi Jinping?
“More could certainly have been done. The agreement, as it stands, at the moment recognizes above all a political success for China, which thus becomes a partner of a western country member of the G7. For us it should and should be an opportunity to recover the disadvantage we have in trade relations with China. At the moment, however, this aspect is missing, we still need to give a complete meaning to the operation”.
What do you mean?
“That the Government, in the next few weeks, must finalize the general agreement, must clearly explain the framework of business opportunities for our companies. We need to bring home some concrete results, such as a joint business strategy with Beijing in the ports of Trieste and Genoa, to avoid ending up like Greece with Piraeus, whose management company is 100% controlled by China. Instead, joint ventures would be more desirable, with the aim of intensifying trade routes to Asia. Not only that: some sectors of our industry, in particular agri-food, chemical and pharmaceutical, still have difficulty accessing the Chinese market, and this disadvantage must be reduced. Finally, with China we could also identify countries, both in Asia and in Africa, in which to do business together".
Why also in Africa?
“It could be a strategic area because China, as is known, has had its hands on that continent for years, but now it may need to dilute its presence, in order not to be accused of colonialism. What better partner than Italy, which boasts a historical and consolidated presence in Africa, above all through the activities of an important company such as Eni? For the operation of the Silk Road to make sense, real industrial opportunities must be defined for our economic system”.
In your opinion, is the Government aware of this need, or will it tend to settle for the symbolic signature?
“I can't tell you, we'll see in the coming weeks. But it would be a very serious mistake to settle for it”.
Meanwhile our European partners, France and Germany in primis, are angry.
“Surely we could have managed communication better, but it is also true that the attitude of Paris and Berlin is wrong, because it tends to want to protect the advantage that Germany above all has in relations with China. Germany is the only European country with a positive trade balance with Beijing. Italy, which net of energy goods is the fifth country in the world and the first in Europe for general trade surplus, has a negative balance with China. In some sectors we export more to Switzerland, a country of 8 million inhabitants, than to China, which has 1,3 billion inhabitants and where until a few years ago we didn't even touch the ball, to put it in football jargon. This was undoubtedly our mistake, but Europe is contradicting itself in sticking with us: just a year ago, the Commission launched the EU-China Connectivity Platform, a short-term action plan to foster relations between all member countries with China”.
Perhaps, however, the mistake was to go ahead alone, risking isolating ourselves.
“No, I don't agree with the isolation issue. Italy miscommunicated but has every right to bridge the gap in relations with China. France and Germany have worked better in the past and now they want things to stay as they are as much as possible, to defend their position and leave other countries like Italy behind. But then why sign that document last year? It would have been one thing to say 'we don't want interactions with Beijing', another to criticize Italy and after a few days receive Xi and sign other agreements. If anything, the mistake is that the individual states do everything by themselves, we need a single European line. But a unitary line must not mean defending the interests of France and Germany: it must benefit everyone, including Italy”.
But we, as you said before, in China until some time ago we didn't even touch the ball. Didn't we wake up too late?
“Definitely yes, compared to our competitors we were left out because in the years between 2000 and 2012, in the midst of the Chinese boom, we didn't organize ourselves. Beijing entered our orbit only in 2012 with the Monti government and then with subsequent ones. In fact, the Silk Road operation is not a 'coup' of this government, but it had been in the pipeline for years, it had already been 'set up' by previous governments: in 2017 the then premier Paolo Gentiloni was the only head of government of a G7 country to participate in the Belt&Road Forum chaired by Xi Jinping in Beijing”.
For what reasons did Italy move so late on the Asian front?
“For several factors. Partly due to the size of our companies, which are mostly medium-small and therefore less equipped to attack a market like the Chinese one; partly because our historical areas of influence are more oriented towards the Atlantic or Africa and the Middle East. But above all for a lack of political vision. As I said before, in some sectors we export more to countries like Switzerland than to China: if only considering the demographic factor, we have decidedly the wrong strategy".
However, relations between Europe and China do not only concern industrial and commercial aspects. There is also the great match of technological infrastructures, with a Chinese company, Huawei, which ended up in the eye of the storm but which - despite US pressure - will be able to participate in the installation of the 5G network in Europe, without prejudice to the possibility of individual countries to exclude it in case of security risks. What do you think and how should Italy move?
“Meanwhile, 5G is a key infrastructure, which will revolutionize the world in the coming years. Italy is - like other countries - in an experimental phase, with Milan as the leader of a project in which the Politecnico di Milano also participates and which has Huawei as its technical partner. Unfortunately, by selling companies such as Italtel and Elettra in the 90s, we gave up the possibility of having an active role in telecommunications and therefore we needed to resort to foreign operators. Whether they are American, Northern European or Chinese, it doesn't matter: the theme is to guarantee the maximum security of a strategic infrastructure. For this reason, in my opinion, it is necessary to set up an ad hoc Authority as soon as possible to monitor and certify the devices, somewhat along the lines of what the UK is doing. Whether Huawei will play a central role in Italy I can't say, but certainly today the leadership on new technologies at a global level is held by the Chinese TLC".
