View from abroad : How to get a good democratic transition (Originally published 17/10/2015 at Dawn.com)

So what’s democracy all about? And is there a magic formula for ensuring a successful transition from authoritarian rule to democracy?If you’ve ever asked that question and fretted about the state of your nation, pick up a fascinating just-released book From Authoritarian Rule Toward Democratic Governance: Learning from Political Leaders by International IDEA — the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance — which tells you just how to ensure successful democratic transitions.Authors of the in-depth study, based on a conversation with 13 former presidents from nine countries on four continents, have come up with 10 lessons on what works and what doesn’t work when nations embark on the often-perilous path to democracy.A quick glance at the headlines, including the chaos in Egypt, violence in Syria and Libya and still fragile transitions in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Myanmar make clear that Democratic Transitions should be obligatory bedside reading for all would-be democrats, wherever they are.And while some countries like Pakistan may pride themselves on having moved from democratic transition to democracy, I would ask: really? Given the state of governance in the country, the book should be compulsory reading not just for the prime minister and his advisers but all opposition politicians — and army men — with aspirations to lead the country.After having talked to men — there are no women leaders who were interviewed but there is a chapter on the role of women in political transformations — Abraham Lowenthal from the Brookings Institution and Sergio Bitar, a former minister in successive Chilean governments, have come up with what they term “10 imperatives for crafting democratic transitions”.So what are the lessons learned?First, opposition leaders should combat repression and dictatorship by moving forward incrementally. In order to combat repression and push for openings, opposition leaders have to exert continuous pressure but be prepared to make compromises to move ahead. Transition-making is not a task for the dogmatic. Dismissing maximalist positions call for more political courage than hewing to impractical principles.Second, throughout the campaign for democracy, project a positive and inclusive vision for democratic change rather than focusing on past grievances. Keep hammering home such as hope and vision to combat the pervasive fear among people who may prefer authoritarian calm — even army rule — over democratic turmoil.Third, build convergence and coalitions among democratic forces. Connect to social movements — workers, students, women, human rights groups and religious institutions — in fashioning the democratising movement’s aims and programmes.Four, create spaces for dialogue between democratic movements and authoritarian regimes — secretly at first if necessary as was the case in South Africa. Informal dialogues can help members of the authoritarian regime and the democratic opposition to understand each other and build a working relationship.Five, act firmly but carefully to achieve democratic civilian control of security services. Transition leaders should take early and decisive action to bring the armed forces, police and intelligence agencies under civilian authority and control while recognising their legitimate roles. The army’s focus should be on external defence and international peacekeeping, not on internal security.Six, craft workable constitutions through an inclusive process and engage a wide range of participants in drafting a constitutional document while also working hard to respond to the core concerns of key groups. Also, provide some assurance to elements and supporters of the former regime that their fundamental economic and institutional concerns and individual rights will be respected under the rule of law.Seven, manage economic tensions to combine growth with equity. Alleviating poverty and dealing with unemployment and inflation often come into conflict with economic reforms needed for future growth. To deal with this tension, adopt social measures to help the poorest and the most vulnerable elements of society.Eight, invest early on in building and institutionalising vibrant political parties given their key role in creating and sustaining democracies — provided they do not become vehicles for individual political figures and their democracies.Nine, to meet the needs for justice and memory, avoid wholescale prosecution of former officials. Instead, establish transparent legal processes to tackle violations of rights, provide recognition and reparation to victims and bring violators to justice.Finally, draw on external support from government and non-governmental actors but remember that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. International actors cannot take the place of domestic initiatives, the study warns. But they can encourage and provide discreet advice. What foreign powers must not do is undertake impatient and counterproductive interventions.As for the qualities of leadership, the book notes that there is not one model for a transition leader. He or she needs to be cool-headed, pragmatic but also full of resolve and courage. Some had the self-confidence to take difficult decisions, others relied on competent associates.All of those interviewed, underlined that top political executives did not work on their own but rather creatively and constructively with many others.And finally a word of warning for those preparing mass protests and demonstrations: democracy does not emerge directly or easily from crowds in the street. Crafting democracies takes vision, time, hard work, persistence, skill — some luck — and above all leadership.

View from abroad : Transatlantic alliance: fact and fiction (Originally published 21/03/2015 at dawn.com)

So here’s the fiction: America and Europe stand united against the “rest of the world”. The transatlantic alliance is strong, solid and a bulwark against the machinations of China and the world’s other emerging nations.Washington and Brussels are like-minded, like-thinking entities which see eye to eye on almost everything. Together, they can still rule the world.Perhaps in the 20th century — but no longer. Here are the facts: the world has changed from unipolar to multi-polar or even “no-polar”. For all its military might, the US no longer rules the world. For proof, look no further than the way Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is obstructing progress on US-Iran nuclear talks.And here are some more facts: America and the EU are divided over the death penalty, Guantanamo Bay, illegal renditions, the use of torture and the revelations of spying by the National Security Agency as revealed by Edward Snowden.They disagree over how to deal with Russia and Ukraine. And while America sees China mainly as a strategic competitor, Europe is happy to work with Beijing on tackling many 21st century challenges.Certainly, there are some points of convergence. Significantly, negotiations are underway on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), seen by many as the last attempt by a declining West to impose its economic rule-making model on a watching world.But even as they seek agreement on TTIP, many European states are posing the BIGGEST challenge to the US by deciding to join the Chinese-led, Chinese-inspired $50 billion Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) which Washington continues to firmly oppose.So far, EU members Britain, France, Germany and Italy have said they want to be founding members of the AIIB. But other Europeans will undoubtedly join their ranks.The story is not just about Washington vs Beijing; it’s about a changing world order, the shift of power from west to east, the rise of China and its challenge to years of US domination.It’s about the need to change and reform post-World War II multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.And it’s about a world desperately in need of cash, especially for badly-needed infrastructure projects — and a rising China which has more money than it can handle.To be fair, US Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew has said that the US was not opposed to the creation of the AIIB. “There are obviously vast needs in Asia and many parts of the world for infrastructure investment,” he told a Congressional hearing on the status of the international financial system.The US concern, he said, has always been whether such an international investment bank will adhere to the high standards such as in protecting workers’ rights, the environment and dealing properly with corruption issues.The bank, proposed by President Xi Jinping in 2013 during a visit to Indonesia, is expected to be launched formally by the end of this year.All Asian countries can apply to become founding members until March 31.Chinese experts say they are looking less for European financial support and more for Europe’s management experience to share with the AIIB.France, Germany and Italy announced they would join the Bank after Britain said it was doing so last week. Australia, a key US ally in the Asia-Pacific region which had come under pressure from Washington to stay out of the new bank, has also said that it will now rethink that position. South Korea is also expected to join.Other European countries are expected to follow the bigger EU nations’ lead. And why not? Like most Asian countries, Europeans are looking to invest in new infrastructure to raise levels of connectivity across the continent.Policymakers are hoping that China will be an important contributor to the 300 billion dollar infrastructure fund announced earlier this year by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.Britain hopes to establish itself as the number one destination for Chinese investment. China is also a strong investor in Germany and in France.Analysts point out that the US has misplayed its hands and that the best way to ensure that China doesn’t dominate the AIIB is to fill it with other powers. This, they argue would result in much stricter governance rules and safeguards.The AIIB is not the only regional project China has proposed that Washington will have to grapple with. Beijing’s “one belt, one road” Silk Road projects are moving rapidly from theoretical to actual, much to the dismay of America and some European states.The Asian Development Bank has estimated Asia’s infrastructure needs at $750 billion a year, far beyond the ADB’s capacity. With connectivity the buzzword across the region, the new Bank is expected to be very busy pumping money into major infrastructure projects.China has also been quick to respond to huge and acute infrastructure needs in the developing world, in contrast with the lengthy project processes required by other lenders.In response to the Chinese initiatives, the Japanese government has also said it wants to focus on infrastructure projects in developing countries.World leaders at the G20 Summit in Brisbane in 2014 recognised infrastructure demand in the developing world as a new source of global growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.The transatlantic trade deal may see the light of the day by end-2015 — even though negotiations are tough and public resistance to the pact is high. But even if they do clinch an agreement on trade, America and Europe will not always share a similar vision of life in a rapidly-changing 21st century.

View from Abroad: Prepare for ‘hard power’ Europe (Originally published 14/03/2015 at dawn.com)

You would think the European Union has its hands full trying to ease the Eurozone crisis and make sure Greece stays within the monetary union. You also would think the 28-nation bloc was happy with its role as the world’s smartest “soft power”, with no boots on the ground but many diplomats, aid workers and trade specialists ready and willing to work for constructive change in an increasingly volatile world.You would be wrong. Forget gentle persuasion and change by incentive rather than coercion. Carrots over sticks. The EU now wants its own army. It’s a tough world and the EU wants to play as tough as the others.Resuscitating a long-held but equally long-discarded concept, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has called for the creation of a European army to make Europe count on the global stage.No more soft words. It’s going to be about soldiers, guns and aircraft carriers. Europe wants to be a hard-nosed hard power, not a softie.Certainly, Europe is right to be worried — and to want to play hard ball. The world in 2015 is messy, chaotic and often violent, with no clear centre of power. In Europe, as Russia flexes its muscles over Ukraine, many decry the end of the post-World War security order.In Asia, re-emerging nations are clamouring for recognition, jostling each other to gain the upper hand as regional and global leaders. Everywhere, international norms and institutions built in the last century are under stress, and seemingly unable to cope with the increasing demands and insecurity of the 21st century.Juncker has said a European army would restore the EU’s foreign policy standing and show it is serious about defending its values. And he insisted that it would not be in competition with Nato, the US-led Western military alliance.“With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighbouring state,” the Commission chief said in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt.He added: “One wouldn’t have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.”Juncker’s proposal does not come out of the blue. The EU has long harboured the idea of an army and has been working hard to forge a credible common security and defence policy for several decades.European military missions are active in the Balkans, Africa and parts of Asia. The soldiers are not there, however, to fight but to monitor elections, keep the peace and manage conflicts.Also, the EU already has battle groups that are manned on a rotational basis and meant to be available as a rapid reaction force. But they have never been used in a crisis.Finally, Europe’s defence is assured by Nato. Put bluntly, if push comes to shove, the US will come to Europe’s assistance with its military might.The timing of the latest proposal is certainly linked to criticism of what many view as Europe’s lacklustre response to Russia’s annexing of Crimea last year and support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine.The scene is clearly set for another long and painful — and distracting — intra-European debate. For starters, Germany likes the idea, Britain does not.German Defence Minster Ursula von der Leyen, underlined in an interview that “our future as Europeans will at some point be with a European army.”The UK government spokesman has warned, however that “our position is crystal clear that defence is a national, not an EU responsibility and that there is no prospect of that position changing and no prospect of a European army.”Geoffrey Van Orden, a conservative member of the European Parliament has accused Juncker of living in a “fantasy world”. “If our nations faced a serious security threat, who would we want to rely on — Nato or the EU? The question answers itself,” he said.Nato isn’t too happy either. The civilian and military heads of Nato have said they would welcome increased EU defence spending but cautioned the bloc against duplicating efforts.Analysts say the fundamental problem with the proposal is that, without full political union, it has no chance of becoming a credible force. So long as fierce national rivalries exist at the heart of policymaking, a common army would quickly find itself reduced to a state of impotence if required to deal with any threat to an EU state.EU member states do not often see eye to eye on major global security issues. During the 2011 Libya campaign, for example, Britain and France played a leading role in the air campaign, while Germany’s staunch opposition meant that Berlin wouldn’t even provide air-to-air refuelling tankers.More recently, deep divisions have arisen over how to tackle Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Ukraine, with Germany and Italy reluctant to support the economic sanctions advocated by Britain and its allies.Many argue that instead of getting caught up in acrimonious debates on a European army, the EU should focus on intensifying member states’ defence cooperation.“Whatever was Jean-Claude Juncker thinking when he called for the creation of an EU army? The notion may have appeal in Germany and perhaps in Luxembourg, too. Elsewhere, it serves only to supply Europhobes with more evidence of Brussels’s reflexive urge to expand its power,” said Nick Witney, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.Whitney may be right. But Juncker is in no mood to back down. And if Germany, the EU’s most influential member state likes the idea — and France opts in — one day there will be a European army — of sorts.

View From Abroad: Europe needs lucid advice on diversity, not US grandstanding (Originally published 21/02/2015 at dawn.com)

Pity embattled European Union leaders. Not only are they grappling with tough-guy Russian President Vladimir Putin, striving to prevent the collapse of the ceasefire in Ukraine while also preventing Greece from exiting the eurozone, they now also have the United States — and Israel — grandstanding and haranguing them on how to reduce racism and make Europe a better and more inclusive place.Europe certainly needs advice on dealing with immigrant communities and the rise in anti-Semitism across the bloc is cause for great concern. But reading the barrage of criticism levelled at European leaders over the last few days I could not help thinking about people in glasshouses not throwing stones at others.Neither the US nor Israel is in a position to give Europe lessons on dealing with minority communities. Neither, by the way, are any Muslim-majority countries whose track record on dealing with minority populations is quite simply abysmal.True, Europe needs to engage in some deep soul-searching on just what kind of a society and future it wants: one in which “foreigners” are treated with contempt, where asylum seekers are allowed to drown as they head for European shores, where the Far Right appears to speak for all of Europe or a more open, diverse and multicultural/religious/ethnic place where all people feel at home.What Europe needs therefore are thoughtful, well-reasoned and lucid advice and counsel on developing new pro-minority policies, ensuring better integration and combating the toxic rhetoric of xenophobic Far Right parties, which currently dominate Europe’s societal and political discourse.Such advice can come from all sources. But make no mistake: this is a global challenge, not just a European one. Such a debate is necessary in most countries, including the US and Israel — and all Muslim ones. When it comes to accepting difference and diversity, all countries are sinners.Discriminatory treatment is not just reserved for those who practise a different religion, come from a different ethnic group or just simply look different but also for those with physical disabilities, different political ideas, a different sexual orientation or just who don’t “fit in”. In some countries, just being a woman means being treated as an inferior being.“Good” countries are aware of the challenges and hammer out — and implement — laws which ban such discriminatory treatment. They develop an inclusive narrative and make sure that criminals are brought to justice. They strive to make everyone feel at home.“Bad” countries do the opposite. They may be aware of the problem but often pretend that their nation is perfect. They don’t stand up for the victims of racism/discrimination. There is no focus on accountability or securing justice.Yes, that is an over-simplification. But so is the advice that Europe has received recently. US presidential hopeful Jeb Bush recently told foreign policy experts that America under his rule would welcome immigrants. Unlike Europe, Bush said that “we come in 34 different flavours” and “we have the potential to be young and dynamic again”.US Vice President Joe Biden told last week’s three-day White House summit on countering violent extremism that Europe was vulnerable to radicalised attacks because immigrants in the EU are less integrated into the local societies compared with the US. “I’m not suggesting ... that I think America has all the answers here. We just have a lot more experience,” Biden said and stressed that “inclusion counts”.Bush and Biden are right in some aspects: America could some years ago claim to be less hysterical about Islam than Europe. But the Tea Party and Fox News are proof that the anti-Muslim diatribes are now the same on both sides of the Atlantic. That’s no surprise given the transatlantic cross-fertilisation of “ideas” on Islam-bashing under way.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meanwhile has made a much-publicised call for European Jews to move to Israel after recent terrorist killings in Denmark. Significantly, his views are prompting a backlash from not only European leaders but Jews themselves. Commentators argue that for many Jews, such remarks ignore, and even insult, the acceptance they feel in the countries where they and their families have often lived for generations.“We are a little confused by this call, which is basically like a call to surrender to terror,” said Arie Zuckerman, senior executive at the Eur­o­pean Jewish Congress. “It may send a wrong message to the lea­ders of Europe.” According to Rabbi Menachem Margolin, “to come out with this kind of statement after each attack is unacceptable.”Not surprisingly many European Muslims feel similarly irritated when leaders from Muslim countries try and give advice to them.Better advice has come from Francois Crepeau, a UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, who has said that the EU needs to change its migrant policy as it doesn’t answer to the problems which are emerging. “A common narrative celebrating mobility and diversity, recognising real labour market needs, as well as the needs of migrants, based on human rights guarantees and access to justice, must be developed,” said Crépeau.The UN Rapporteur is right. European leaders must act urgently to stop the rise in Islamophobia and build more inclusive societies. They should stop pandering to the Far Right. More humane policies are needed towards the endless waves of asylum seekers stuck in Lampedusa and other centres. Above all, attitudes to change.Proof that this can happen is provided by the new Greek government led by Alexis Tsipras. Greece has seen a surge in racist assaults in recent years, with the Golden Dawn fascist party intimidating immigrants and human rights advocates.The new government has pledged to close down detention centres for illegal immigrants that have long been criticised by rights groups as inhuman.Tasia Christodoulopoulou, a veteran human rights attorney who is now Greece’s first-ever minister for immigration, has said Athens has to move quickly to improve the poor reputation it has acquired handling those fleeing poverty and deprivation.Tsipras may be getting flak from other European leaders when it comes to his eurozone politics. But his EU partners could learn a thing or two about trying to build a better society from Greece.

View From Abroad: European lessons for Asian security (Originally published 14/02/2015 at dawn.com)

The just-negotiated ceasefire to stem the conflict in eastern Ukraine may or may not last. But the hard work put in by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French leader Francois Hollande as they negotiated for over 18 hours with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russia’s Vladimir Putin points to the still-potent and constructive security role that European states can play in their neighbourhood.It also underlines that — when it comes to the crunch — it’s Germany, France, and sometimes Britain, rather than the European Union which can do the hard labour involved in defusing tensions and securing a semblance of peace.True, the crisis has spotlighted divisions in the European Union over relations with Russia. The current sanctions regime against Moscow is not popular with all EU states.And certainly, the collapse of previous ceasefires has stoked doubts as to whether this one will hold. But before they throw up their hands in despair and accept confrontation with Russia — or follow America in seeking to send military aid to the Ukrainian army — European leaders will certainly try — and try again — to secure peace in the neighbourhood.And the lesson that peace is worth patiently, painstakingly and repeatedly striving for is an important one for Asia’s many star-crossed nations.This is also why the new European Security Strategy that the EU intends to hammer out by the end of the year should not ignore the different ways in which Europe can help Asia to deal with its many security challenges.Much has changed in the world since the last European Security Strategy was released in 2003, in the aftermath of the Iraq war. As EU foreign and security policy chief Federica Mogherini pointed out at the Munich Security Conference last weekend, the world today is a disorderly place. “The world is far from being a unipolar one, nor is it truly multipolar ... maybe we are living in times of an absence of poles,” Mogherini underlined, adding: “The big question for all of us is ... how do we manage complexity?”Asians are also struggling with the same challenge. For the first time in history, Asia is home to four — even five — important powers: a rising and increasingly assertive China, Japan that wants more influence, Korea searching for an expanded regional role, India which is being wooed by many as a counterweight to China and Asean, the regional grouping which has made peace and cooperation its leitmotif for many years.Trade and investment are the backbone of EU-Asia relations so far. But an EU-Asia conversation on security is set to be the new frontier. The EU cannot afford to be outside the loop of the dramatic geopolitical power games, rivalry and tension being played out in Asia between China, Japan and India — and the 10 south-east Asian members of Asean. Increased spending on arms across Asia is one indication that the region feels insecure, fragile and uneasy.The so-called Asian “paradox” — the fact that the region’s economies are closely knit together but governments are still grappling with historical tensions, is pushing some in Asia to take another, closer look at how Europe has been able to deal with its own tensions.Asian perceptions of security are also changing. The focus on territorial security is shifting to the importance of non-traditional security threats, such as climate change, pandemics, extremism and human trafficking, with some Asians putting the emphasis on “human security”. Across Asia, there is a recognition of the need for a collective or cooperative security architecture. But cooperative security in Asia remains underdeveloped, lacking collective security, regional peacekeeping and conflict resolution functions.Differing threat perceptions, mutual distrust, territorial disputes, concerns over sovereignty make things very difficult.But as their views of security evolve, for many in Asia, the EU is the prime partner for dealing with non-traditional security dilemmas, including food, water and energy security as well as climate change.Asian views of Europe’s security role are changing. Unease about the dangerous political and security fault lines that run across the region and the lack of a strong security architecture has prompted many in Asia to take a closer look at Europe’s experience in ensuring peace, easing tensions and handling conflicts.As Asia grapples with historical animosities and unresolved conflicts, earlier scepticism about Europe’s security credentials are giving way to recognition of Europe’s “soft power” in peace-making and reconciliation, crisis management, conflict resolution and preventive diplomacy, human rights, the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. Europeans, too, are becoming more aware of the global implications of instability in Asia. Clearly, the EU as the world’s largest trading bloc needs safe trading routes and sea lanes.Also, Europeans are now recognising that fragile peace in Asia will have an enormous impact on global security. That is one reason that the EU has signed Asean’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and is seeking entry to the East Asia Summit in order to sit beside the United States and Russia.An important challenge for the EU in its relations with Asia is to retain its identity vis-à-vis the much more dominant role played by the US. As it fashions its distinctive security role in Asia, the EU must make an effort to its own distinct profile in promoting multilateral approaches, the rule of law, good governance and regional integration.And that’s what makes the progress made with Russia over Ukraine so important.

View from Abroad: Western nightmares are just bad dreams (Originally published 19/10/2014 at dawn.com)

It's the stuff of Western nightmares: imagine if, one day, a strong China and a weak but assertive Russia “gang up” against the United States and Europe, winning more friends and allies and imposing their writ on the rest of the world?The recent high profile meetings between Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Russian President Vladimir Putin have been watched carefully — and fretfully — in all Western capitals with uneasy policymakers seeking to understand if this is just a passing show of affection or if the two countries are planning to build a more solid partnership.Beijing has made clear that it has no intention of being part of any geopolitical power play being hatched by Moscow. China’s interests are global. Indeed before he met Putin, Li was in Germany striking two billion euro worth of business deals. He then headed to Italy for more headline-grabbing commercial overtures.Beijing’s standard line is that it has no allies, only friends. That’s not how Russia views the world. Russia in contrast is under Western sanctions. The EU is struggling to reduce its dependence on Russian oil and gas while the Nato military alliance talks menacingly about Russian actions in Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea.Some warn it is the beginning of a second Cold War. Clearly, it isn’t. The multipolar world today is a very different place from what it was in the Cold War years.Still, some thing is afoot. The Russians are working overtime to woo the Chinese. Beijing is clearly interested in accessing more Russian oil and gas, providing Moscow with new markets as Europe diversifies away from Russian energy. Some 50 agreements and memorandums of understanding are reported to be signed during Li’s visit to Moscow, including in areas related to high-speed transit and finance. China is also eager to supply Russia with fruit and vegetables, products that Moscow is no longer importing from Europe.Western attention is focused on Russian-Chinese cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which some in the West view as a potential competitor for Nato. And the recent decision to launch the BRICS bank is seen as a joint challenge by Russia and China to the post-war liberal order and the supremacy of the Bretton Woods institutions.Both China and Russia are often on the same side on tackling global flashpoints, eschewing military intervention unless sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council.There’s no doubt, however, that while it may want to stay friends and do business with Moscow, China has no interest in being seen as Russia’s best friend. As friendships go, in fact, the focus in many envious Western capitals is on the ‘special relationship’ between China and Germany.While in Berlin, Li and German Chancellor Angela Merkel signed deals worth approximately US$18.1 billion, covering cooperation in areas including agriculture, automotive, telecom, healthcare and education.Li requested that Germany help to relax the EU’s high-tech export restrictions to China and continue expanding bilateral trade and investment. He further stated that the two countries should continue working together on feasibility studies concerning the proposed China-EU Free Trade Agreement. The two sides also signed guidelines covering 110 cooperative agreements over the next five to 10 years.At the Hamburg Summit organised by Germany’s top industrialists that was attended by Premier Li the message was clear: China is not only the the biggest market for German companies, it is also a growing one. China’s huge national reform programme agenda, opens up exciting new export and investment opportunities for German — and other European — companies. Discussions focused on China’s massive urbanisation needs which can be met by European companies.Chinese investments into Germany and the EU are soaring. Significantly, unlike many other countries, China has shown a strong interest in the future course of Asem, the Asia Europe Meeting forum which is often criticised for being a mere talk shop.At the Asem summit in Milan last week, Li waxed lyrical about Asem’s role in improving connectivity between Asia and Europe, underlining his vision of building a Silk Road between Asia.Li knows he is on a winning streak. As the Financial Times newspaper reported recently, Chinese investors are surging into the EU.In 2010, the total stock of Chinese direct investment in the EU was just over 6.1bn euro — less than what was held by India, Iceland or Nigeria. By the end of 2012, Chinese investment stock had quadrupled, to nearly 27bn euro, according to figures compiled by Deutsche Bank.Not surprisingly, the EU and China are in the process of negotiating a bilateral investment treaty aimed at protecting each others’ investments but also ensuring better marker access.China is clearly not about to ditch Russia. But Beijing’s focus is on the growing markets of Europe. Western policymakers can sleep easy. For many nights.