The entry of the Chinese state-owned company Cosco at the port of Hamburg caused loud grumbling in the traffic light coalition. While the government is trying to save the deal with a compromise, politicians from the FDP and the Greens are becoming clear. Economists also consider the decision to be unfortunate.
Several traffic light politicians criticize the emerging compromise on the entry of the Chinese group Cosco in the port of Hamburg. FDP defense expert Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann said: “As little as there is a bit pregnant in nature, there is just as little a bit Chinese in the port deal in Hamburg. Either you get involved in the business or you leave it “, she said. Strack-Zimmermann described the compromise with a lower Chinese participation as “another momentous mistake in times of great uncertainty”. “The flexible back belongs in the Hamburg Ballet, not in the Port of Hamburg.”
FDP Vice President Johannes Vogel was more positive: “The fact that there is no blocking minority is a step in the right direction,” he told Wirtschaftswoche. “But we have to understand that in the case of China we are dealing with a system that ticks differently than we do on fundamental issues. There must be no naivety and no weakness.” Vogel called for a “stop sign” for China and a common European port strategy so that the major ports could no longer be played off against each other. However, an agreement is not only important with European partners, “we should also agree on a common China strategy with our transatlantic partners and the market democracies in the Pacific region such as Japan, South Korea and Australia.”
The Green foreign politician Anton Hofreiter also rejected a Chinese participation of 24.9 percent. China would have “significantly less influence” than with a share of 35 percent. “But it would still be critical, because we would still have a dictatorial regime that buys infrastructure from us with the help of state-owned companies,” said Hofreiter in the ARD “Morgenmagazin”.
The departmental coordination between the ministries involved on the deal is currently still ongoing. It is becoming apparent that Cosco will be allowed to participate in a terminal in the port of Hamburg – but only with a smaller share. Cosco should not be able to take over 35 percent of the Tollerort terminal as planned, but only 24.9 percent. In government circles there was talk of an “emergency solution”. The cabinet could deal with it on Wednesday. It is unclear how the Chinese group will then react to a new situation.
According to information from the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” on Monday evening, the six ministries that had previously rejected the deal had agreed on such a compromise. Accordingly, the federal government will decide on a so-called partial refusal. With a stake of 24.9 percent, Cosco, as a minority shareholder, could not formally exert any influence on the management.
Under the impression of recent experiences with Russia and the dependence on its gas supplies, a political dispute broke out over the question of whether Chinese participation should be allowed. Economics Minister Robert Habeck warned of new dependencies, as did FDP politicians. Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently emphasized that nothing had been decided yet and that many questions still had to be clarified.
Warnings about risks also come from science. Analyst Jacob Gunter from the China Institute Merics warned: “Cosco and its investment in the port of Hamburg harbor various risks for the security and economic interests of Germany.” Cosco is not just another multinational company simply looking for a return – it is a tool used by the Chinese government to advance its strategic goals. The more dependent Germany becomes on investments and deals with Cosco, the more influence Cosco and party officials can have on German China policy.
DIW President Marcel Fratzscher said: “The federal government repeats the mistake of many previous federal governments and puts short-term economic interests above long-term prosperity and stability.” Cosco receives “an indirect influence and important information about a critical infrastructure in Germany and Europe” through the stake in the terminal company. Germany and the EU should follow the example of the USA and not only strictly prohibit any participation of non-European companies in important infrastructure, but also reverse it. This should not only apply to companies in autocratic countries, but to companies in all non-EU countries.
