The fact of the matter is that China is the World’s second largest economy with a GDP measured in nominal terms (that is to say converted directly to US dollars using standard market exchange rates) of slightly over $9 trillion, as opposed to the USA which has a GDP of slightly under $17 trillion. Interestingly the EU as a whole has a GDP larger than both, with a figure of slightly over $17 trillion. If you adjust for purchasing power parity (that is to say that US$100 worth of local currency will buy different quantities of goods in different countries, so you can adjust the standard exchange rates to factor in the “purchasing power” of these different currencies) then all three political entities have a roughly similar GDP.

So how does the World accommodate the arrival of this new guest at the top table? Recent (in historical terms at least) precedents include Germany and Japan’s march to modernity in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the Soviet Union’s political (if never quite economic) power through the 20th century. None of these seem to augur especially well for hopes of a peaceful future. China itself also has an unattractive political system bereft of any clearly functioning independent judiciary, democratic accountability, or free-press illuminated transparency. Even its economic miracle was born, at first of its ability to corral a massive cheap workforce.

But we can be hopeful without indulging in wishful thinking. China is firmly embedded in international trade networks and juridical structures, trans-national systems of standards and financial transfer which all support an economic liberal consensus. While it has been argued that the longest period of European peace in its history itself ended with the horror of the First World War (from 1815 up until 1914), so there is no reason to assume that the current peace need necessarily end well, nonetheless much has changed since then, not least of all the understanding of the ease with which conflicts can escalate unnecessarily.

Notwithstanding the limitations of its political system China is building cities and urbanised societies that in their cultures and values, and even in their forms of building and dress, are largely indistinguishable from those of the West. And in this context Malta is right to look for economic opportunities to the East. Whether trudging a weary path across the Silk Roads of the Gobi, or sailing rockily Westwards across the unknown vastness of the Atlantic European explorers have always been motivated more by money than curiosity: the riches of the orient were their inspiration then as much as they are now.

It is entirely understandable that China will want to invest its well-earned gains from International trade in new ventures overseas. It is to be expected that they seek out a sensible return on their investments. It is also entirely to be expected that some of their purchases may be strategic. Furthermore, it may be that China sees Malta as a stepping stone to Europe and possibly also Africa, and there is nothing wrong with this either. In fact nothing outlined in the memorandum of understanding goes against common sense and good business practice. Being a member of the European Union does not require that Malta only do business with EU states (far from it), so suggesting that trade with China is somehow an alternative to trade with the European Union, reflects a misunderstanding. It is also true, as the prime minister has suggested, that other countries have beaten a door to China to drum up business; the UK, for example, has started establishing London as a centre for trade in the Chinese currency, the renminbi (other financial centres are up to the same trick). The UK also welcomed Chinese investment in its nuclear power sector. Putting this in perspective, in the 1980s it was Japan that was doing all the overseas investment, investing heavily in, and ultimately resuscitating, Britain’s then decaying car industry.

This piece isn’t an ode to unprincipled, unbridled self-interest, nor is it seeking to paint a Panglossian picture in the lurid colours of idealism. Malta is an integral part of the European Union; there are rules to which it must adhere and obligations which it must fulfil. Areas of non-compliance are judged by the European Court of Justice. Malta is a proudly independent country, with a free press, and a well-established, and fiercely contested, parliamentary democracy (and long may it remain so). Consequently Malta could not, even if it wanted, sell its soul to anyone.

Certainly Malta should be careful to insulate itself and its operatives against undue influence by foreign states, to ensure that it always acts in the best interests of the Maltese people. Certainly Malta should ensure that its politics and business dealings remain transparent and that political party funding is not open to abuse. But “insulation” and “isolation” are two different words. Far from isolating itself from everyone but the EU, by maintaining strong relations with China, with the USA, with North Africa, and with, of course, the EU, Malta makes itself more valuable to all parties as a hub, an intermediary, and as a nexus of influence, all of which are very noble and peaceful objectives very much in the best interests of the nation.