China, a rising power in the U.S.-led international order, has significantly expanded its global influence since President Xi Jinping took office in 2013. The country’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in particular, reflects a more assertive Chinese leadership on the global stage and plays a central role in Xi’s fight for the “great renaissance of the Chinese nation.” Yet the speed at which China has sought to leverage its growing economic power in international affairs has evoked concern. Capitals from New Delhi to London fear that China is challenging the existing global order in an attempt to replace it with a Chinese arrangement. If left unaddressed, these reservations could limit foreign support for the BRI and even generate pushback against China’s global governance efforts.
The international community—including both developing countries and traditional major powers—currently views the BRI through a zero-sum, geopolitical lens. If China’s initiatives are to be successful, Beijing needs to lessen distrust of its intentions by focusing on its domestic aspirations, underlining its acceptance of responsibilities as a major stakeholder in the international order, and highlighting its nonmonetary investments and areas for mutually beneficial international cooperation.
A Focus on Domestic and Regional Development
According to the Chinese government, the primary aim of the BRI is to promote regional connectivity and China’s domestic development, not to challenge U.S. leadership; it sees the BRI as a win-win that will benefit both China and the other countries involved. The initiative was identified as a key priority of the country’s Thirteenth Five-Year Plan (2016–2020). As of May 2017, the Ministry of Commerce estimates that China has invested more than $50 billion in BRI countries since 2013 and Chinese businesses have built fifty-six economic and trade cooperation zones, generating nearly $1.1 billion in tax revenue and creating 180,000 local jobs.
Through the BRI, China seeks to address its imbalanced domestic development by extending projects to the country’s less developed western provinces and addressing issues of overcapacity. For example, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor will connect the city of Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port. Likewise, the China-Europe Railway Express, linking western China to Europe, provides opportunities for further trade and economic ties. The BRI also creates opportunities for surpluses in construction-related industries—such as iron, steel, and cement manufacturing—to be absorbed in Belt and Road regions. In addition, Chinese enterprises can benefit from the new markets, resources, and relatively lower operational costs of BRI countries.
Although many countries along the Belt and Road, including Nepal, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, welcome China’s effort to promote regional cooperation and development, other countries have raised concerns that China will use its rising economic power to reshape the current global economic order to reflect its own interests or to gain leverage over developing countries that owe large debts to Beijing. Indeed, the question of whether China is a status quo or a revisionist power has been debated for years. As Beijing has gradually abandoned its low-profile diplomacy to seek a more prominent and active role on the global stage—including by creating the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, more assertively defending its territorial claims in the South China Sea, and increasing its involvement in multilateral institutions—these questions have once again come to the fore. Given these concerns, China should continue to reiterate that its primary focus is on promoting domestic development.
Reluctant Global Leadership
Western powers, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, appear to be withdrawing from global governance. Britain’s vote to leave the EU, the rise of populism in the United States, and large-scale demonstrations breaking out in some European countries all point to a trend of anti-globalization. In this context, China’s increasing engagement in global governance is being seen as aggressive and opportunistic.
Yet Western powers have long been calling for the country to contribute more to global challenges and to become a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. And Zhang Jun, head of the Department of International Economic Affairs in China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has noted that if Western nations withdraw, a rising power like China could be forced to step in: “If China is required to play that leadership role, then China will assume its responsibilities.” Western observers have made similar comments. For example, Louis Kuijs, head of Asia Economics at Oxford Economics in Hong Kong, has stated that “it is very likely and understandable that China . . . will try to fill those gaps with this initiative, and that is very logical.” From the Chinese government’s perspective, the country’s more active role in global governance, including through the BRI, should be welcomed.
An Alternative Developmental Path
Many outside observers and governments fear that China is using the BRI to promote an alternative developmental path to liberal democracy. Indeed, few would dispute that the BRI helps to amplify the country’s influence and voice worldwide, yet the Chinese government maintains that the initiative does not aim to change the global economic order but is, instead, fundamentally designed to give developing countries access to additional resources, best practices, and expertise. China believes it has more than three decades of experience to share—related to incremental reform, market development, incentive creation, policy experimentation, export-led growth, and state capitalism—and that its unique experiences and institutions contributed to the country’s economic boom.
China has gained confidence and desires to share its development experiences as it invests in overseas projects and to spread its institutional and cultural influence. The BRI provides an avenue to achieve this. In 1994, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce began to train government officials from developing countries. Once the BRI was launched, this training program was integrated into the initiative’s strategy. In 2015, China established the Belt and Road Initiative Scholarship, attracting students from BRI countries who want to pursue professional and academic degrees in China. The Chinese leadership hopes that these less visible efforts will have at least an equivalent, if not greater, impact on foreign views of China.
The government contends that China is building its authority within the global economic order rather than challenging U.S. leadership or actively seeking global leadership. With its increasing influence over global economic issues, China may pursue more political and even military involvement to protect its overseas interests (for example, the Chinese navy assisted with evacuating Chinese citizens from Aden during the Yemen crisis). But these efforts will not conflict with key principles underlying the global political order, such as respecting the sovereignty of other nations, solving conflicts peacefully, and negotiating through multilateral institutions. None of these principles challenges China’s core interests.
In the current world order, China is already an important player; it is a recognized nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. There appears to be little incentive for the country to seek to revise the global political order. In the meantime, there might be conflicts between China and other global powers. But most of these conflicts can be solved within the UN framework. China is certainly behaving more assertively, possibly as a way to gain a higher profile in diplomacy. But seeking a higher profile does not necessarily translate to revising and challenging the status quo.
Looking Ahead
China is determined to make the BRI successful despite the financial uncertainties and political and security risks ahead. To overcome challenges of strategic mistrust, China should further engage regional and global stakeholders to reassure them of its intentions. At the tactical level, China should not solely rely on its economic largesse to win the support of partner nations. Over the long term, the country will need to highlight the less visible benefits of the BRI, such as the sharing of development experience and expertise, the promotion of regional and global cooperation, and the delivery of more global public goods.
Although China is not yet able to wholly reshape the global economic order in its own image, as long as the country’s economy continues to grow, the BRI will allow China to play a larger role in setting the rules and norms and providing global public goods, especially if developed Western countries continue to withdraw. The ultimate test of China’s future leadership in global governance, however, depends on its ability to win countries’ support of the “China model” of development and its foreign policy approach.
Comments(4)
This is welcome information on China's plans for the future, essentially involving the key matter of global finance. Liu Wei says "the speed at which China has sought to leverage its growing economic power in international affairs has evoked concern". Only up to a point. The press report today that there is an emerging united front of China's biggest customers [who influence investors] against what they consider to be its abuse of the global trading system. However on the trading system generally, financial imbalances in the global economy are huge and thought to be unsustainable for global order; the imbalances should therefore be examined and corrected somehow. But the difficulty for years has been that independent audit of major financial transactions in the global economy has been forbidden by national governments. Huge corruption and cheating in the international community is therefore allowed to go unreported, contrary to the public interest. Moreover even if such matters are discovered, reported and adjudicated by the global organisations responsible for oversight - governments can refuse to take action on various grounds, usually because of their sovereignty. Global governance of the motivational global finance desperately needs improving. How would China go about this fundamental matter?
I think, the most important thing is not global governance or the threat western countries feel because such concern has always been a part of global governance any way. There will may be this or that government in USA make it easier or harder to expand, BUT sooner or later the world should change its order any way. Changing order is not a threat but a reply to a need. The same thing happened under 90s when Soviet Union collapsed. EU from one side escalated its speed in organizing EU with new-comers in Eastern Europe, even though, they promised Russia that NATO never extend itself beyond the boundaries of Western Europe, a promise that they never acted upon. USA on other side rush to West Asia and trying to change governments there. The same happened with all countries once in good partnership with USSR. It ended up for marking the ground for Russian to inventing Ukraine. The same rush and competition for new marks happened in Africa between EU and USA during 20th century and beginning of 21st. Now it is China with its BRI on the map of global extension. Surely every power try to stop it by all means, because each meter of each country is a meter of a market! In these matter, you can see actually how the counterparts react and how fair the critics may come. All the powers responsible today for the debt of Africa and Asia in decades, writing articles about the debt that China may cause. Decades of denial of potential in Africa and considering Africa as a condemned continent forever and waiting for aids and kindness of Europeans and Americans charities, saying today that African infrastructure projects are not possible and are just an excuse for dominance of China in that continent. What I mean with all these, is that global governance and shifting of it from one power to another is not the threat, the real threat is what the new power attend to do with the World. Make defense packs, selling weapons to buy loyalty and consider a country under its political order or a global power contributing to improvements, industrialization, win-win partnership and peace among partners. Such approach will improve partnership and empower many countries that has not felt such empowerments. If such new governance bring about new philosophy, new global partnership and new Silk Road that once in the history brought about peace, cultural exchange and fair trades among partner countries, it can again make it possible. BRI is a global solution, no matter some may feel threatened by that.
Interesting view. But the effective governance of global finance seems essential. For example the $multi -trillion Belt and Road Initiative needs global investment. Stakeholders in such marvellous but speculative projects naturally need assurances of security from loan recipients, especially if the borrowers are already seen as irresponsible in building up huge and perhaps unrepayable debt and moreover ignoring multilateral rulings. The typical behaviour of hegemons throughout history? Anyway, savings around the world have in the past hundred years or so fled to the politically developed West - but which is now fragmenting. Undisciplined finance tends to be more powerful than national politics, possibly one of the reasons Beijing is trying to get round the politics of other nations by going direct to Wall Street with its arguments. The recent comments from China that all states should be open about their foreign policy, which essentially drives global finance, is a welcome start to political togetherness. China could lead the way here if multilateralism is its aim.
The author seems to ignore the real problem the BRI is facing. He should ask himself, why Malaysia wants to halt the giant projects with China, why Pakistan decided to review all the agreements concerning CPEC projects. China will have great future once the intellectuals dare to think and speak independently, and differently from the government. Prof. Junhua Zhang
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.