Introduction
Recent economic turmoil between China and Trump oftentimes snatches the headlines as a power struggle between the two superpowers of the world. It is portrayed as if it only began recently when Trump announced tariffs on June 25, 2019. Yet, the underlying problem is more complex and deeper than that. In 2013, President of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Xi Jinping announced the One Belt One Road Initiative in Kazakhstan, which seeks to unite the African, Asian, and Europian continents through a series of land and sea trade routes. Working with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRI is expected to cost around $26 Trillion and affect over 71 countries. While preventing this gargantuan scale of economic redevelopment is unlikely, many question the realistic long term developments of countries that partake in the BRI. More importantly, political scientists question the change in the balance of global hegemony between China and the US during and after the implementation of the BRI.
The Positive Impacts of the BRI
Source: CSIS Reconnecting Asia
Initially labeled as the One Belt One Road Initiative, the Chinese government had renamed it to the Belt Road Initiative after language barriers that could cause misinterpretation. To ensure in a public relations perspective that they seem like they are working together with, instead of dominating over, the countries, the word “one” has been taken out. This shows that the PRC’s plan to expand its hegemony also takes into careful consideration the public relations towards other countries. Projects, however, have maintained and continue to expand in an upward trend.
In Kenya, where the poverty rate hovers around 50%, the time it takes to travel from Mombasa and Nairobi drastically decreased from 12 to four hours as part of one of the plans of the BRI. As Chinese industrial demands required roads to be connected between these two cities, the spillover effects also benefited the locals who required the industrial development for their own personal reasons. This successful case of development has increased trust and cooperation between the two governments, allowing for further industrial plans to take place and channels of travel between the two countries to exist.
Cambodia, one of the closest allies of China in the Southeast Asian region, created projects such as the Sihanoukville Expressway(SSEZ) which helped generate employment for over 20,000 local workers. The second phase of development incorporates plans that would expand the zone to “host up to 300 enterprises and 100,000 Cambodian workers.” Not only that on paper does it help the local economy, but the SSEZ also hosts free vocational schools and allows for greater logistical planning and intracity logistics. The Chinese government takes headway in building the SSEZ construction of $1.9 Billion but is able to take toll fees on the road.
From a political perspective, advocates of BRI also argue that China has an economic incentive to resolve local political disputes. While Sudan is an important region in controlling the African Red Sea Coast, local conflicts between South Sudan and Sudan make it an unattractive bet for many investors. However, the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang stated in a formal address that China will “remain committed to upholding and developing the friendly and cooperative ties.” In September 2018, President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan was guaranteed a $58 million grant and a $30 million interest-free loan by the CCP during the China Africa Cooperation Forum.
The Negatives of the Belt Road Initiative
Many philosophers argue in the modern age of politics that altruism does not truly exist, and that every action has an underlying political effect which is calculated eventually as a net positive. That can also be said about the Belt Road Initiative in the status quo. Whilst there are examples of countries that benefit from the Belt Road Initiative, many countries and their respective governments have failed to see past the short term welfare and have not yet reached a point of critical economic restriction.
In Sri Lanka, China has invested to create the Hambantota port worth $1.1 Billion. As one of the largest construction operations in South East Asia at that time, the Sri Lankan government initially planned to receive and pay back the loan from the revenues of the investment. However, a combination of mismanagement from the senior management team and the high debt interest rate made the investment unsustainable. In 2012, the Hambantota port only received 34 ships. To put that into perspective, nearby Singapore’s straight has almost 100,000 ships that pass through every year. Out of options and under heavy pressure by the PRC, the government of Sri Lanka eventually signed the Hambantota deal that handed over the entire port for 99 years and 15,000 acres of land. Not only that, but there are reports that funds have been transferred from the Chinese port construction companies to the campaign activities of Mr. Rajapaksa, President of Sri Lanka at that time. Due to these issues, there has been heavy scrutiny to Xi Jinping and the BRI for their accountability in times of trouble and their use of seemingly debt trapping plans to dictate the sovereignty of countries under their rule.
Similarly, China often makes PR promises to seem as if they are the “good guys” in terms of investments and loans. In 2016, China had promised to forgive up to $90 Million dollars of loans, hiding the fact that Cambodia owes almost $4 Billion to the PRC. To put this into perspective, the amount of money owed is roughly 35% of Cambodia’s GDP. The same situation can be found with countries such as Mozambique and Zimbabwe, who have been pressured to openly continue talks and support the BRI due to being under the economic control of the Chinese government.
The dilemma is this; proponents of the BRI advocate that without it, countries like Kazakhstan who traditionally lack large investments or leading industries will never be able to compete in the global market. Like all forms of investments, BRI poses risks and rewards that are up to the country to determine whether it is worth the risk. However, arguments against the BRI claim that the Chinese unfairly target the vulnerable and trap them into debt which will likely not be reversible in the near future. The Chinese, lacking the military and diplomatic hegemony in the status quo, turn towards economic hegemony to create a system of allies that can counteract a multitude of western institutions, including but not limited to NATO, IMF and the World Bank.
The Diplomatic Implications of BRI
This section aims towards elaborating less of the factual, contextualized analysis of the BRI and a more theoretical claim to how the plan will change the hegemony. It takes into consideration the rise of Chinese political influence in recent times and examines the change in political strategy for countries fighting for more leverage.
Source: Bruegel.com
The last time the United States was in a major conflict with another world superpower was during the Cold War in 1947-1991. At this point in time, the majority of the leverage that the United States held was in its ability to foster international support through a series of integrated military and political moves through the usage of institutions such as NATO. Lots of financial aid was given to war-torn countries in Europe such as Britain, France, West Germany, and Italy. Furthermore, the US would engage in direct military conflict to protect its diplomatic needs, such as sending its soldiers into combat to protect democracy in countries such as Vietnam and Korea. At the end of the day, whilst they held the majority of power and influence, the power struggle was between the two superpowers, while many of the smaller countries gained stronger support.
Things have changed after Gorbachev, ex-President of the Soviet Union, had announced the official resignation and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Seeing no challengers at bay, the United States has been more aggressive in other countries meeting their demands. However, over the past two decades the Chinese have seen rapid economic growth, and as a result, have become one of the few superpowers in the world capable of challenging the United States. According to The Atlantic, many US allies such as Italy have already signed up for the Belt Road Initiative. Furthermore, other allies such as Germany and South Korea have not yet been part of the Eastern Superpower’s, but are unable and unwilling to completely side with the United States due to lucrative offers from either end.
What we are likely to see over the course of the next few decades is a hegemonic race: that is, countries with strategic diplomatic relations or military locations are likely going to get an advantage. In a multipolar world where non-superpower countries have a choice on who to align with, the balance of leverage shifts towards countries that have options. Give South Korea as an example. Hypothetically if China offers economic and military benefits that outweigh what the United States is giving in the status quo, realist theorists will predict that South Korea will transition its alliance system more towards China. In the eyes of the United States, they will have to up their support towards South Korea, or else they risk losing a key ally within the East Asian Region that can deter North Korean aggression.
Obviously, not all countries are as strategically important nor have an existing alliance system in place for both the United States and China as South Korea does. Nevertheless, each and every country holds to some degree a weight in its political influence and diplomatic benefits. Furthermore, every country will hold the option to choose their benefactor, and make a cost-benefit analysis to their advantage. Obviously the duration of how long this multipolar society will last is unknown: that is, it is unsure when the US or China will overtake each other to become the obviously dominating superpower. The only thing left for us to do is wait and see how the battle of global supremacy unfolds in front of our very eyes.
Featured Image Source: Financial Times