Civicidea

Hong Kong vs. the US – New complaint at the World Trade Organization

Newswire / /

Hong Kong is threatening a new complaint against the United States. Officials say the United States completely ignored Hong Kong’s status as a separate customs territory when imposing new tariffs on China. Hong Kong will take the United States to the World Trade Organization over the issue, Chief Secretary Eric Chan said.

Eric Chan stated that the U.S’s  complete disregard for Hong Kong’s status as a separate customs territory is “completely inconsistent with World Trade Organization rules.”

The move is in response to the U.S. imposing a 10% tariff on goods imported from the Asian financial hub. Last week, the U.S. Postal Service suspended all packages and mail from China and Hong Kong, but quickly reversed the decision. The move has caused some confusion among retailers and express delivery companies about how to deal with the U.S. tariffs.

Hong Kong has long been known as an open and free trade hub, but China’s 2020 imposition of a national defense law on Hong Kong has drawn criticism from the United States. The United States has forced China to end the special status granted to the former British colony under U.S. law, straining relations between the two countries.

In the wake of the move, U.S. President Donald Trump said he had spoken with Chinese President Xi Jinping, but declined to provide details. Trump said they have a “very good personal relationship.” The 47th U.S. president and Xi Jinping spoke before Trump returned to office and discussed issues such as Taiwan, TikTok, trade and more.

Washington and Beijing have had a tense relationship for years, with issues ranging from trade tariffs and cybersecurity to Taiwan, Hong Kong, human rights and the origins of COVID-19. How China-US relations develop during Trump’s second term will depend on the responses from both sides and from countries around the world.

Hong Kong vs. the US – New complaint at the World Trade Organization Read More »

Panama announced the Belt and Road Initiative exit

Newswire / /

The Panamanian side officially notified Beijing about its decision to exit the Belt and Road Initiative.  The President of Panama, José Raúl Mulino, stated that he instructed diplomats to submit the necessary statement to leave the project.

The president also discussed the decision to enter the agreement and said that he „does not know what the intention of those who signed this agreement [in 2017]. “He also spoke about the lack of benefits this project has brought to the country.

Panama’s decision followed the visit of the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, which was preceded by the statements made by Donald Trump about China’s control of the Panama Canal. Marco Rubio also spoke on the issue, saying that having Hong Kong-controlled companies “control the entrances and exits” of the channel is completely unacceptable. He also talked about China’s influence on Hong Kong. He stated, that “If there’s a conflict and China tells them, do everything you can to obstruct the canal so that the US can’t engage in trade and commerce, so that the US military and naval fleet cannot get to the Indo-Pacific fast enough, they would have to do it.”

Panama itself denies the involvement of the US, although the United States assesses the decision openly and positively.

The Chinese side also responded to Panama’s decision: the Chinese Foreign Ministry called on Panama to “make the right decision” and stated that this action was not in the interests of Panama. According to the statement, China hopes that Panama “will make the decision based on the overall situation of bilateral relations and the long-term interests of the two peoples, and eliminate external interference.”

Beijing assesses the actions of the US as pressure on Panama, the purpose of which is to undermine the cooperation within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. As for Rubio’s visit to Panama, the Foreign Ministry of China finds that the US Secretary of State’s comments “unjustly accuse China, deliberately sow discord between China and relevant Latin American countries, interfere in China’s internal affairs, and undermine China’s legitimate rights and interests”.

Panama announced the Belt and Road Initiative exit Read More »

US Treasury Imposes Sanctions on Network Supplying Iranian Oil to China

Newswire / /

The U.S. Treasury Department announced on Thursday its first financial sanctions under President Donald Trump’s administration, targeting an “international network” involved in transporting Iranian oil to China. According to the Treasury’s statement, this network has been responsible for facilitating the shipment of millions of barrels of Iranian crude oil, valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, to the People’s Republic of China.

These oil shipments were conducted on behalf of Iran’s Armed Forces General Staff and a sanctioned entity known as Sepehr Energy Jahan Nama Pars. The sanctions affect individuals and companies in several countries, including China, India, and the United Arab Emirates.

Furthermore, the Treasury imposed blocking sanctions on two tankers—the Panama-flagged CH Billion and the Hong Kong-flagged Star Forest—due to their role in transporting Iranian oil to China. According to U.S. officials, these vessels “onboarded” Iranian crude from storage facilities in China as part of a scheme that benefited Iran’s military through oil sales.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce emphasized that the objective of these sanctions is to “disrupt illicit funding streams” that finance Iranian armed forces and U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

“We will use all tools at our disposal to hold the regime accountable for its destabilizing activities and pursuit of nuclear weapons that threaten the civilized world,” Bruce stated.

Reports indicate that Iranian petroleum exports reached record levels in the first quarter of 2024, with the vast majority destined for China. An investigation published by The Economist in October 2024 estimated that Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical sales generated up to $70 billion in 2023. 

The rising volume of Iranian oil imports by China suggests that PRC-based buyers may believe the financial advantages of purchasing Iranian petroleum outweigh the risks posed by U.S. sanctions. Iranian petroleum is often sold at lower prices than the prevailing market rates, reportedly at a discount compared to Persian Gulf or price-capped Russian suppliers, making it attractive to foreign traders. 

Most PRC-based buyers are reportedly small, semi-independent refineries known as “teapots.” According to one advocacy group, these refineries are “both hard to uncover and not exposed to the U.S. financial system,” which limits the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions. Traders are also said to employ deceptive practices such as relabeling Iranian-origin petroleum and falsifying tanker route data.

“The Iranian regime remains focused on leveraging its oil revenues to fund the development of its nuclear program, to produce its deadly ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, and to support its regional terrorist proxy groups,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated.

“The United States is committed to aggressively targeting any attempt by Iran to secure funding for these malign activities,” he added.

US Treasury Imposes Sanctions on Network Supplying Iranian Oil to China Read More »

Tensions between Beijing and Washington rise over the Panama Canal

Newswire / /

China’s foreign ministry said on February 5 that it had lodged a complaint against the United States. The complaint concerns the US’s “irresponsible” remarks on the Panama Canal and “attacks” on China’s cooperation with Panama over the canal.

Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said at a press conference that China-Panama cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative is currently progressing normally, despite Panama’s president’s announcement a few days earlier that China may be prematurely terminated from participating in the Belt and Road Initiative and that the agreement will not be renewed.

Lin said he hopes the relevant parties will not change their minds and will not be influenced by external forces, “making the right decision based on the long-term interests of the two countries’ comprehensive relations and the people of both countries.”

It is noteworthy that within hours of the announcement, information about the agreement between the US Department of Defense and Panama spread. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino agreed to expand cooperation between the US military and Panamanian security forces.

“They agreed on a close relationship and shared security interests, which includes protecting the Panama Canal,” a Pentagon spokesman stated.  

The Panama Canal issue became more active after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Panamanian President Mulino on February 2nd that Washington “will definitely take appropriate measures” if Panama does not immediately take steps to end Chinese control and influence over the Panama Canal.

Rubio shared Trump’s message that the operation of the Hong Kong-based company at the ports at both ends of the canal is a matter of US national security and violates the treaty between the US and Panama. Interestingly, he did not rule out the use of force. Trump said that he does not believe that the use of troops will be necessary, but he will do everything to return the Panama Canal to the USA.

During the meeting with Rubio, the Panamanian president expressed his readiness to review the operations of Chinese businesses in Panama, including those that have been operating in the market for more than 25 years.

The day after Rubio’s call, two Panamanian lawyers filed a lawsuit in the country’s Supreme Court to cancel the concession of the Hong Kong-based company to operate two ports at both ends of the Panama Canal. If the court grants the lawsuit, this will lead to the immediate cancellation of the Panama-China contract.

A subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings, owned by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, has operated two of the canal’s five ports since it won the bid in 1997.

Tensions between Beijing and Washington rise over the Panama Canal Read More »

Georgia Faces Constitutional Crisis & Crackdown on Civil Society

New / /

1. Georgia Faces Constitutional Crisis as Ruling Party Loses Votes Necessary for Key Constitutional Issues 

2. New NGO and Media regulations were announced by the Georgian Dream as a response to Western pressure and sanctions.

Tbilisi, Georgia – The ruling Georgian Dream party faces an unprecedented constitutional crisis as the country’s parliament verges on losing its ability to function. Following the mass resignation and removal of opposition MPs, the legislature now risks falling below the threshold required for critical decision-making, rendering it effectively paralyzed.

Constitutional Gridlock and the 2/3 Majority Rule 

Under Georgia’s Constitution, certain critical decisions—including constitutional amendments, judicial appointments, impeachment procedures, and issues related to territorial integrity—require a supermajority of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the full Parliament.

Following the cancellation of 49 opposition MPs’ mandates of three opposition coalitions, Parliament has been reduced to just 101 active members. It is to be underlined that there is a fourth opposition party (for Georgia) with 12 mandates still legally represented. If the body loses two more members (very high probability), the ruling party will no longer be able to secure the required 2/3 threshold, rendering key governance functions inoperative.

The Constitution explicitly states:

  • Article 19: Amendments concerning land ownership require a 2/3
  • Article 35: The Public Defender of Georgia must be elected by a 3/5
  • Article 45: Approval of constitutional agreements requires 3/5
  • Article 47: Ratification and abrogation of international treaties require a full-majority vote, with treaties concerning territorial integrity requiring a 3/4 majority.
  • Article 48: Impeachment of the President requires a 2/3
  • Article 60: Constitutional Court judges must be appointed with a 3/5
  • Article 64: Members of the High Council of Justice must also be elected with a 3/5
  • Article 77: Constitutional amendments require a 2/3 majority for adoption and presidential submission.

The Immediate Crisis: Inability to Govern 

On February 5, 2025, Parliament effectively voted on its own incapacity by approving the removal of opposition MPs, further undermining its ability to function. If just two more MPs step down, the ruling party will no longer control the legislative process for constitutional matters, creating an unprecedented deadlock.

Several key areas will be directly impacted by this crisis:

  • Territorial Integrity and Border Decisions: Parliament will be unable to make decisions related to Georgia’s territorial integrity, a crucial issue amid regional tensions.
  • Judicial Appointments: The term of Constitutional Court Judge Merab Turava is set to expire on March 20, requiring 90 votes for a replacement. Without Gakharia’s faction entering Parliament, this threshold cannot be met, leaving the judiciary in limbo.
  • Presidential Impeachment: Any attempt to remove the President would be constitutionally impossible without the required 2/3 majority.
  • Lawmaking Paralysis: The ruling party will be unable to pass constitutional amendments, leaving critical governance matters unresolved.

Political Fallout and Financial Repercussions

Beyond the legal paralysis, the opposition’s resignation has financial consequences. Under Georgian law, parties maintaining a parliamentary presence are entitled to budgetary funding. By voluntarily surrendering their mandates, opposition parties—including the Coalition for Changes, Strong Georgia, and Unity-National Movement—will lose government financing, intensifying the political standoff.

Additionally, the opposition party “for Georgia” has so far refused to apply for mandate cancellation but remains outside the parliamentary process. Giorgi Gakharia, the party’s leader, has declared that he will not legitimize a one-party Parliament, further complicating legislative proceedings.

Path Forward: New Elections as the Only Solution?

The disintegration of Parliament into an ineffective body has raised urgent questions about the necessity of new elections. In established democracies, when a Parliament becomes functionally incapacitated due to a lack of quorum for decision-making, new elections are often called to restore governance. With the Georgian Dream already unable to push through constitutional amendments, territorial integrity or border issues (requires 113 votes), as well as significant legislative changes, the political pressure for a new electoral process is mounting.

The ruling party, which has spent the past three months moving from political delegitimization to legal incapacity, now finds itself trapped in a self-created crisis. With every additional mandate lost, the government edges closer to institutional collapse, making early elections increasingly only scenario for the country to function.

New regulations and laws accounted against NGOs and Media

 The Georgian Dream’s policies increasingly resemble reactive measures driven by frustration rather than strategic governance. With the majority of opposition figures now sidelined from Parliament, the ruling party has unveiled a new slew of measures targeting the bedrock of Georgian civil society. In a recent declaration, Mamuka Mdinadze, leader of the parliamentary majority, stated, “In the face of increased pressure, coercion, blackmail, and threats to our nation’s stability and sovereignty, our response will only grow firmer. We will continue to adopt both legal and political measures to ensure Georgia’s resilience against external manipulation, fortify our institutions, and safeguard our internal affairs from foreign interference.”

This rhetoric foreshadows the introduction of legislation aimed at further constricting the operating space for NGOs and the media. He said that Russian foreign agents’ law will be replaced by two new pieces of legislation, separate for NGOs and Media. He promised “translated US FARA and BBC regulation to be brought to parliament for approval.” However, given past attempts to equate Russian-style laws with American legal standards, the implications of such measures are troubling.

Moreover, Mdinadze has signaled significant alterations to the Grants Law, which has been a cornerstone of support for civil society in Georgia, surviving previous governmental efforts to curtail civic freedoms unscathed. Additionally, the government plans to withdraw from commitments made under the Open Government Partnership (OGP), including the elimination of statutory provisions that facilitate NGO participation in public decision-making processes.

While the government has left a window open for negotiation by scheduling these proposals for parliamentary consideration within the next two to three months, this appears to be a strategic move. By presenting such contentious policies, the Georgian Dream seems to be positioning itself to compel civil society leaders to engage in talks, potentially under duress, as a condition for acknowledging the legitimacy of the Parliament. Additionally, the government plans to establish a state-managed grant fund for public organizations, aiming to replace foreign funding sources with domestic alternatives.

The unfolding situation in Georgia underscores the fragility of democratic institutions when political maneuvering overrides constitutional stability. Whether this crisis results in renewed political legitimacy through elections or further governance paralysis remains to be seen.

Georgia Faces Constitutional Crisis & Crackdown on Civil Society Read More »

“Europe’s Dilemma: Navigating Amid Shifting Global Alliances”

Newswire / /

Since Donald Trump assumed office, Ursula von der Leyen has sought alternative strategies to navigate the evolving landscape of American geopolitics, with a particular focus on strengthening ties with China and India. The European Union must adapt to financial constraints, resource shortages, and emerging geopolitical uncertainties. However, these strategic shifts pose significant risks to the stability of transatlantic relations, potentially reshaping the EU’s position within the global order.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, widely regarded as one of the EU’s most vocal critics of China, reaffirmed the bloc’s balanced approach toward Beijing in a meeting with EU diplomats in Brussels. “We will keep de-risking our economic relationship – as we have been doing in recent years. But there is also room to engage constructively with China – and find solutions in our mutual interest,” von der Leyen said in a speech before the EU’s diplomatic corps in Brussels.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen appears determined to position the EU’s green and digital transition as a strategic counterweight to the United States’ continued reliance on traditional fossil fuels. Emphasizing Europe’s commitment to global cooperation, she stated, “Our message to the world is simple: if there is mutual benefit, we are ready to work with you.” She further highlighted the EU’s openness to economic partnerships, adding, “If you want to renew your cleantech industry, improve your digital infrastructure – Europe is open for business.” This approach reflects the EU’s ambition to lead in sustainable innovation while fostering international collaboration in the digital and clean energy sectors.

The European Commission, which is responsible for managing the trade policy of the 27-member EU, has vowed to defend its interests if Trump carries out his threats.

However, the European Commission president also stressed that the EU still has significant differences with China, saying it will be an “intense” year for “one of the most complex and important relationships in the world.”

Some critics argue that von der Leyen’s policy shift is constrained by Europe’s deep reliance on the United States for security and defense, leaving the EU with limited strategic alternatives. As one EU diplomat put it, “Europe really has no choice. If the choice is not to surrender Europe to China, the EU is trapped. The only thing they can do now is to make a short-term deal with Trump, work with other middle powers, and engage with the global South in the medium and long term.” This perspective underscores the geopolitical dilemma facing the EU as it seeks to balance transatlantic ties with an increasingly multipolar world.

“Europe’s Dilemma: Navigating Amid Shifting Global Alliances” Read More »

A new phase of the trade war: China’s response to US tariffs

Newswire / /

China imposed new tariffs on goods imported from the United States on February 4. This is a response to the additional 10% tariffs imposed by the United States on the same day, which will apply to all Chinese goods imported into the United States.

Trump, both during the election campaign and since his inauguration, has accused Beijing of not taking the necessary and sufficient measures to stop the growing flow of illegal drugs into the United States. Accordingly, the additional tariffs are also a kind of punitive measure against China.

China’s Ministry of Finance announced shortly after the US tariffs went into effect that it would impose an additional 15% tariff on US coal and liquefied natural gas, and a 10% tariff on crude oil, farm equipment, and small trucks, as well as large sedans imported into China from the US. The additional 10% tariff could also apply to Elon Musk’s Cybertrucks, which Tesla produces.

The tariffs will take effect on February 10, but U.S. crude oil prices fell 2% shortly after the announcement.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in the first 11 months of 2024, compared with the same period the previous year, China’s imports of U.S. crude oil fell by 52% or about 230,540 barrels of oil per day.

For the full year, U.S. crude accounted for 1.7% of China’s total imports, or about $6 billion, down from 2.5% in 2023, according to Chinese customs data.

Mia Geng, an analyst at FGE, stated that when China imposed 25% tariffs on U.S. crude during Trump’s first term in office, it stopped buying about 300,000 to 400,000 barrels of crude oil per day and used West African and Asian supplies as alternatives.

In addition, China has targeted American businesses, including Google, Calvin Klein and others. China’s Ministry of Commerce said it had already added PVH (PVH.N), a holding company that owns brands such as Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein, and U.S. biotechnology firm Illumina, to a list of “unreliable entities.” The ministry said the two companies had taken discriminatory measures against Chinese enterprises and had infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies. China could impose fines or other sanctions on entities or companies on the list, including suspending or freezing trade and revoking work permits for foreign personnel.

Additionally, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation said Google is suspected of violating the country’s antimonopoly laws and has already launched an investigation into the company. Google’s products, such as its search engine, are blocked in China, although it works with local partners, such as advertising companies. 

Besides  China, the newly elected president of the United States has also imposed additional sanctions on Canada and Mexico. The Canadian prime minister announced a 25% retaliatory tariff on American goods on February 1, warning the American people that they would have to pay for Trump’s actions. After that, Trump temporarily suspended his decision and gave Canada and Mexico 30 days to eliminate criminal activities along the border.

China has not been given a similar opportunity, although according to Trump’s press secretary, the 47th President of the United States is planning a phone conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping this week in order for the world’s two largest economies to reach some kind of agreement before a new trade war becomes inevitable.

A new phase of the trade war: China’s response to US tariffs Read More »

GD’s New Legislation Tightens Grip on Dissent and Accelerates Dictatorship

New / /

The Georgian Dream (GD) party has unveiled yet another wave of legislative changes designed to tighten its grip on power, ramping up penalties for a variety of offenses—many of which directly target protesters, critics, and political dissenters. Among the most striking changes:

  • harsher punishment for “insulting officials,”
  • a new criminal offense for a public insult on politicians and other high-ranking officials,
  • the transformation of public calls for “violence” from an administrative violation into a felony punishable by up to three years in prison,
  • increase in administrative detention term from 15 to 60 days,
  • prohibition of protest in any building without prior consent of an owner (it will include universities, theaters, and most of the large public spaces).

These amendments were announced on February 3 by GD parliamentary majority leader Mamuka Mdinaradze following a political council meeting and they were approved by first reading by the parliamentary committees the same day. In his usual combative rhetoric, Mdinaradze framed the crackdown as a necessary response to what he called the ongoing efforts of “Deep State agents” to overthrow the government. He declared that the ruling party requires “the appropriate tools and means to govern the country” and to “serve the citizens.” In reality, these measures seem aimed at silencing dissent and literally curbing freedom of speech rather than addressing any genuine threats to governance.

Mdinaradze clarified that this is just the beginning: “The process will continue until the imposed norms are completely replaced by the adoption of norms necessary for the proper functioning and independence of the state.”

The New Rules of Repression

The proposed legislation includes an array of new restrictions and harsher penalties:

  1. No more spontaneous protests: Holding indoor rallies without prior permission from the building owner will be explicitly prohibited. This is particularly significant given that many universities, theaters, and public institutions are state-owned—effectively banning protests on those premises. Understanding the context, universities have been on top of the protests in Georgia since 1988.
  2. Steeper penalties for dissent: Administrative offenses such as petty hooliganism, disobeying police orders, vandalism, and blocking court entrances will now carry increased fines and detention periods.
  3. Extended administrative detention: The maximum period for administrative detention will skyrocket from 15 to 60 days. Understanding the context, Georgia was constantly criticized by international human rights institutions for long administrative detention periods (used to be 90 days long), and it was the Georgian Dream coalition government that brought it down to 15 days years back.
  4. Criminalizing speech: Insulting a public official in connection with their work will become a new administrative offense, giving authorities yet another tool to silence criticism. Obviously, there is no definition or framework for an insult. Under current Georgian reality, anything, including a cynical Facebook post, will qualify. 
  5. Jail time for speech-related crimes: Public calls on disobedience to law enforcement officials, refusal to obey the law, and calls on “violence,” previously met with fines, will now lead to imprisonment of up to three years. And again, there is no framework or definition for “calls of violence.”
  6. Crackdown on resistance to police: Resisting, threatening, or using violence against law enforcement will now be classified as a “major crime” punishable up to ten years of imprisonment.
  7. Harsher punishment for harming police: New aggravating circumstances will be introduced for attacking police officers, state authorities, or their family members. Again, for the context, arrests against activists were always marked by the heavy use of this particular law. We have a handful of case laws where “harming policeman” is defined by the court based on the testimony from the policeman: “I felt pain in my cheek”. Write now: a journalist in pretrial detention is waiting for a five-year sentence strictly for those words said by a policeman during testimony.  
  8. Criminalizing vague ‘threats’: A new criminal code amendment will punish threats of attack, incitement or violence against political and state officials, providing broad leeway for interpretation and potential abuse.

What This Means for Georgia

The only tool the government is left with is the power of force. They solely and heavily rely on repressive power. There is no soft power left, no arguments or convincing. The mood of dissent is increasing, and the number of those protesting magnifies every day. Georgia has been on daily protests for over two months now, and there is no sign that it will change without the government freeing political prisoners and calling for new elections.

So, Georgian Dream decided to make peaceful protests riskier as a deterrence. GD grants itself sweeping new powers to detain demonstrators, silence critics, and police online discourse massively. Students protesting in universities? Banned. Actors speaking out in theaters? Potentially criminalized. Calling a regime official a name on social media? That, too, will soon be grounds for punishment.

These measures announced just one day after peaceful demonstrations on February 2, make it clear that GD is not simply reacting to threats—it is preemptively rewriting the rulebook to eliminate any kind of resistant speech. GD’s ominous warning that “there will be a continuation” suggests that this is only the first phase of an escalating crackdown.

In essence, GD is laying the legal foundation for something much bigger: a system in which opposition is discouraged and criminalized.

GD’s New Legislation Tightens Grip on Dissent and Accelerates Dictatorship Read More »

Donald Trump has imposed tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico

Newswire / /

The US President, Donald Trump, has started to implement previously announced reforms of economic policies and has imposed tariffs on China, as well as Canada and Mexico. He signed the decision on Saturday, February 1st.

According to the statement made by the Trump administration, tariffs aim to reduce the flow of narcotics and undocumented immigrants in the US. The president himself has published a post on social media, reading that the tariffs were necessary to “protect Americans”.

More specifically, the new regulations include a 25% rise in tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10% on China. Regarding China, the White House statement talks about the dangers of Fentanyl – according to it, Chinese officials could not stop the flow of said drugs to criminal cartels. Additionally, they could not uproot money laundering from transnational criminal organizations.

Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the government of said country “firmly deplores and opposes this move [made by Donald Trump] and will take necessary countermeasures to defend its legitimate rights and interests.” Aside from this, the Ministry highlights that China started to regulate Fentanyl in 2019 and was acting in cooperation with the US to counter the negative effects of the narcotics.

Furthermore, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce also replied to the statement and announced a complaint that it is planning to file with the World Trading Organization (WTO).

As for Canada and Mexico, both countries have decided to impose tariffs on the US themselves as a countermeasure.

Donald Trump has imposed tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico Read More »

Anaklia Deepwater Port’s Elusive Investor

Anaklia, Newswire / /

The Anaklia Deepwater Port project, long touted by the Georgian Dream as a flagship endeavor, remains shrouded in ambiguity. Despite persistent assurances from the government, details regarding the selection of a private investor continue to elude the public.

On January 20, 2025, Minister of Economy and Sustainable Development Levan Davitashvili confirmed that construction work has officially commenced, with negotiations with a private investor also underway. According to Davitashvili, the project’s original Chinese-Singaporean consortium is now being expanded, with new players joining the ranks. Further information on this development is expected to be released in February. He also announced that April would mark the deadline for the consortium to submit an updated proposal.

Key milestones to note:

  • February: The public will be informed about the ongoing negotiations, including details about the new consortium members.
  • April: The Sino-Singaporean consortium aims to finalize and submit an updated proposal.

However, past promises to keep the public informed have been repeatedly postponed. Last year, Davitashvili made several commitments about the project’s progress:

  • May 29, 2024: The Chinese-Singaporean consortium was announced as the preferred bidder, with Davitashvili stating the consortium would be officially named winner within days. Nearly eight months later, negotiations remain ongoing.
  • October 8, 2024: The minister promised a public presentation of the project’s progress in the “coming days,” citing intense negotiations with the investor that would soon conclude. Four months later, this much-anticipated presentation has yet to materialize.

In addition to the ongoing investor negotiations, questions loom over the expansion of the Chinese-Singaporean consortium. As reported in our previous analysis, the two known members of the consortium—China Communications Construction Company Limited and China Harbour Investment Pte. Ltd—carry a reputation for controversy on the global stage. Given the Georgian Dream’s tendency to overlook due diligence when selecting Chinese firms for infrastructure projects, the addition of new players to the consortium raises legitimate concerns about the project’s viability and potential risks.

Minister Davitashvili’s statement was soon followed by a declaration from Georgian Dream representative Irakli Kobakhidze, who noted that the agreement with the Chinese-Singaporean consortium had entered an “intensive phase,” with consortium representatives currently in Georgia for talks. However, as Davitashvili’s earlier statement indicated, the investor selection process will likely continue until at least April 2025.

The Anaklia project has been a favorite talking point for the Georgian Dream, touted as a testament to the government’s economic success—particularly during election cycles. After the elections, the rhetoric has remained unchanged, with continued references to the port’s potential to drive economic development. Notably, the 2025 state budget allocates 150 million GEL to the project. However, the lack of concrete progress and persistent delays in selecting a private investor leave many questioning whether this project will ever come to fruition.

Why the Delays?

The official reason behind the year-long delay in finalizing a private investor remains unclear. However, several factors likely contribute to the extended timeline:

  1. Ownership Issues with Consortium Member: The controlling stake in China Communications Construction Company Limited (a member of the Sino-Singaporean consortium) is held by the state-owned China Communications Construction Group. According to the tender’s exclusion clauses, companies in which the state holds more than 30% of the shares are ineligible to participate in the selection process. This potential violation likely posed a significant obstacle during negotiations, prompting the inclusion of additional partners to ensure compliance.
  2. Financial Guarantee Concerns: HSBC Bank was initially listed as the financial guarantor for the consortium, but doubts persist regarding the bank’s involvement. If HSBC is not providing the promised financial guarantee, it would explain delays in finalizing the agreement.
  3. Political Sensitivities: The current political climate in Georgia, shaped by the Georgian Dream’s increasingly anti-Western stance, presents another challenge. Announcing a Chinese-Singaporean consortium as the private partner for the Anaklia project could provoke public backlash, potentially escalating tensions. The government may be delaying progress to avoid further public unrest.

In sum, while the promises surrounding the Anaklia Deepwater Port project continue to multiply, the reality is far less clear. With crucial negotiations dragging on and the specter of political and financial complications looming large, one has to wonder whether this much-heralded infrastructure project will ever leave the drawing board.

Anaklia Deepwater Port’s Elusive Investor Read More »

Scroll to Top