European lawmakers call for tighter controls on foreign ownership of key ports
ANTWERP, Belgium: Some European lawmakers are increasingly calling for tougher regulations on foreign ownership of critical transportation infrastructure within the European Union, amid mounting concerns over security risks.
Chinese companies currently hold stakes in more than 30 European ports - a vital component of the bloc's trade network.
The stakes are high as about 75 per cent of goods entering or leaving Europe do so by sea. Over 800 million tons of goods passed through the continent's major ports in the third quarter of last year alone.
Essentials such as food, energy supplies and military equipment pass through these vital maritime gateways, raising alarm about their potential to be targeted in geopolitical conflicts.
CHANGING NATURE OF THREATS
Ana Miguel Pedro, a Member of the European Parliament representing the European People's Party, flagged the evolving nature of threats to critical infrastructure.
'Threats, they don't always come in the form of war. The modern threats are even harder to see,' she told CNA.
She cited examples like GPS signal interferences and cyberattacks, as well as damage inflicted to internet undersea cables.
In November last year, two telecommunications cables were cut in the Baltic Sea within a 48-hour period, prompting suspicions of "sabotage" and "hybrid warfare". The severing was reportedly linked to a Chinese ship.
The European Commission recently raised concerns about foreign control over what it terms "critical transport infrastructure'.
It placed particular emphasis on the risks associated with sensitive information flow through ports, including details relevant to operations by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance.
Pedro is among those calling for tighter regulations.
'We need to address not only the capital but as well the controls, who has the operational access, who manages the data, who supplies the port software,' she noted.
UNEASE AROUND CHINESE FIRMS
The current unease has lately centred on Chinese firms that have a large footprint across Europe's ports.
Companies such as COSCO and China Merchants control stakes in over 30 of the continent's biggest terminals. Such investments intensified over a decade ago, driven in part by a European port sector heavily in debt.
Last year, EU-China trade stood roughly at US$970 billion, or about a third of the world's gross domestic product.
However, concerns over China's alignment with Russia amidst the ongoing war with Ukraine has reportedly led to growing anxiety over potential conflicts of interest, according to a recent report by Polish think tank Centre for Eastern Studies.
'We see that strategic interests are drifting apart,' noted Konrad Poplawski, the think tank's coordinator for connectivity and regional integration.
'Therefore, having an actor or even private entities in a strategic infrastructure under the influence of such a partner - it's not so sustainable as before.'
One notable example is the port of Antwerp-Bruges - the second largest in Europe - which has attracted significant Chinese investment through the Belt and Road Initiative.
In a statement provided to CNA, the port said a balanced approach is needed when it comes to foreign investment, and the goal should be to effectively detect and prevent undesirable foreign interference without hindering the openness that fuels economic growth.
The need to keep trade flows open was echoed by the China Chamber of Commerce to the EU. It emphasised the need to keep trade flows open, noting that security discussions should be grounded in facts.
'First of all, (the Chinese companies) were transparent. Secondly, they complied with the EU and national level laws, so we should not ignore the facts,' said the chamber's director of communication and research Linlin Liang.
'And thirdly, it's very important to distinguish and not to politicise the business sector and the trade sector.'
Amid recent US-China tensions over control of the Panama Canal, the issue of foreign ownership of ports has been increasingly on the radar of European officials.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
16 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: India and Pakistan are on a global charm offensive to tell their version of the conflict
LONDON: In the past fortnight, multi-party parliamentary delegations from India and Pakistan have stopped in London as part of a world tour. Having had the opportunity to interact with both delegations, one thing becomes abundantly clear: Dialogue is a dead end (for now). They were essentially two sides of the same coin, each seeking to make the case for their nation's narrative following the brief, 87-hour conflict in May. Both sought to claim the moral high ground while painting the other side as the aggressor. Each resented any parallels or equivalency drawn between their positions. According to India, its actions were a response to the terror attack in Pahalgam that claimed the lives of 26 civilians. According to Pakistan, its military action was triggered by India's military operation, while arguing that New Delhi has failed to offer the smoking gun of Pakistani complicity in the terror attack. Both trumpeted their battlefield successes while downplaying their losses. The Pakistani side touted the loss of Indian aircraft in the initial military exchange, while the Indian side downplayed this, noting that such losses should be expected as part of any military campaign (and refusing to admit to any specific losses). India also played up the strength of its air defences in repelling Pakistan's counterattacks and the concomitant weakness of Pakistan's air defences. Both emphasised red lines. For India, another terror attack would trigger a war. For Pakistan, any violation of the Indus Water Treaty would do the same. The Indian delegation noted that India had dropped its previous 'hesitation' of deploying hard power, while the Pakistani delegation accused India of 'dragging water onto the battlefield'. Each side offered differing conditionalities on returning to the negotiating table: New Delhi will only discuss the issue of terrorism and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while Islamabad wants to focus on the water treaty and Indian-administered Kashmir. Both countries are seeking to internationalise the conflict, but in different ways. For India, the emphasis is on framing Pakistan as the epicentre of global terrorism (with reminders of Osama bin Laden being killed in Pakistan in 2011 and Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl being beheaded in Pakistan in 2002). For Pakistan, the emphasis is on getting third party 'facilitators' rather than 'mediators' (given New Delhi's rejection of third-party mediation). AMERICA'S DEFAULT RESPONSE Ultimately, both countries face similar dilemmas in getting their message across to the international community. For India, the global war on terrorism has lost the resonance it once had, making it difficult for New Delhi to make the case to the world of the severity of Pakistan's threat to global stability. For Pakistan, the effort to get United States or Western involvement in India-Pakistan hostilities and the issue of Kashmir is an uphill battle given the plethora of international (and domestic) crises presently confronting Western capitals. This will not stop Islamabad from trying to do so as demonstrated by Army Chief Asim Munir's visit to Washington this week, which demonstrates Pakistan's ability to leverage global issues – from the Sino-US rapprochement in the late 1960s and early 1970s to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and into the 1980s and the US-led 'War on Terror' in the 2000s – to advance its primary foreign policy objective of strengthening its position vis-a-vis India. Now Islamabad is seeking to do so again by leveraging the Trump administration's efforts to obtain Islamabad's support in the conflict between Iran and Israel (given that Pakistan shares a border with the former). Trump's 'sphere of influence' worldview makes it unlikely that the United States will play any substantive or lasting role in South Asia. While Trump claims to have applied pressure on both countries to initiate a ceasefire on May 10 – which has been denied by India – his initial nonchalant response (noting that both countries would sort it out 'one way or the other', which was supplemented by Vice President JD Vance's comment that the conflict was 'fundamentally none of our business') reveals what is likely to be the default response to future hostilities, as long as they stay below the threshold of a nuclear conflict. South Asia has lost the strategic significance it once had following the US-NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. TALKING PAST EACH OTHER In this context, the world tours by parliamentarians from India and Pakistan appear more focused on appeasing domestic political constituencies than any genuine effort aimed at shifting global public opinion. There was more emphasis on dictating each country's position rather than engaging in a genuine dialogue. All this limits the prospects for any peace process. The Pakistani delegation pushed for the resumption of a 'comprehensive dialogue', but what would both sides discuss when they are essentially talking past each other? They cannot even agree on the facts of what happened, accusing the other of misinformation, hyper-nationalistic rhetoric and religious extremism. The Indian side accused Pakistan of employing 'terrorism as an instrument of state policy' while the Pakistani side claimed that the Modi government wants to 'eradicate' India's Muslims. This makes it impossible for both countries to sit down together. NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS WORKING If there is any silver lining it is that among the world's flashpoints, India-Pakistan hostilities still seem relatively contained despite the bad blood in the bilateral relationship. The short four-day conflict and emphasis on precision-strike operations contrasts with conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East where there has been significant collateral damage and prolonged and expansive military operations across multiple theatres. This shows that nuclear deterrence is working in limiting the threshold of violence, although this threshold is being tested and eroded as both countries find new ways of targeting each other, from sponsoring irregular separatist/terrorist outfits to developing drone and cyber warfare capabilities. As a result, South Asia is in an interesting position, a region that is the most vulnerable to a nuclear exchange, and hence, ironically the most restrained of the world's major flashpoints.
CNA
a day ago
- CNA
Europeans seek 'digital sovereignty' as US tech firms embrace Trump
BERLIN :At a market stall in Berlin run by charity Topio, volunteers help people who want to purge their phones of the influence of U.S. tech firms. Since Donald Trump's inauguration, the queue for their services has grown. Interest in European-based digital services has jumped in recent months, data from digital market intelligence company Similarweb shows. More people are looking for e-mail, messaging and even search providers outside the United States. The first months of Trump's second presidency have shaken some Europeans' confidence in their long-time ally, after he signalled his country would step back from its role in Europe's security and then launched a trade war. "It's about the concentration of power in U.S. firms," said Topio's founder Michael Wirths, as his colleague installed on a customer's phone a version of the Android operating system without hooks into the Google ecosystem. Wirths said the type of people coming to the stall had changed: "Before, it was people who knew a lot about data privacy. Now it's people who are politically aware and feel exposed." Tesla chief Elon Musk, who also owns social media company X, was a leading adviser to the U.S. president before the two fell out, while the bosses of Amazon, Meta and Google-owner Alphabet took prominent spots at Trump's inauguration in January. Days before Trump took office, outgoing president Joe Biden had warned of an oligarchic "tech industrial complex" threatening democracy. Berlin-based search engine Ecosia says it has benefited from some customers' desire to avoid U.S. counterparts like Microsoft's Bing or Google, which dominates web searches and is also the world's biggest email provider. "The worse it gets, the better it is for us," founder Christian Kroll said of Ecosia, whose sales pitch is that it spends its profits on environmental projects. Similarweb data shows the number of queries directed to Ecosia from the European Union has risen 27 per cent year-on-year and the company says it has 1 per cent of the German search engine market. But its 122 million visits from the 27 EU countries in February were dwarfed by 10.3 billion visits to Google, whose parent Alphabet made revenues of about $100 billion from Europe, the Middle East and Africa in 2024 - nearly a third of its $350 billion global turnover. Non-profit Ecosia earned 3.2 million euros ($3.65 million) in April, of which 770,000 euros was spent on planting 1.1 million trees. Google declined to comment for this story. Reuters could not determine whether major U.S. tech companies have lost any market share to local rivals in Europe. DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY The search for alternative providers accompanies a debate in Europe about "digital sovereignty" - the idea that reliance on companies from an increasingly isolationist United States is a threat to Europe's economy and security. "Ordinary people, the kind of people who would never have thought it was important they were using an American service are saying, 'hang on!'," said UK-based internet regulation expert Maria Farrell. "My hairdresser was asking me what she should switch to." Use in Europe of Swiss-based ProtonMail rose 11.7 per cent year-on-year to March compared to a year ago, according to Similarweb, while use of Alphabet's Gmail, which has some 70 per cent of the global email market, slipped 1.9 per cent. ProtonMail, which offers both free and paid-for services, said it had seen an increase in users from Europe since Trump's re-election, though it declined to give a number. "My household is definitely disengaging," said British software engineer Ken Tindell, citing weak U.S. data privacy protections as one factor. Trump's vice president JD Vance shocked European leaders in February by accusing them - at a conference usually known for displays of transatlantic unity - of censoring free speech and failing to control immigration. In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened visa bans for people who "censor" speech by Americans, including on social media, and suggested the policy could target foreign officials regulating U.S. tech companies. U.S. social media companies like Facebook and Instagram parent Meta have said the European Union's Digital Services Act amounts to censorship of their platforms. EU officials say the Act will make the online environment safer by compelling tech giants to tackle illegal content, including hate speech and child sexual abuse material. Greg Nojeim, director of the Security and Surveillance Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, said Europeans' concerns about the U.S. government accessing their data, whether stored on devices or in the cloud, were justified. Not only does U.S. law permit the government to search devices of anyone entering the country, it can compel disclosure of data that Europeans outside the U.S. store or transmit through U.S. communications service providers, Nojeim said. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE? Germany's new government is itself making efforts to reduce exposure to U.S. tech, committing in its coalition agreement to make more use of open-source data formats and locally-based cloud infrastructure. Regional governments have gone further - in conservative-run Schleswig-Holstein, on the Danish border, all IT used by the public administration must run on open-source software. Berlin has also paid for Ukraine to access a satellite-internet network operated by France's Eutelsat instead of Musk's Starlink. But with modern life driven by technology, "completely divorcing U.S. tech in a very fundamental way is, I would say, possibly not possible," said Bill Budington of U.S. digital rights nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Everything from push notifications to the content delivery networks powering many websites and how internet traffic is routed relies largely on U.S. companies and infrastructure, Budington noted. Both Ecosia and French-based search engine Qwant depend in part on search results provided by Google and Microsoft's Bing, while Ecosia runs on cloud platforms, some hosted by the very same tech giants it promises an escape from. Nevertheless, a group on messaging board Reddit called BuyFromEU has 211,000 members. "Just cancelled my Dropbox and will switch to Proton Drive," read one post. Mastodon, a decentralised social media service developed by German programmer Eugen Rochko, enjoyed a rush of new users two years ago when Musk bought Twitter, later renamed X. But it remains a niche service. Signal, a messaging app run by a U.S. nonprofit foundation, has also seen a surge in installations from Europe. Similarweb's data showed a 7 per cent month-on-month increase in Signal usage in March, while use of Meta's WhatsApp was static. Meta declined to comment for this story. Signal did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment. But this kind of conscious self-organising is unlikely on its own to make a dent in Silicon Valley's European dominance, digital rights activist Robin Berjon told Reuters. "The market is too captured," he said. "Regulation is needed as well."
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
While You Were Sleeping: 5 stories you might have missed, June 21, 2025
British foreign minister David Lammy (left) and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot briefing the media in Geneva on June 20, after their talks with Iran's Foreign Minister on Tehran's nuclear programme. PHOTO: AFP While You Were Sleeping: 5 stories you might have missed, June 21, 2025 Europe-Iran talks yield little at 'perilous' moment There were few signs of progress after European foreign ministers met their Iranian counterpart on June 20 in a bid to prevent conflict in the Middle East from escalating, although all signalled readiness to keep talking, despite major sticking points. The foreign ministers of Germany, Britain, France - known as the E3 - plus the EU, urged Iran to engage with the United States over its contentious nuclear programme even as Tehran has repeatedly insisted it will not open discussions with the Trump administration until Israeli strikes on Iran end. The talks aimed to test Tehran's willingness to negotiate a new nuclear deal despite there being no obvious prospect of Israel ceasing its attacks soon, diplomats said. For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Iran was ready to consider diplomacy once Israel had ceased its attacks and been held accountable for its actions. READ MORE HERE Trump says he may support Israel-Iran ceasefire President Donald Trump said on June 20 he might support a ceasefire in the week-old aerial conflict between US ally Israel and its regional rival Iran 'depending on the circumstances'. Asked by reporters if he would support a ceasefire while negotiations are ongoing, Mr Trump said: 'I might, depending on the circumstances.' Europe would not be able to help much in the war between Iran and Israel, Mr Trump added. READ MORE HERE US judge orders release of pro-Palestinian activist A US judge ordered on June 20 that Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil be released from immigration custody, a major victory for rights groups that challenged what they called the Trump administration's unlawful targeting of a pro-Palestinian activist. Mr Khalil, a prominent figure in pro-Palestinian protests against Israel's war on Gaza, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. President Donald Trump, a Republican, has called the protests anti-Semitic and vowed to deport foreign students who took part, and Mr Khalil became the first target of this policy. READ MORE HERE Russia must not let economy slip into recession, says Putin Russia's economy must under no circumstances slide into recession, President Vladimir Putin told an economic forum on June 20, in a clear instruction to assembled government ministers and central bankers. The Bank of Russia hiked its key interest rate to the highest level since the early 2000s in October, seeking to curb stubbornly high inflation, before cutting it by one percentage point to 20 per cent earlier this month. Economy Minister Maxim Reshetnikov, in a downbeat message to Russia's showcase economic event, said on June 20 that the economy was on the verge of sliding into recession and monetary policy decisions would determine whether it falls into one or not. Pressure on the central bank is mounting. READ MORE HERE Liverpool shatter club record to sign Germany's Wirtz Liverpool have signed Germany's Florian Wirtz from Bundesliga side Bayer Leverkusen, the Premier League champions said on June 20, as they smashed their transfer record to seal a deal for the attacking midfielder. Leverkusen will receive a guaranteed amount of £100 million (S$170 million) and a further maximum of £16 million in potential bonuses. That makes the 22-year-old Liverpool's most-expensive signing ever, ahead of Netherlands centre back and captain Virgil van Dijk who joined for £75 million in 2017. READ MORE HERE Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
