16+1 platform is unifying, rather than divisive: China Daily editorial

The "16+1" cooperation mechanism, which brings together 16 Central and Eastern European countries and China, is an effective multilateral platform that meets the participants' different development needs and dovetails their varied development agendas.

Yet not all see its leaders' meeting, in session in Dubrovnik, Croatia, that way. 

From Brussels to the other coast of the Atlantic, there seem to be worries that growing Chinese outreach to the region will prove problematic, especially from the perspective of European unity.

Problematic in that, to some, it is an aggressively communist China seeking closer engagement with a group of countries that had a communist past. Or China is taking advantage of the financially needy CEE nations so it can use them as a Trojan horse and compromise the European Union's resolve to speak to China in one voice. Or that cooperation with China will flout European rules and lower environmental, labor and other standards. Or that the eagerness of the CEE nations for Chinese capital may weaken Europe's collective bargaining position when it seeks reciprocal access for local companies to Chinese markets. There seems no end to the lengths to which some will go to portray China in a bad light.

But most of these "concerns" are either rooted in obsolete ideological biases, or based on a prejudiced misreading of Chinese strategic intentions.

In the first place, CEE nations in no way constitute one single, not to mention uniform, bloc. They are either European Union members or want to be, but that is about all they have in common. Since aside from that, the 16 countries are as different as they could be in terms of development levels and priorities. 

What has rallied the 17 countries under the "16+1" banner is their shared aspirations for prosperity, as well as their shared faith in mutually beneficial cooperation. 

The "16+1" mechanism indeed grew from a Chinese proposal. But it is misleading to define it as a Chinese project. It would have been out of the question had there not been broad interest on the part of the CEE countries, driven by a pragmatic need to upgrade connectivity and broaden economic and trade links. 

But narratives that disfavor the "16+1" have exaggerated Chinese economic engagement there. Chinese companies have invested more than $10 billion in CEE countries, yet considering the long-term needs there, the figure can be far greater going forward. And, of course, Chinese engagement is rather nascent and marginal compared with other international investors, such as Japan and the Republic of Korea, not to mention other European nations. 

Rather than "divide" Europe, Chinese economic engagement will ultimately enhance European integration by helping to narrow intra-Europe development gaps.