China paves promising way with new Silk Road but must still win over the sceptics

by Richard Ghiasy in South China Morning Post, May 15, 2017, 11:26pm
(The author is a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s China and Global Security Programme)
China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” has deservedly received tremendous attention in China and beyond, partly due to its ambition and promise, but also because China has put a lot of effort into promoting it since it was launched in late 2013.
The belt and road forum that has just wrapped up in Beijing was the biggest diplomatic event hosted in China this year. In all, some 1,200 delegates from 110 countries attended, including 29 visiting heads of state and government leaders.
The initiative, which China promotes as a Chinese idea with global ownership, is meant to fill a good share of the massive global infrastructure vacuum and tap the enormous economic cooperation potential that lies ahead.
Infrastructure needs in the Asia-Pacific alone will require some US$22.6 trillion through 2030, at least if the region is to maintain growth.
The initiative has a near global focus, although the prime focus is on the Eurasian continent. It has evoked a range of reactions, the most enthusiastic being a large number of states in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe – mostly states in Europe’s south and east.
Many of these states are cash-strapped and welcome an injection of Chinese funds and the prospect of more exports to the world’s second-biggest economy.
In contrast, the United States has showed little interest, Japan has upped the speed of its own regional connectivity plans, and the European Union has given the initiative a lukewarm welcome.
Russia, meanwhile, has decided to link the initiative with its own regional economic framework, the Eurasian Economic Union – although it took its time to consider it.
Britain has warmly welcomed the initiative; the biggest economies of the EU, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands, have cautiously engaged; and Germany, perhaps more than others, is interested in the initiative’s possible long-term strategic implications to national and EU foreign, security and economic interests.
Policy advisers and makers in the EU think that there is space for elaboration by China on the initiative’s political longevity, commercial viability, and milestones and indicators for success. Will the initiative enjoy as much political support from President Xi Jinping’s successor? And, will China continue to commit vast sums to the initiative year after year?
In addition, there are concerns over the lack of multilateral stewardship of the initiative: so far the programme has been rather unilateral and bilateral in nature. However, China has frequently reached out to the international community and welcomed stronger input and involvement, even though sometimes this has fallen on deaf ears.
China is using the forum to promote the initiative’s achievements to date, and lay out some dazzling new ideas. Hopefully, China will also stipulate in greater detail the way forward.
The states that are already very positive about the initiative and perceptive to closer engagement will not need convincing of its advantages.
The larger and more critical Western economies and the supranational EU are the ones looking for more particulars on the way forward.
This would include details on the initiative’s security implications: the programme certainly has the potential to boost socioeconomic development and help stabilise states, but simultaneously it has the potential to further destabilise fragile states.
For instance, it could empower governments that have a poor track record of raising the local population’s standard of living, or feed into existing corruption and nepotism schemes.
In addition, it could fan existing rivalries and raise political temperatures, as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has in South Asia between China and Pakistan on the one hand, and India on the other.
These drawbacks are precisely what add to the concerns of the initiative’s sceptics. Naturally, an initiative as colossal as this will have downsides, too. Yet, it is important that strategies are developed to mitigate these, that the anticipated positive impacts reach a wide range of the local population, and that positive impact is sustainable.
Ideally, China, the EU and other stakeholders would join hands and set up a coordination and monitoring mechanism. This way the initiative’s stewardship would become more inclusive, even if it would probably slow the initiative down.
While it is unfeasible for all international stakeholders to be enthusiastic, a number of key global economies such as the EU and India really need to be on board. Perhaps it is not a bad thing that these stakeholders take their time to gauge – after all, inclusivity also implies that everybody’s wishes and concerns are taken into consideration. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2094414/opinion-china-paves-promising-way-new-silk-road-must