“It is possible to have good relations with Beijing, even in important areas, without these necessarily being part of an overall strategic plan”. The words of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni betray Rome’s doubts about the decision to renew or not its adhesion to the Belt and Road Initiative (Bri) Chinese. Supporting the global infrastructure development plan promoted by President Xi Jinping for Meloni was “a big mistake”. At the end of the five years of validity, the fate of the memorandum of understanding (Mou) signed by the Conte government in March 2019 is uncertain. Beyond the proclamations and the renewed Atlanticist spirit of the executive, i limited benefits economic aspects of the pact highlight its great political and symbolic value.
A fragile political compromise
This decision could give substance to the call for “de-risking” reaffirmed by the Group of Seven at the Hiroshima meeting last May. Today, for Meloni, “the political conditions to confirm the agreement are lacking”. But if the government’s position has once again leaned in favor of traditional alliances, political pragmatism calls for prudence. In addition to the anti-system ambitions of the coalition parties, according to the Merics researcher Francesca GhirettiEuroscepticism and interests that revolved around China are the elements that supported the decision to sign the agreement during the first Conte government.
With the Draghi government, which took office in 2021, Italy has returned to traditional alliances, showing less and less warmth towards Beijing. Then came Giorgia Meloni. Despite your conservative, Eurosceptic and controversial background on past international policy choices (support for the Visegrád Group and Putin’s Russia, among others), since the beginning of your mandate you have opted for a compromise balance among the various souls of the majority. The BRI is a matter to be “handled” with care, according to the leader of the Brothers of Italy. “It is a decision that we have not yet taken”, she declared in early May, “an open debate on which I believe that the players to be involved must be many and at various levels, including Parliament”.
Although international alliances are at the center of public debate these days, the one on the BRI is not an obvious choice. Italy is the only G7 country to have agreed to participate in the Chinese “New Silk Road” project. As pointed out by Xixi Hong, author of an article that appeared in the International Spectator, the MoU signed by the coalition government made up of the 5 Star Movement and the League, while not legally binding, represented a stance strong from a symbolic point of view. Economically, in fact, the trade agreements that were supposed to catalyze Chinese infrastructure investments in concrete projects have been rare and often publicly inaccessible. “The rumored greater commercial opportunities – among the most cited reasons for the benefits of the agreement – have not yet materialised”, he commented Alessia Amighini, Professor of Economic Policy at the University of Eastern Piedmont, in an article that appeared in La Voce. According to the professor, data from the Italy Trade Agency show how trade between the two countries has grown from around 55 billion dollars in 2020 to almost 78 billion in 2022, but with the balance of payments in favor of Beijing. While Italy’s market share in China has remained constant: around 1.1% since 2020, it dropped to 0.99% in 2022.
China yes or China no?
The MoU was supposed to represent the legal framework for several trade agreements, to be stipulated to substantiate the agreement. In 2019, 29 were planned, ten corporate and 19 institutional, for a total value of approximately 7 billion euro. The project never fully took off, also because three governments have changed since then, and the agreement has not been able to count on the continuity of political sympathies of the yellow-green government. Beijing, however, usually uses the geopolitics of transport and infrastructure to obtain economic gains and international prestige.
The intermodal hubs of the European ports they were supposed to represent strategic gateways for Xi’s global development project around the world. For this reason, with all due respect to the United States, NATO and the European Union, the Chinese giant Cosco has taken over 40% of the port of Vado Ligure, and then through Hhla Beijing has also landed in Trieste. But the scaremongeringuntil today, it was unjustified. According to Ghiretti (Merics), the Port System Authority of the Western Ligurian Sea and its counterpart in Trieste have acted with prudence, limiting Chinese investments in specific areas, without giving them excessive leeway.
It really is little economic impactactually to leave the government ample room for political reflection on the agreement. “Stopping a vague collaboration would raise more qualms than letting it automatically renew,” IAI researcher Beatrice Gallelli told the Financial Times. The ambassador Stefano Stefanini, Italy’s permanent representative to NATO, said that Italy “cannot have China and the United States at the same time, however difficult it is”. In an increasingly tense and polarized international climate due to the Russo-Ukrainian war, “politics chooses”. Given the deterioration of Sino-US relations “One cannot remain allies of the US and at the same time remain in the BRI”, he affirmed, “we must try to negotiate a peaceful exit with the Chinese – or, at least, as least harmful as possible”. However, Amy Kazmin and Yuan Yang underlined in the Financial Times, the fact that Meloni has shown firm support for Ukraine it eased US pressure on Italy, as the business community looked to the Chinese market to mitigate the negative externalities of sanctions on Russia on their commercial success.
Even if there is time at least until the end of the year, political and strategic considerations are fueling speculation on the completely obvious decision of the Meloni government on the BRI. At the G7 meeting in Hiroshima, those present hoped for milder forms of political delegitimization that would prevent a real decoupling from Beijing. But instances of “derisking” e “diversifying” they seemed, according to the Chinese state news agency Xinhua, mere rhetorical trifles to justify the development of “small courtyards with high fences”. Even if the Group’s invitation failed to indicate a practice to follow, Meloni’s decision could set an example. Whatever the choice, it is not yet known, what matters are the arguments which the government will use to justify it. Beijing often requires loyalty without gray areas, but economically it says it is willing to relate to all the players in the international community. If, however, the commercial benefits are limited, what remains of the MoU is a Manichean dilemma: yes or no China?
Cover photo ANSA/Filippo Attili – Palazzo Chigi press office