Skip to main content

China Debates the Belt and Road

In this June 29, 2018, photo, a man stands underneath pillars displaying Chinese President Xi Jinping's signature "China Dream" and "One Belt, One Road" foreign policy plan during an event in Beijing.

Image Credit: AP Photo/Andy Wong

What do Chinese analysts say about China’s biggest foreign policy initiative?

By Hannah Feldshuh

September 08, 2018








Understanding the “black box” of Chinese politics and foreign policymaking is a daunting endeavor, especially when it involves the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, a broad proposal that incorporates projects in more than 60 countries. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is hailed by Chinese officials and academics as an unprecedented panacea for global needs, a multilateral proposal to upgrade infrastructure, improve China’s bilateral ties, and international institutions, as well as drive much needed global development. On the other end of the spectrum, Western and English language sources discuss BRI with suspicion and mistrust, raising accusations of “debt diplomacy,” neocolonialist ambitions, or that China is undertaking a “new Marshall Plan.” The Chinese government fiercely opposes these claims, arguing that this take is simple manipulation aimed to ramp up suspicion of China’s intentions abroad.

What is lost in these extremes is the diversity of voices within China that express nuanced thoughts on implementation of the BRI, its strengths, weaknesses, and ideal next steps. Western sources, even established papers such as the New York Times, paint the picture that the Belt and Road Initiative benefits from complete, monolithic, and oppressive support. The reality is far more complicated: The BRI, its purpose, and the risks, are a subject of lively discussions among all echelons of Chinese society. Chinese authors express varied words of caution and thoughtful engagement, ranging from concerns about China’s global awareness, to its focus on long-term strategy, framing, and ability to address inevitable geopolitical competition. These opinions have an impact in shaping government responses. Academics, business owners, and think tank researchers are increasingly recruited to provide perspective and suggestions on government aims. In short, the powers that be in Beijing are listening to the outside world, but they are also listening to their own thinkers.

Some analysts raise concerns that China’s global awareness is insufficient to adequately operate in so many countries, an anxiety shared by international analysis who fear that “debt traps” are inevitable. Wuhan University Economics and Management School Professor Dr. Cheng Chengping and Wuhan University Ph.D. candidate Wu Fang acknowledge the huge risk of operating in diverse regions, each with its own geopolitical and financial risks. They argue that the Belt and Road Initiative must align more closely with localized needs and conditions in order to create a sustainable strategy. In order to prevent these clear risks, they assert that China must work with participating countries to develop different coordinating mechanisms, particularly in finance and industrial capacity.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

While some Western analysts may fear that the BRI is China’s strategy for world dominance, some Chinese analysts have the opposite fear: that the BRI is blindly operating in regions without a long-term vision or careful preparation. China Institute of International Studies Department for European-Central Asia Studies Deputy Director Li Ziguo asserts that BRI’s challenges are encapsulated by a need for long term strategic planning. Without such forethought, the business risks are equally clear to Li: Chinese firms lack awareness of legal standards in partner countries, ignore environmental risks, and make poor investment decisions based on limited understanding of partner countries’ local business conditions. The Belt and Road Initiative needs a better approach to managing geopolitical competition, argues CCP International Liaison Department Contemporary World Research Center Researcher Zhao Minghao. As China seeks to undertake large scale infrastructure projects, the United States, Japan, and India will continue to challenge for dominance in the Indo-Pacific.

Other voices are clearly reacting to outsider perceptions of the Belt and Road Initiative, seeing how critics view the plan and questioning the BRI’s optics. The central government’s overly ambitious framing of the BRI is a “fatal error,” writes South China University of Technology Institute of Public Policy Chairman Dr. Zheng Yongnian. By linking the Belt and Road Initiative to so many regions and projects, Western nations will naturally grow suspicious of China’s intentions. Unless the BRI becomes less ideological in its framing, it is unavoidable that China will be accused of seeking global hegemony.

The government is sensitive to language and discussion of the Belt and Road Initiative, whether that occurs domestically or internationally. When facing criticism and suspicious abroad, the Chinese government is forced to mediate the expectations of partner countries and international observers, with only modest gains. The more debate on the BRI grows among Chinese elites, the more the Chinese government will also have to moderate those expectations at home as well.

While the global discussion of the Belt and Road Initiative is lively and ongoing, an additional challenge is that there are limited ways for these international and domestic discussions to occur together. Without empowering converging voices to discuss and engage, the risk of creating self-perpetuating feedback loops is high. International critiques will continue to prompt defensive responses at home, making the Chinese domestic environment for policy criticism less open and more restrictive. To improve Belt and Road implementation, all voices need to be heard.

Hannah Feldshuh is a policy analyst at a China-based research firm.


Popular posts from this blog

SSG Commando Muddassir Iqbal of Pakistan Army

“ Commando Muddassir Iqbal was part of the team who conducted Army Public School operation on 16 December 2014. In this video he reveals that he along with other commandos was ordered to kill the innocent children inside school, when asked why should they kill children after killing all the terrorist he was told that it would be a chance to defame Taliban and get nation on the side. He and all other commandos killed children and later Taliban was blamed.
Muddassir Iqbal has deserted the military and now he is  with mujahedeen somewhere in AF PAK border area”
For authenticity of  this tape journalists can easy reach to his home town to interview his family members or   ISPR as he reveals his army service number”
Asalam o Alaikum: My name is Muddassir Iqbal. My father’s name is Naimat Ali. I belong to Sialkot divison (Punjab province), my village is Shamsher Poor and district, tehsil and post office  Narowal. Unfortunately I was working in Pakistan army. I feel embarrassed to tell you …

CPEC Jobs in Pakistan, salary details

JOBS...نوکریاں چائنہ کمپنی میںPlease help the deserving persons...Salary:Salary package in China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in these 300,000 jobs shall be on daily wages. The details of the daily wages are as follows;Welder: Rs. 1,700 dailyHeavy Duty Driver: Rs. 1,700 dailyMason: Rs. 1,500 dailyHelper: Rs. 850 dailyElectrician: Rs. 1,700 dailySurveyor: Rs. 2,500 dailySecurity Guard: Rs. 1,600 dailyBulldozer operator: Rs. 2,200 dailyConcrete mixer machine operator: Rs. 2,000 dailyRoller operator: Rs. 2,000 dailySteel fixer: Rs. 2,200 dailyIron Shuttering fixer: Rs. 1,800 dailyAccount clerk: Rs. 2,200 dailyCarpenter: Rs. 1,700 dailyLight duty driver: Rs. 1,700 dailyLabour: Rs. 900 dailyPara Engine mechanic: Rs. 1,700 dailyPipe fitter: Rs. 1,700 dailyStorekeeper: Rs. 1,700 dailyOffice boy: Rs. 1,200 dailyExcavator operator: Rs. 2,200 dailyShovel operator: Rs. 2,200 dailyComputer operator: Rs. 2,200 dailySecurity Supervisor: Rs. 2,200 dailyCook for Chinese food: Rs. 2,000 dailyCook…

The Rise of China-Europe Railways

The Rise of China-Europe RailwaysMarch 6, 2018The Dawn of a New Commercial Era?For over two millennia, technology and politics have shaped trade across the Eurasian supercontinent. The compass and domesticated camels helped the “silk routes” emerge between 200 and 400 CE, and peaceful interactions between the Han and Hellenic empires allowed overland trade to flourish. A major shift occurred in the late fifteenth century, when the invention of large ocean-going vessels and new navigation methods made maritime trade more competitive. Mercantilism and competition among Europe’s colonial powers helped pull commerce to the coastlines. Since then, commerce between Asia and Europe has traveled primarily by sea.1Against this historical backdrop, new railway services between China and Europe have emerged rapidly. Just 10 years ago, regular direct freight services from China to Europe did not exist.2 Today, they connect roughly 35 Chinese…