China held the Second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing from April 25 to 27, with about 40 heads of state, delegates from 150 countries and 90 international organizations from around the world participating, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Swiss President Ueli Maurer, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, Nepalese President Bidhya Devi Bhandari and Burmese State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi.
With the presence of about 5,000 delegates, the second forum provided an opportunity for China to take detailed stock of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and plan the next course of action for the success of the global project.
Undoubtedly, ever since the initiative was launched in 2013, it has become the Chinese government’s most ambitious project with regards to reshaping the regional and global order.
While the initiative is generally viewed in terms of a plan to build infrastructure projects, other elements of it are to strengthen regional political cooperation, unimpeded trade, financial integration and people-to-people exchanges.
The BRI covers 76 countries from Asia, Africa and Europe, which account for half of the world’s population and one-quarter of global GDP.
The government of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has focused on mobilizing the country’s political, diplomatic, intellectual, economic and financial resources to make China the unquestionable regional and global power.
While the initiative is expected to cost more than US$11 trillion, Xi has said that the total trade volume between China and BRI countries exceeded US$6 trillion from 2013 to last year, while China has so far chalked up US$80 billion in direct foreign investment to these countries.
He also announced that projects worth US$64 billion and 283 deliverables were signed at the forum.
However, it is equally true that over the years apprehensions about the BRI being China’s trap diplomacy have also increased, symbolized by cases such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the Hambantota Port and others.
Malaysia had put on hold the Chinese rail project connecting its east and west coast, and it was only after the original cost was cut by 30 percent that the project was allowed to resume.
Thus, fully realizing the negative developments surrounding the initiative, Xi has focused on engaging others in the project, saying that the “Belt and Road Initiative is not only for China, but open to other nations’ participation.”
He also said that the initiative is a “commitment to multilateralism and an open global economy.”
Xi also mentioned China’s efforts to improve the yuan exchange mechanism.
At the same time, Xi said that as the host country, China would uphold the principle of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits; and maintain close communication and coordination with all parties to work together with openness, inclusiveness and transparency.
These statements indicate a major shift in China’s initial approach toward the BRI, with an intent to placate the concerns regarding its hidden efforts to dominate the Indo-Pacific region and the world.
Moreover, through the second summit, Xi reinforced his government’s stance that China’s rise would be peaceful.
However, whatever explanations the Chinese leadership offer to ensure the penetration of the BRI across the globe, the fact remains that China’s hidden agenda is to establish itself as the dominant force in Asia and other parts of the world.
This can easily be understood in China’s spending on the modernization of its military, its assertive posturing against Taiwan and in the South China Sea, the recent Doklam crisis with India and other developments.
Not surprisingly, India, a major emerging economic and military power in Asia, has refused to join the initiative on the grounds that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project violates its sovereignty, because it passes through the part of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir that is claimed by India.
At the same time, unlike in the past, the US also did not send a representative to the second summit. New Delhi and Washington share an understanding of the possible strategic and security threats emerging from the project.
It is in this context that New Delhi and Washington have taken several measures to effectively challenge Xi’s pet project. In doing so, while India has focused on enhancing its engagement with Southeast Asian countries under its Act East Policy, it also sees a point in US President Donald Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy to maintain and promote peace and security in the region.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced that “Indo-Pacific economic vision” will increase the financial support that the US government provides to countries in the region through a proposed agency, the US International Development Finance Corporation.
Needless to say, one of the driving forces behind the Indo-Pacific strategy is aimed at containing China’s assertive posturing in the South China Sea and beyond.
The rival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue between the US, Japan, Australia and India last year is also attributed to the intention of these countries to check China’s rise.
At the same time, India is focused on working with Japan to develop an Asia-Africa growth corridor, which would help create a “free and open Indo-Pacific region” by rediscovering ancient sea routes and creating new sea corridors that would link the African continent with India and countries in South and Southeast Asia.
It has to be seen whether “BRI 2.0” really promotes multilateralism in Asia and beyond or further amplifies concerns about China’s perceived efforts to dominate the regional global power structure.
Sumit Kumar is a former Ministry of Foreign Affairs visiting fellow at National Chengchi University and a research fellow at Maulana Azad Institute of Asian Studies in Kolkata, India.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations