China on Central-Eastern Europe: ‘16+1’ as seen from Beijing. OSW COMMENTARY NUMBER 166/15.04.2015

From the Introduction. In 2012, China approached the countries of Central-Eastern Europe (CEE) with a proposal concerning regional cooperation in the ‘16+1’ formula. According to Chinese analysts, the rationale behind this breakthrough decision was Beijing’s acknowledgment of the growing importance of the region’s states within the European Union as well as a partial elimination of the ideological differences which had hamstrung cooperation in previous years. It seems that the eurozone crisis may be perceived as the reason for the CEE states’ increased interest in developing their cooperation with China. These circumstances have opened a ‘window of opportunity’ which Beijing has decided to exploit to create a kind of bridgehead in the region which it could later use in its further economic expansion in Europe. Apart from opening the CEE region up for investments, the ‘16+1’ format was intended to facilitate the shaping of relations between China and the EU and to become a tool in building a positive image for China. Chinese experts agree that after three years of functioning, the ‘16+1’ regional cooperation format has helped Beijing achieve its goals only to a limited extent. The major obstacles have included: the immense diversification of the region, barriers related to EU law, insufficient expertise on the part of Chinese companies, the asymmetry of economic needs on both sides, and no willingness within the region itself to develop cooperation. Regardless of the limited effectiveness of activities carried out so far, China has continued its ‘16+1’ initiative. This continuation and the progressing institutionalisation of cooperation in the ‘16+1’ format have often seemed superficial. China has been using this multi-party formula to improve its long-term bilateral relations with selected states in the region and thereby to create a basis for Beijing’s political and economic presence in Central-Eastern Europe.

(Table 1) Thermal conductivities of lithified core samples from ODP Leg 166 sites

The geothermal regime of the western margin of the Great Bahama Bank was examined using the bottom hole temperature and thermal conductivity measurements obtained during and after Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 166. This study focuses on the data from the drilling transect of Sites 1003 through 1007. These data reveal two important observational characteristics. First, temperature vs. cumulative thermal resistance profiles from all the drill sites show significant curvature in the depth range of 40 to 100 mbsf. They tend to be of concave-upward shape. Second, the conductive background heat-flow values for these five drill sites, determined from deep, linear parts of the geothermal profiles, show a systematic variation along the drilling transect. Heat flow is 43-45 mW/m**2 on the seafloor away from the bank and decreases upslope to ~35 mW/m**2. We examine three mechanisms as potential causes for the curved geothermal profiles. They are: (1) a recent increase in sedimentation rate, (2) influx of seawater into shallow sediments, and (3) temporal fluctuation of the bottom water temperature (BWT). Our analysis shows that the first mechanism is negligible. The second mechanism may explain the data from Sites 1004 and 1005. The temperature profile of Site 1006 is most easily explained by the third mechanism. We reconstruct the history of BWT at this site by solving the inverse heat conduction problem. The inversion result indicates gradual warming throughout this century by ~1°C and is agreeable to other hydrographic and climatic data from the western subtropic Atlantic. However, data from Sites 1003 and 1007 do not seem to show such trends. Therefore, none of the three mechanisms tested here explain the observations from all the drill sites. As for the lateral variation of the background heat flow along the drill transect, we believe that much of it is caused by the thermal effect of the topographic variation. We model this effect by obtaining a two-dimensional analytical solution. The model suggests that the background heat flow of this area is ~43 mW/m**2, a value similar to the background heat flow determined for the Gulf of Mexico in the opposite side of the Florida carbonate platform.