In an alternative world, it is an intriguing possibility. A series of stripped-down regional infrastructure projects to rival China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the trillion-dollar program of ‘New Silk Road’ superhighways, connecting the country with Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Latin America.
But in reality, this proposed plan by Australia, the United States, India and Japan is starting to resemble a “threat” to the world’s second-biggest economy’s ambitions of increasing its global footprint.
As news leaked out about the blueprint from a senior US official in the influential Australian Financial Review, Beijing immediately viewed it as an attempt to counter its spreading influence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Before leaving for a trip to the United States for a meeting with the US President Donald Trump in Washington, the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull tried to put the project into perspective.
Asked about the scheme, he blamed the media for always looking at issues as if they were Cold War-style rivalries. “That’s not the way we see the region,” he told Sky TV.
Even Tokyo played down the big four’s Belt and Road 2 project. Yoshihide Suga, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, pointed out that it was normal for the group to regularly exchange views on issues of mutual interest.
“It is not the case that this is to counter China’s Belt and Road,” he said.
But in practice, when Prime Minister Turnbull goes to the White House on Friday, China will have a prominent place on the agenda.
The Australian PM has already talked about the need for “trillions of dollars of additional infrastructure investment” in the region, which could be interpreted as a direct challenge to the ‘New Silk Road’ scheme.
Naturally, this could involve the 11 members of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trading bloc of Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, even though the US pulled out of the TPP under President Trump.
Prime Minister Turnbull will also try to balance the Washington administration’s ‘America First’ dictum with his commitment to strong economic ties with China. After all, the US is the single largest destination for Australian overseas investment, worth US$482 billion, and its most important ally.
“Australian firms lead the world with infrastructure financing and management – examples include Macquarie, Lendlease, Transurban and IFM,” Professor Simon Jackman, CEO of the United States Studies Center at the University of Sydney, told the BBC.
“Part of Australia’s agenda in Washington will be to not only export a policy model but to create investment opportunities,” he added.
‘Belt and Road 2’ would also fit nicely into those parameters and complement Japan and India’s skill sets in technology, IT and steel production, key building blocks for major infrastructure development.
But for China, this is seen as a direct rival to its ‘New Silk Road’ program, which was rolled out by President Xi Jinping in 2013, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.
Predictably, the specter of the US looms large in the country’s state-owned media when dealing with Belt and Road 2 coverage.
“It is normal to understand why the US leads other nations to find ‘alternatives’ to the Belt and Road, since the US has always considered it a challenge to its power in the [world],” Xu Liping, a senior research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the conservative Global Times.
“The US is the only country with experience of wielding strategic influence at a global level. The US is concerned that China would do the same due to the Belt and Road Initiative’s broad coverage. It is an effort by the US to maintain its global power, and not to lose its alliance,” Xu added.
Yet despite the rhetoric, the project is likely to produce economic benefits for a region which is desperate to upgrade its infrastructure. In the end, two Belt and Roads might be better than one.
Read: Talk of four-nation-led ‘alternative’ to Belt and Road picks up steam
Galen Linder
Unlike Chinese financial system America’s is now engaging in sanctions. The Venezualen disaster is because the US Treasury blocks Venezuela from using dollars to import goods and function normally. She still exports oil, a good deal of it to America but she cannot use the dollars to import. American sanctions put through by the Treasury is the reason Venezuela is collapsing.
The Dollar which is the main currency of exchange is now also used as a weapon against nations, businesses and even people in other lands. The US Treasury has the capacity to prevent them from doing any transactions in dollars.
That alone would be a major problem in undertaking projects of the scale China is doing.
Art Laramee
But they are not joining BRIC. Not America for instance. Going by the article they want to creat a kind of parallel system to that of China. At the same time one US article condemned the Chinese silk road as an inneficient money waster.
This is an ad hoc idea and a feeble attempt to undermine BRI, which will go nowhere, because it would necessarily be led by the US which has the worst infrastructure in the developed world.
This BRI 2 scheme will go nowhere.
The ruling circles of the West, and the US in particular, does not do infrastructure, even in its own country. Japan is better has has first rate technology in rail, for instance. These ruling circles, however, are finance capitalists. They are JP Morgan, not Andrew Carnagie, or Thomas Edison. They only want to make money with money and not by building anything. Hence, the whole thing could come down to a matter of financing infrastructure. US banks charging whatever the traffic will bear vs. 2-3%, 7 year grace period, and 15-20 yrs repayment which was being offered to some low credit rated country.
The USA puts all it’s surplus wealth, and that itself is steadily dwindling, into militarism. Not unlike North Korea. Now even a private company has better rockets than NASA. Have the US elites lost all capacity to inspire and lead ?
China isn’t against it. If others want to pay and build, it’s all good. Make trade not war.
The "leaked" proposed plan by Australia, the United States, India and Japan of a series of stripped-down regional infrastructure projects to rival China’s Belt and Road Initiative, is a Joke. How does a "stripped-down regional infrasture projects" rival China’s BRI?
President Trump can’t get any money budgetted for his own proposed domestic trillion dollar infrastructure program much less some half-baked ideas to make the four countries sound like they are important in SE Asia.
The telling pieces of information are that not one of the leaders truly backed the conecpt and the Australian PM "talked about the need for “trillions of dollars of additional infrastructure investment” in the region". He’s simply hoping for some money from the US. Not going to happen, as there is nothing preventing Australia from putting it’s own money forward.
Nothing happening here, just move along. 🙂
It doesn’t matter who builds it. The strategic point is the economic integration of Eurasia or the world for that matter. Make trade not war.
A belt and road competition or race is a good thing for mankind.
What is the competing American vision ? Confrontation and endless war. Violence on more violence. The world sick of this "leadership".
Where will this second "road" go? It seems it will be swimming in a circle.
That these countries join the BRI which is how I interpret this, is a good thing.
Few problems:
-This proposal is in reaction to China. In that sense it lacks the spark of commitment China’s silk road mega plans have. Putting it another way China’s commitment is to connect the Eurasian continent with roads, harbors and the infrastructure that goes with it. Australia’s proposal is a reaction to China. It is an after thought.
-In China’s silk roads it is clear that China heads it. In Australia’s proposal it is not clear who will head it. If it is going to be financed by American banks, America will demand leadership even if Australia has the expertise. Leadership is going to be a problem when it is essential. Even in America’s "Marshal plans’ America was the unchallenged leader who came up with the plan and financed it. Same with China’s Silk roads. It is Chinese idea financed by China. That is what makes it work.
-The heavy weights in Australia’s alternative plan are not from the Eurasian Continent. China is and 99% of her silk roads are within the Eurasian Continent. It is a big disadvantage when America and Australia put up a reactionary plan in a continent they are outsiders. The banking system nor the electorate may not fall into line with DC or Canberra. If this ever becomes a reality I can only see Japan and her banking system willing to lead such a venture.
If the initiative is to check China”s autocratic ambitions then the countries in question certainly have the means. Some are technology rich while some are sources of cheap labour. Put together it can very well challenge China.China is export oriented economy while all the said countries are net consumers. If they manage to increase their mutual trade at the expense of China, it remains to be seen how China responds.
What makes you to think China is against it? The writer quotes a person who points out the reasoning behind it. He doesn´t say anything else. Has the Chinese government expressed some opposition to it? I haven´t..
I think you and the writer are trying to make something out of nothing. .
The motive behind the initiative should be to show the smaller and needy countries and China how such an initiative should be executed to be in accordance with accepted world norms so that debt funded ‘investment ‘ doesn’t undermine sovereignty and bidding process is transparent.Strategic security and parity will be consequential byproduct of such initiative.
You do not compare the Pope with a thief.
China’s BRI is principally Land based, with a side Maritime component, since Asia, Europe, and Africa are land connected. Its aim is to transport finished goods fast and cheap via high speed trains.
America, Japan, Australia, UK, and India are not land connected. Their "Road" is principally a Maritime adventure more suitable for commodities. They will help feed China’s growing industries as Japan, US, UK de-industrialize.
This new misadventure is colonialism by choice, LOL.
This writer seems so entuthiastic about this prouect. He convinces me like he is the one who is bringing out the idea. The reality s that Australia iright now is or about having a recession. So, money may not available . India,well, welll India even though may not have the money but for the sake to counter weight China will do anything. Japan we all know horw she is still struggling to bring the country out of deflation that is been going for decades. The last member is USA who is more willing to put ou moneyt for the military.than anything else. There is a domestic proyect for the infrastructure by Trump but he is struggling to get it going. He has not many supporters.
Two belts good, one belt bad. Haha. But talk is cheap, We’ll see how the US & partners come up with the money for their version of the silk road. As it stands, the US is having trouble trying to find money to rebuild its crumbling infrastructure, & India is trying to find money to build up its own, even urging South-East Asia to invest in India. Don’t hold your breath.
Hahahaha,ha
Who is paying? Some Australians summer day dreaming. LOL
Yes, there won’t be one party dominating the sceanario!