The Belt and Road Initiative

In September 2013, Chinese president, Xi Jinping, announced his vision for “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR), subsequently renamed the “Belt-and-Road Initiative” (BRI). It is a trillion-dollar initiative which includes a variety of projects in the sectors of transportation, energy and infrastructure, namely: ports, oil & gas pipelines, and power grids. It plans to establish 6 new economic corridors and invest in over 150 countries in Asia, Europe, Africa and Oceania. Its objective is partly historic in that it aims to redevelop a Silk Road-esque trade network. China's Belt-and-Road Initiative stands as one of the most ambitious and expansive infrastructure projects of the 21st century.

While infrastructure development and economic growth are often cited as its primary goals, the BRI is undeniably intertwined with political motivations, reflecting China's desire to extend its influence globally. Xi intends to do so by expanding and building six main corridors, namely, the New Eurasian Land Bridge Economic Corridor (NELBEC), the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor (CMREC), the China-Central-West Asia Economic Corridor (CCWAEC), the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor (CICPEC), the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIMEC), and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Unsurprisingly, given the sheer number of countries to be impacted by the establishment of these six vast corridors, some believe the BRI to represent, at its core, a strategic move by China to enhance its geopolitical standing and shape the international order. By investing in infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, and Europe, China seeks to expand its sphere of influence and establish itself as a global leader in trade and commerce, over potential competitor nations. Through increased connectivity and economic integration, Beijing aims to foster closer ties with participating countries, dominating foreign markets and thereby strengthening both its economic relations, as well as its diplomatic relationships and soft power.

Though there was much excitement about the initiative when it was first announced, critics have pointed out some major concerns. Firstly, there is a lack of definition regarding the initiative, leading it to be very vague overall. Within Chinese provinces the aims of the initiative have been disputed; some claim its purpose is to return China to its historical glory, while others believe it is to build China up as a global military power. Institutions such as the College of William and Mary have conducted studies discovering a direct correlation between overseas ports most invested in by Chinese BRI loans, and their practicality as dual military and civilian naval hubs. Observers like the European Chamber of Commerce in China have raised concerns about the vagueness of the BRI, where the lack of strict definition and the general absence of external regulations has allowed the BRI to “shape-shift” into whatever the Chinese government requires it to be at any given point in time, presenting an obstacle to greater participation.

For further discussion on the pros and cons of BRI have a look at this article published by the Council of Foreign Relations.

Looming over BRI is the criticism of the “debt trap”. Critics point to its opaque lending practices and potential for debt-trap diplomacy. When a host country cannot repay its debt owed to China, China compensates by taking over the management and/or ownership of national revenue streams and assets, which raises concerns about state sovereignty. The most prominent example of this is Sri Lanka’s port of Hambantota; when the Sri Lankan government had been unable to repay the debt racked up from Chinese investment into the port, totalling close to US$8 billion, and other Chinese loans, China effectively acquired the port, its operations, and its revenues, as per a 99-year lease signed in 2017 (it is important to note, however, that there remains contention around the Chinese acquisition of Hambantota being categorised as debt-trap diplomacy, with Chatham House researchers disputing this description). There are concerns that more BRI projects would lead to the repetition of such situations.

Furthermore, the BRI intersects with China's broader foreign policy objectives, including its territorial claims in the South China Sea and efforts to counterbalance American influence in the region. By investing in critical infrastructure projects such as the Maritime Silk Road, which connects key ports in Singapore, India and China with those in Eastern Africa, and establishing strategic partnerships along key maritime routes, China aims to secure its maritime interests and enhance its ability to project power beyond its borders. This geopolitical dimension of the BRI underscores its significance as a tool for advancing China's strategic interests and shaping the global balance of power.

For further engagement, do check out this short documentary which evaluates the successes of the BRI project

While the Belt and Road Initiative is often framed as a vehicle for economic development and connectivity, its political motivations are equally significant. Through infrastructure investments and strategic partnerships, China seeks to extend its influence, enhance its geopolitical standing, and shape the international order in line with its own interests. As the BRI continues to unfold, its impact on global politics and economics will undoubtedly be felt for years to come.