What Is China’s “Secret Charm” about in the Country

In its latest policy paper, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, in cooperation with the Sofia Security Forum, developed by a network of national experts from South-East Europe (SEE), stipulates that, irrespective of everything, Macedonian citizens continue to have a positive opinion of China, not because of the “material impact of the cooperation, but because of the sense of possibility that China inspires”

 

Author: Meri Jordanovska

 

The image of China in the region of South-East Europe (SEE) has a wide scope of perceptions, but generally, they are more positive compared to the other parts of Europe. Serbia stands out as the friendliest country to China in the region, especially bearing in mind that this is very much conditioned by the state-controlled media. On the other side of the spectrum is Romania, seemingly the most reserved SEE-country towards China. In addition, the views on China are quite different in the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a clear separation between the perceptions in the Federation and in Republika Srpska (RS). After the outbreak of Covid-19, Chinese vaccines were available in the Western Balkans – yet, the results of the Beijing public diplomacy campaign were limited, probably with the exception of Serbia and North Macedonia.

This is just part of the summarized conclusions in the latest policy paper, published this year by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, in cooperation with the Sofia Security Forum, developed by a network of national experts of South-East Europe (SEE). The policy paper aims at identifying the key “patterns” of China in the region, in terms of economic cooperation, political and cultural links, as well as the governance standards, in the attempt to “unpack” the nature of Chinese power or the “secret charm” of China in South-East European countries.

The policy paper looks into the influence of China in eight countries or territories of South-East Europe through case studies implemented by local experts. The authors were examining Chinese investments, China’s image, and attractiveness of its governance model in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Greece, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Slovenia.

The case studies show that the countries, according to these criteria, were assessed with the following narratives:

• Albania: Not too close friendship – distant friendship
• Republika Srpska: China’s foothold in Bosnia
• Bulgaria: China’s allure remains purely economic
• Greece: On friendly terms with China, but not bewitched
• North Macedonia: The ever-appealing but never-fulfilling expectation
• Romania: From hope, to disappointment, to distancing
• Serbia: Steel strong friendship
• Slovenia: In calm waters of bilateral economic relations

The part on North Macedonia, written by Ana Krstinovska from ESTIMA, refers to an initial platform for cooperation between China and the Central and Eastern European countries, at which point the Macedonian authorities were interested in exploring the various modes of cooperation, hoping for China’s involvement in the economic growth of the country.

The Government organized several business fora in China for the purpose of attracting investors and to promote the idea of establishing a “free zone” for Chinese companies where they would “enjoy” benefits such as tax exemptions and subsidies. Despite the fact that during those years the country experienced its best ever ranking for doing business, 10^th worldwide and 5^th in Europe in 2016, the expectations that the country would receive a wave of Chinese investments did not materialize. The only greenfield investment of the Sino-Turkish textile company Weibo Group turned out to be significantly smaller than the initial announcement in 2014: instead of 300 million and 5,000 employees, in 2015 it  invested EUR 3 million and employed only 25 people. To date, this has been followed by only several indirect acquisitions of foreign company branches operating in North Macedonia through their mother companies located abroad, states the policy paper.

By the end of 2021, the volume of Chinese investment in North Macedonia amounted to EUR 130.37 million, or only 2 percent of the total FDI stock. According to the policy paper, this outcome is related to objective factors, such as small size of the Macedonian market, but also to the priorities of Chinese investors who are usually in search of capital-intensive projects and are driven primarily by the desire to acquire companies in strategic industries, start-ups with high growth potential, competitive brands, and new technologies.

The policy paper mentions the loan from the Chinese Export-Import Bank for the construction of the two highway sections – Stip to Miladinovci, finished in 2019, and Kicevo to Ohrid where the construction is behind schedule and should be finished in 2023.

The project has been marred by controversies because of the lack of an open and competitive public procurement procedure, corruption allegations, as well as a number of mistakes in the preparation and construction process, bringing the total value of the loan to EUR 909 million (EUR 200 million more than initially planned). However, China’s role in the inadequate project outcome was emphasized mostly in foreign media outlets and think-tank articles, while domestically the case was mostly associated with the local actors and their wrongdoings. Not only was China’s reputation in the country not affected by this scandal, but even improved later on with the pandemic. According to the survey in 2018, the proportion of respondents with a negative view of China was 28 percent, while 25 percent had a positive view. In comparison, the positive perception of the EU, USA and Russia was 50, 38 and 32 percent respectively. In 2021, the percentage of citizens who had a positive perception of China increased to 38 percent, while in the case of the EU it dropped by 5 percent, specifies the policy paper.

The policy paper argues that despite the limited benefits thus so far, Macedonian citizens continue to have a favourable opinion of China, not because of the “material impact of the cooperation, but because of the sense of possibility that China inspires”.

China compensates the under-delivery of economic outputs with a strong public diplomacy and propaganda outreach, which was especially visible during the pandemic. A regular presence in national (traditional) media, activities by Confucius Institute, donations in key sectors and the building of long-term partnerships through joint research projects and scholarships are the main tools which contribute to anchoring a positive perception of China. The messages through these channels put forward official Chinese positions, portray an entirely positive image of China and leave out any negative aspects, making it difficult for citizens to build an informed opinion. In such a context, the government should proactively increase the transparency of its China-related policies and define specific objectives and a policy framework for the future, states the policy paper.

End of last year, similar conclusions were derived from the debate “Understanding the tools, narratives and influences of Chinese “soft power in North Macedonia”, organized by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the ESTIMA Association. Then Krstinovska presented the research performed, stressing the fact that according to the Global Soft Power Index, China in 2022 held the fourth place in the general placement, following the USA, Great Britain, and Germany.

The research on the presence and portrayal of China in the media showed that Chinese influence in the country is quite strong, while Macedonia can be ranked third place compared to the 17 Central and Eastern European countries.

In one of the dimensions of appearance of China’s “soft power”, the category “news management” is present through the Macedonian media where the Chinese ambassador writes columns and articles, noticed in some printed and online media in the country.

In the second dimension of “soft power”, which is the category “sending strategic messages”, China acts through cultural offers within the framework of cooperation with twin towns or through activities implemented by the Confucius Institute, by translating and publishing books, television programmes such as “Ni Hao” broadcasted on Telma and activities of Chinese companies (Huawei).

In the third dimension of the presence of “soft power” – in the category “building relations” – including not just the activities of the Confucius Institute, but also the offer of Chinese scholarships, training available through the programme of human resources, research projects implemented jointly by both China and our country, memoranda of understanding and the agreements for cooperation and organization of various events – conferences, fairs etc.

Nevertheless, the summarized conclusion of the policy paper analyzing Chinese influence in the eight SEE countries pinpoints that, in general, the citizens are aware of the political system of China and most of them most probably would not support the adoption of Chinese standards of governance. Regardless of the complaints directed towards the efficiency of Western democracy and the delivery by EU, SEE countries are not thrilled with the one-party system and the state-capitalism model of China. In actual fact, as the policy paper indicates, the vast majority of SEE-countries have already made their political choice about where they want to belong.

 

---

This article has been produced within the project Fact-Checking the Progress of North Macedonia towards the EU, implemented by the Metamorphosis Foundation. The article, originally published by Truthmeter,, is made possible by the support of the American non-profit foundation NED (National Endowment for Democracy). The content of this article is the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Metamorphosis, NED or their partners.

---

 

 

 

All comments and remarks regarding this and other Vistinomer articles, correction and clarification requests as well as suggestions for fact-checking politicians’ statements and political parties’ promises can be submitted by using this form