The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a global infrastructure development strategy adopted by the Chinese government in 2013 to invest in nearly 150 countries and international organizations. It is considered by many to be the centrepiece of the Chinese leader Xi Jinping's foreign policy. The BRI forms a central component of Xi's "Major Country Diplomacy" strategy, which calls for China to assume a greater leadership role for global affairs in accordance with its rising power and status. As of August 2022, 149 countries were listed as having signed up to the BRI.
The BRI was created in response to China’s industrial overcapacity, stagnating exports abroad and the need to increase connectivity with developing economies for expanding to new foreign markets. By 2027, total global BRI spending could reach $1.3 trillion. The initiative was incorporated into the Constitution of China in 2018. The project has a target completion date of 2049, which will coincide with the centennial of the People's Republic of China (PRC)'s founding. Examples of Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure investments include ports, skyscrapers, railroads, roads, bridges, airports, dams, coal-fired power stations, and railroad tunnels. Supporters praise the BRI for its potential to boost the global GDP, particularly in developing countries. Numerous studies conducted by the World Bank have estimated that BRI can boost trade flows in 149 participating countries by 4.1 percent, as well as cutting the cost of global trade by 1.1 percent to 2.2 percent, and grow the GDP of East Asian and Pacific developing countries by an average of 2.6 to 3.9 percent.
However, there has also been criticism over human rights violations and environmental impact, as well as concerns of debt-trap diplomacy resulting in neo-colonialism and economic imperialism. According to a report by American NGO, China Labor Watch, there are widespread human rights violations concerning Chinese migrant workers sent abroad. The Chinese companies allegedly commit “forced labour" and usually confiscate the workers' passports once they arrive in another country, make them apply for illegal business visas and threaten to report their illegal status if they refuse to comply, refuse to give adequate medical care and rest, restrict workers' personal freedom and freedom of speech, force workers to overwork, cancel vacations, delay the payment of wages, publish deceptive advertisements and promises, browbeat workers with high amount of damages if they intend to leave, provide bad working and living conditions and punish workers who lead protests.
The United States and other critics, interpret the BRI as a plan for a Sino-centric international trade network. In response the United States, Japan and Australia had formed a counter initiative, the Blue Dot Network in 2019, followed by the G7's Build Back Better World initiative in 2021. The United States proposes a counter-initiative called the "Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy" (FOIP). At the beginning of June 2019, there has been a redefinition of the general definitions of "free" and "open" into four stated principles – respect for sovereignty and independence; peaceful resolution of disputes; free, fair, and reciprocal trade; and adherence to international rules and norms.
India has tried to convince countries that the BRI is a plan to dominate Asia, warning of a “String of Pearls” geo-economics strategy whereby China creates unsustainable debt burdens for its Indian Ocean neighbours in order to seize control of regional choke points. India officially expressed strong opposition to China’s BRI by stating that the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project ignores its essential concerns on its sovereignty and territorial integrity. India’s primary concern is with the corridor’s path through Gilgit-Baltistan in PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir), which India considers its territory. The construction of CPEC would further reinforce Pakistan’s claim over the region. India also suspects that the CPEC seeks to counter India’s Act East policy and growing India-USA relations. Further, it also has a fear that the newly developed roadways near the Indian border in the PoK region will raise the infiltration of anti-India elements from Pakistan to India. Meanwhile, India has provided its own development assistance to neighbours, most notably Afghanistan, where it has spent $3 billion on infrastructure projects.
From an Indian standpoint, what is notable is the level of agency that sub-national entities in China have, which is not replicated in full measure in India even though it is a federal state. China’s BRI, therefore, challenges us to reconsider the whole gamut of our foreign policy objectives, strategies, and structures as well as our internal structures of administration, including centre-state relations. Clearly, while India is not short of ideas, it is short of both resources and capabilities. Some of these can be mended by greater inter-ministerial coordination and synergy in the implementation of foreign development projects. Others require a mindset change in which, for example, the government and its ministries both open themselves up to greater inputs and expertise from the outside including from the states, the military, the universities, and think-tank communities as well as invest far more than it does presently, in developing capacities in these institutions.
The future will likely mean increasing competition between China’s BRI and the Western connective strategies. For Beijing, the ultimate strategic objective is to promote its interests and constrain or undermine those of the U.S. and the EU. The BRI is Beijing’s most important instrument for changing the rules of the world order and future global governance to ensure significant expansion of China’s economic and political influence. On November 11, China announced approval for a slew of infrastructure projects in mainland Southeast Asia at this year’s round of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summits, signalling its Belt and Road Initiative is moving back on track after a hiatus of almost three years because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Comments