COSCO and the US blacklist: Europe’s ports or Beijing’s tentacles?

The United States has just delivered an almighty wake-up call to Europe, blacklisting China’s state-owned maritime leviathan, COSCO, in a bold stroke that could turn the waters of global trade into a stormy sea. Now the question is: Will Europe ride the wave of US sanctions or get caught in China’s rising tide?

Let’s start with the basics. Why would the United States target COSCO, a shipping company? The answer is simple: COSCO isn’t just moving goods. The company, controlled by the Chinese government, is part of China’s broader strategy to extend its reach across global infrastructure — and the US isn’t having it.

COSCO operates in several key European ports, including Piraeus, Genoa and Rotterdam. It is no secret that China has been on a port-buying spree as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, a project that is rapidly turning the world’s maritime lanes into Chinese-controlled arteries. To Washington, this is not just about shipping containers. It is about national security.

You see, COSCO is no ordinary commercial player. The company’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are as deep as the Mariana Trench. Given China’s increasing willingness to blend military and economic interests (see South China Sea), US officials are worried that COSCO could be a Trojan Horse, allowing the Chinese military to gain access to critical infrastructure under the guise of “trade” and “development.”

What if those cargo ships weren’t just full of smartphones, but something a little more “strategic”? Could COSCO help Beijing establish a foothold in Europe, or even, God forbid, facilitate military operations through European hubs? These are the kinds of questions Washington is asking — and let’s be honest, they are not issues you want lingering when you are in a titanic struggle with China over the future of the global order.

And this is where it gets tricky. Europe has been, at best, ambivalent about China’s rise. On the one hand, the continent cannot resist China’s massive market and growing influence. On the other, China’s behaviour on the global stage — from its treatment of Hong Kong to its human rights record and overall aggressiveness — has raised more than a few eyebrows in Brussels.

Still, despite concerns about liberty and human rights, Europe has been more than happy to indulge China. After all, who can really blame Europeans? When a country with a population of 1.4 billion is waving investment dollars at your infrastructure projects, it is hard to say no.

Take Greece, for instance. It welcomed COSCO’s investment in the Port of Piraeus with open arms. Since COSCO took control, Piraeus has been transformed from a lagging port to one of Europe’s most important maritime hubs. The investment has been so fruitful that Greece, struggling to recover from its own financial crisis, has essentially become a client state of the CCP. The Greeks now have to juggle their need for Chinese investment with Washington’s ire. Not ideal.

But now the US has thrown a wrench into this Greco-Chinese love affair. Washington’s blacklisting of COSCO makes it clear: Europe can’t have it both ways. It will either continue to play nice with Beijing, or it will side with the US and confront the possibility of supply chain disruptions, diplomatic rifts and a reshuffling of its trade routes.

For the industries of shipping or logistics, the US sanctions on COSCO are a tsunami. Many of Europe’s major ports are tangled up with Chinese investments, and a disruption to COSCO’s operations could trigger a chain reaction across the continent. Aside Greece, there are several major players who will be affected.

In Italy, the Port of Genoa, a major logistics hub, also plays host to COSCO. With Italy’s deep ties to the Belt and Road Initiative, the sanctions are bound to create friction between Rome and Washington. Italy’s relationship with China has often been described as a “love affair” based on trade agreements and infrastructural investments, but now that romance could take a nasty turn.

Spain’s ports, too: Barcelona and Valencia are integral to COSCO’s European network. While Spain has a somewhat less intimate relationship with China, it cannot afford to ignore the impact of Washington’s sanctions. The risk of losing smooth logistical operations with China could hurt Spanish exports and disrupt supply chains, particularly in the textile and automotive sectors.

In the Netherlands, Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, is also no stranger to COSCO’s influence. While the Chinese state doesn’t control it directly, Rotterdam has deep commercial ties with Chinese shipping lines. The question remains: Can Rotterdam continue to operate as a neutral hub if Washington insists that COSCO is a threat to security?

It is a tightrope walk, and Europe’s balance might not last long. Europe’s problem lies in its contradictory relationship with China. While European nations are keen to preserve strong economic ties, they are also painfully aware of the growing risks posed by Beijing. From intellectual property theft to China’s continuous expansion of its global influence, Europe is facing a hard reality: You cannot have it both ways.

The EU has long prided itself on being a “strategic actor”, but when it comes to China, it has been anything but. Its attempts to strike a balance have led to a diplomatic mess that leaves Brussels looking more like a passive observer than a powerful player.

In the coming months, as the new Washington administration shifts its focus from Russia to the PRC, the EU will have to decide: Continue to embrace China’s investments, or stand with the US in safeguarding European sovereignty and security? To a great extent, this decision will determine whether Europe remains a genuine geopolitical player, or simply a pawn in a much larger game.

In this high-stakes chess match, Europe may find that the cost of continuing its flirtation with Beijing could be higher than it ever imagined. The days of playing the middle are over and the real question on the table is no longer just about business. It is about power, security, and in the long term, perhaps, even survival.