For China, it symbolises the positive role Chinese companies can play in building high-quality infrastructure in the EU.

The bridge exemplifies the “win-win” strategy that China has promoted under the Cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European Countries (China-CEEC) umbrella launched seven years ago to advance trade between the participants.

“Croatia is an EU member, and that Chinese company was awarded the contract means the professional level of the Chinese companies could be recognised by EU countries and the construction level is meeting the EU’s standards and its procurement rules,” Tsinghua University international relations professor Shi Zhiqin said.

But with few other signs of progress for the European players, participants are questioning whether the strategy is wishful thinking.

China-CEEC, better known as the “16+1” initiative, was established in 2012 when then Chinese premier Wen Jiabao visited the Polish capital of Warsaw to expand investment and build more roads and railways between China and the region, which Beijing sees as a road eventually to Europe.

Its membership includes 11 EU member states – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovenia – and five aspiring EU member states from the Western Balkans: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania and North Macedonia.

At the time, Beijing promised billions of dollars in special loans and an economic zone in each of the 16 countries within five years, among other commitments.

“The main expectations at the time were that CEE countries will be able to reduce their trade deficits and increase the foreign direct investment inflow from China to the region,” said Matej Simalcik, executive director of Institute of Asian Studies, a think tank in Bratislava, Slovakia.

But so far there have been few signs of that progress. Diplomatic observers say the scales of economic benefits seem to be tipping in favour of China and patience is wearing thin among leaders in many countries from the Baltic to the Balkans, who had pinned hopes on China’s investment to boost local economies and employment.

One of the biggest sources of disillusionment is the growing trade deficit of many countries with China.

In Poland, one of China’s strategic partners in the region, the trade deficit has roughly tripled from US$10.3 billion in 2012 to US$28.4 billion last year.

China courts eastern Europe investment in wake of US trade battle

In June, the Guangzhou-based 21st Century Business Herald quoted the Polish consul general in the southern Chinese city, Joanna Skoczek, as saying that while inflows of Chinese products via the China Railway Express were so great that they were causing congestion and shipment delays in the system, cargo trains back to China were mostly empty.

“With no tangible results in terms of expanded market access or greenfield investments from China, certainly [in terms of] the CEE’s priorities, there’s a sense of disillusionment and lack of will on the Chinese side to come up with win-win solutions,” said Jakub Jakobowski, a research fellow at Centre for Eastern Studies in Warsaw.

Richard Turcsanyi, a China specialist with Palacký University Olomouc in the Czech Republic, said there had been little sign of the much-promised Chinese investment.

“There have been very few Chinese investments, which is probably the biggest issue,” Turcsanyi said. “Chinese infrastructure projects have only been in progress with Western Balkans and there they are often seen as controversial by various stakeholders, including the EU who sees them as undermining the good standards.”

Simalcik said another problem was that the 16 countries had nothing in common besides their communist heritage. He said this further complicated Beijing’s attempt to work with the 16 countries as a cohesive entity to implement joint projects and hampered their joint efforts to bargain with Beijing too.

“The bloc is very diverse as it includes different ethnic groups, EU members alongside non-members, Nato members and non-members, countries with very different levels of socioeconomic developments, different economic and political interests,” Simalcik said.

“This makes the cooperation of the 16 countries quite complicated and ultimately benefits China, when the 16 CEE countries compete with each other for Chinese attention rather than cooperate on pursuing common interests vis-à-vis China.”

US, EU and China vie for influence in Eastern Europe

Growing tensions between the EU and China are also casting a shadow over the Dubrovnik summit. This year’s 16+1 gathering will take place just three days after the annual EU-China summit in Brussels and a month after the European Commission, the EU’s executive, for the first time labelled China as an “economic competitor” and “a systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance”.

In addition, Poland and the Czech Republic – EU members that China sees as a major partners in China-CEEC – have joined a number of other Western countries in considering excluding Chinese telecom giant Huawei from building part of their 5G telecoms network for security reasons.

Turcsanyi said Huawei was unlikely to come up a the Croatia summit, highlighting a fault with the platform.

“The inability of the 16+1 to deal with this shows that the mechanism is not as important as many would have imagined,” he said.

Observers said Beijing might try to adjust its 16+1 approach, including addressing trade barriers.

“China will need to address the fact that not all CEE countries benefited from participating in the platform,” Simalcik said. “This will require on China’s part to get rid of the numerous trade barriers with which the CEE firms need to deal with if they wish to export to China or invest there.”

But Turcsanyi said the room for adjustment might be limited.

“It seems that China and CEE are not so economically complementary … China and CEE countries might offer and demand both something different,” he said. “[In the end,] there is little which the platform like 16+1 can achieve substantially and hence the adjustments can also be mainly regarding the form, PR framing, media attention.”

Additional reporting by Keegan Elmer