China's Growing Influence: A Call for Vigilance in the Aftermath of Russia's Aggression Against Ukraine

In this interview, Ana-Maria Catauta, a member of the Romanian parliament, discusses her NATO Parliamentary Assembly report on China’s global role in the aftermath of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Ms. Catauta highlights the key findings of the report, emphasizing the need for Western democracies to closely monitor China’s growing influence and its implications for international security and democratic values.

To start with the report, what are the key highlights of the report? And to summarize, what is the current situation between China and Russia? What significant threats do you see?

About 10 years ago, China began showing a growing tendency to expand beyond the norms of the international world and global organizations. China has become increasingly influential, actively engaging with Africa, Latin America, and even expressing interest in the high north and the Arctic Ocean. Moreover, China has heavily invested in its military capabilities and now possesses similar capabilities to that of the United States, the main ally within NATO. They have leveraged the presence of Western companies that established production facilities in Chinese cities, allowing them to acquire technology. Building upon this technology, China has become a significant player in international patents, with over 90% being owned by Chinese or American companies. While China is not yet an adversary of the West, it is a rising power seeking to increase its influence on various levels. As Western democracies, we must closely monitor China’s evolving ambitions. Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that countries like China, Russia, and to some extent, Iran, are attempting to promote an alternative model of societal organization.

These countries aim to replace democracy with autocracy, employing tactics such as fake news, disinformation, and misinformation to emphasize the flaws within democratic regimes. While we acknowledge that democratic systems have their imperfections, it is essential to exercise caution and understand that this is not merely a competition between great powers. It represents a conflict between two models of state organization. These are some of the key points we highlighted in the report.

How well do you think the West understands this, and what reactions have you observed? If there are no significant reactions, what suggestions would you make for a stronger response?

I believe that one of the lessons we learned from Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is that we can no longer underestimate autocratic leaders. For many years, Western democracies disregarded Putin and his regime’s imperialistic tendencies, despite countries like Romania and Georgia drawing attention to their actions and discourse deviating from international norms. Economic reasons often led many Western democracies to turn a blind eye to these warning signs. However, we have now learned our lessons and are more cautious in our relationship with China and the regime in Beijing. This newfound caution is evident in various ways, both at the US and European levels.

Efforts are being made to decrease dependency on Chinese goods manufactured in China. Discussions are underway within the European Union regarding the need to boost production capabilities for products, particularly those based on raw materials, within European countries. The US government has also taken steps, such as establishing microchip production companies domestically. I should note that this isn’t about the pace of these actions but rather the intent to rely less on China. In Romania and several other European countries, for example, we have made the decision to no longer accept Huawei products in telecommunications. Even components used for 3G and 4G networks are being replaced with those produced within European countries or countries aligned with Western alliances.

There is both conversation among leaders and practical measures being taken to distance ourselves from products manufactured in China.

Some scholars argue that the autocratic regimes of China and Russia are not very compatible, despite their deepening trade relations and increased agreements. What are your thoughts on this?

I believe that China and Russia are allies, but they are not friends. When Ukraine fought bravely for its independence and faced Russian aggression, it was expected that Russia would seek other allies. However, they were not anticipating the strong reaction and sanctions imposed by the West. The decision made by Berlin, for instance, to reduce imports of Russian gas caught them off guard. This compelled them to explore other avenues for exporting their main source of income, which is gas. If we examine the trade balance between Russia and China, we can observe significant growth in some areas, which allows Russia to redirect its gas exports. China plays a long-term game and is taking advantage of Russia’s current weaknesses to promote its international agenda and the autocratic model they favor. While they can find ways to work together, China will never treat Russia as an equal partner and will leverage their weaknesses to their own advantage.

What is your opinion on the Western reaction to the war in Ukraine? Do you believe enough has been done, or do you think more should be done?

As Romania shares the longest border with Ukraine, I have been deeply involved in this issue. When Ukrainian citizens, especially women and children, started fleeing Ukraine and passing through Romania towards other European countries, the Romanian people displayed incredible generosity and hospitality, offering their homes and support to those in need. It is important to note that tensions existed between Romania and Ukraine even before the war, particularly regarding the minority law passed in the Ukrainian parliament. While the law targeted Russian ethnics, it also affected other minorities, including the Romanian minority. Nonetheless, we recognized that Ukraine’s resistance represents the endurance of democracy in our region.

The Western response to the war in Ukraine was swift, strong, and multifaceted. It included military, economic, and societal measures. Ukrainian military personnel have trained with Western countries, including Canada and the United States, even after the 2014 invasion of Crimea. The military equipment provided by NATO allies has been crucial in supporting Ukraine. However, despite the robust response, the war continues, and Russia persists in occupying Ukrainian territories.

To do more, I believe we should seize the funds Russia has in other countries and allocate them to the reconstruction of Ukraine. The country will require significant economic reconstruction. We should continue providing military assistance to Ukraine and offer support. Additionally, we should communicate more effectively about the realities of life in Russia. As European Union members and citizens, we should gain a deeper understanding of the struggles Russian citizens face due to the economic problems caused by the war. Focusing solely on political and military decisions is insufficient. We need to raise awareness about the challenges faced by citizens living under autocratic regimes, whether discussing China or Russia. We should be more open and aggressive in countering propaganda that portrays Western democracies as degraded, emphasizing our commitment to the values we hold dear. It is crucial to be conscious and resolute in our fight against such narratives.

Why do you think some countries have not yet obtained NATO membership, such as Georgia and Ukraine?

Reflecting on the experience of Romania’s journey to NATO membership, I recall the disappointment and longing for security that accompanied the rejection in 1997. However, Romania eventually became a NATO member in 2003, which brought a sense of relief and protection. The process was not easy, but it eventually happened. Regarding countries like Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, the reasons for their delayed NATO membership are complex and multifaceted. It requires a combination of factors aligning, including political considerations, regional dynamics, and fulfilling the necessary criteria set by NATO. While I can’t speak specifically to the current situation, I understand the longing for protection and the belief that deserving nations should have access to the security provided by NATO.

So, I understand the disappointment and challenges faced by countries aspiring to join NATO. The accession process is not easy, requiring unanimous agreement from all member states. However, I urge these countries not to give up on their objective of NATO membership. It is crucial to take decisive political, military, and economic actions to convince allied member states that they deserve to be part of NATO. Persistence, regardless of the governing party or political affiliation, is key. The pursuit of NATO membership should be a national project embraced by the entire country.

From a European security perspective, why is it better to have countries like Georgia and Ukraine as NATO members?

The Black Sea region, including Ukraine and Georgia, has increasingly gained strategic importance for European security. The impact of the Crimea crisis highlighted the significance of the Black Sea region. The Ukrainian grain crisis, for instance, demonstrated how disruptions in the region can have far-reaching consequences. Many European capitals are gradually recognizing the strategic role that Ukraine and Georgia play. However, despite this growing understanding, political decisions and actions are still required. It’s important to note that political considerations and electoral cycles can sometimes hinder progress. There is a need for broader political understanding and decision-making among European capitals, although media influence and concerns about Russia still persist. The transformation of Russia from a partner to a perceived adversary adds complexity to the decision-making process.

Do you think the ongoing war in Ukraine or Russia’s shifting stance is causing hesitation regarding NATO membership for these countries?

Cautiousness exists at both the European and NATO levels, no longer centered around avoiding provoking Russia.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it has become evident to all that they will use whatever pretext necessary to promote their expansionist tendencies. The decision-making process now revolves more around the pace and timing of admitting these countries. In my conversations, I haven’t encountered anyone expressing a desire to exclude Georgia or Ukraine from European or NATO membership. The discussions primarily focus on the speed of reforms, especially regarding justice and the rule of law. NATO is not only a military organization; it is also a political and democratic organization built on shared values. All member states must ensure a common understanding and alignment. Therefore, it is not a matter of if but rather a matter of when and how these countries will become NATO members.

And finally, my question is about your inquiry during the spring session in Luxembourg regarding Georgia not receiving the EU candidate status yet. You drew parallels with Hungary, which is currently causing concerns for the European Union and NATO. I would like to delve deeper into your thoughts on the candidate status and your comparison with Hungary.

I believe it was unjust for Georgia to be denied the candidate status while countries like Moldova and Ukraine received it. Granting candidate status does not imply immediate membership but rather signifies the start of the process. The explanation I received regarding the ambivalence in Georgia’s relationship with Russia and the European Union might be valid, but I am not well-versed in the internal politics of Georgia. However, I strongly disagree with the double standards at play. If Hungary, a member of the European Union, maintains a hedging position towards Russia, particularly in areas like energy, it is unreasonable to demand that aspiring members refrain from a similar stance. If we believe that the European Union is a union of shared beliefs and ideas, then Hungary should be held accountable for its behavior towards Russia. Their access to European funds and the national resilience plan should reflect their adherence to decisions made within the EU. It was disheartening to learn that double standards exist, and this is not acceptable.

Is there anything else you would like to mention that hasn’t been asked?

You have covered a lot in our discussion. Currently, I am working on a report on China for the upcoming fall session in Copenhagen. In the report, I aim to emphasize that Chinese influence extends beyond Africa and Latin America and is increasingly prevalent in large infrastructure projects in Europe. This realization was eye-opening for some of our members, including our Norwegian colleague who was unaware of the extent of Chinese projects in the Balkans. While China is not our adversary, it presents a challenge, and we must avoid repeating the mistakes made with Russia. We need to remain vigilant, make timely decisions, and safeguard democratic values, flawed as they may be. It’s not an easy task, but with the realignment of the world amid the war in Ukraine, we must ensure that our proposals uphold democratic principles.