The geopolitical focus of the still young 21st century spans the Indian Ocean from the Persian Gulf all the way to the South China Sea alongside the spectrum from Southwest Asia to Central Asia and China.
That happens to configure the prime playing ground, overland and maritime, of the New Silk Roads, or the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
The epicenter of global power shifting East is ruffling feathers in some US political circles – with a proliferation of parochial analyses ranging from Chinese “imperial overstretch” to Xi Jinping’s Chinese Dream provoking “nightmares.”
The basic argument is that Emperor Xi is aiming for a global power grab by mythologizing the New Silk Roads.
The BRI is certainly about China’s massive foreign exchange reserves; the building know-how; the excess capacity in steel, aluminum and concrete production; public and private financing partnerships; the internationalization of the yuan; and full connectivity of infrastructure and information flows.
Yet the BRI is not a matter of geopolitical control supported by military might; it’s about added geopolitical projection based on trade-and-investment connectivity.
The BRI is such a game-changer that Japan, India and the “Quad” (US, Japan, India, Australia) felt forced to come up with their own “alternative”, much-reduced mini-BRIs – whose collective rationale essentially lies in accusing the BRI of “revisionism” while emphasizing the need to fight against Chinese global domination.
The basis of the Trump administration’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy, introduced in October 2017, was to define China as a hostile existential threat. The National Security Strategy (NSS) and the National Defense Strategy (NDS) amplified the threat to the level of a new doctrine.
The NSS states that “China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” The NSS accuses China and Russia of wanting “to shape a world antithetical to US values and interests.” It also accuses Beijing of “seek[ing] to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region” and of “expand[ing] its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others.”
The NDS states that Beijing “seeks Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global preeminence in the future.”
That’s the new normal as far as multiple layers of the US industrial-military-surveillance-media complex are concerned. Dissent is simply not permitted.
Time to talk to Kublai Khan
“Revisionist” powers China and Russia are regarded as major double trouble when one delves into the direct link between the BRI and the Russia-led Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). The EAEU is itself one step ahead of the Russia-China strategic partnership announced in 2012, crucially a year before Xi announced the BRI in Astana and then Jakarta.
At the BRI forum in Beijing in May 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin solidified the notion of a “greater Eurasian partnership”.
The Russian “pivot to Asia” started even before Maidan in Kiev, the referendum in Crimea and subsequent Western sanctions. This was a work in progress along multiple sessions inside the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the BRICS and the G-20.
Kazakhstan is the key link uniting BRI, EAEU and the SCO. Russia and Kazakhstan are part of one of the top overland connectivity corridors between East Asia and Europe – the other going through Iran and Turkey.
Xinjiang to Eastern Europe by rail, via Kazakhstan and Russia, now takes 14 days and soon will drop to 10. That’s a major boost to trade in high value-added merchandise – paving the way for future BRI high-speed rail able to compete head-on with low-cost maritime transport.
As for Moscow’s drive to be part of the BRI/EAEU economic connectivity, that’s only one vector of Russian foreign policy. Another one, as important, is enhanced German-Russian trade/investment relations, a priority also for German industrialists.
China for its part is now the top foreign investor in all five Central Asian “stans.” And it’s crucial to remember that Central Asia is configured not only by the five “stans” but also by Mongolia, Xinjiang and Afghanistan. Thus the SCO drive to solve the Afghan tragedy, with direct participation of major players China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Iran.
The BRI strategy of forging a pan-Eurasian connectivity/logistical grid naturally poses the question of how Beijing will manage such an open-ended project. The BRI is not even in its implementation phase, which officially starts next year.
It’s useful to compare the accusations of “revisionism” with Chinese history. When Marco Polo reached the Yuan court in the late 13th century he saw a multicultural empire thriving on trade.
It was the Silk Road trade routes and not the projection of military power that epitomized Pax Mongolica. The 21st century Pax Sinica is its digital version. Is Xi a new emperor or a post-modern version of Kublai Khan?
The Yuan dynasty did not “control” Persia, Russia or India. Persia, a superpower then, linked the Nile, Mesopotamia and the Indus with trade with China. During the Tang Dynasty in the 8th and 9th centuries China also had projected influence across Central Asia all the way to northeastern Iran.
And that explains why Iran, now, is such a key node of the BRI and why the leadership in Tehran wants the New Silk Roads solidified. A China-Russia-Iran alliance of – Eurasia integration – interests cannot but rattle Washington; after all, the Pentagon defines all those geopolitical actors as “threats.”
Historically, China and Persia were, for centuries, wealthy, settled agricultural civilizations having to deal with occasional swarms of desert warriors – yet most of the time in touch with each other because of the Silk Road. The Sino-Persian entente cordiale is embedded in solid history.
And that brings us to what lies at the heart of non-stop BRI dismissal/demonization.
It’s all about preventing the emergence not only of a “peer competitor,” but worse: a New Silk Road-enabled trade/connectivity condominium – featuring China, Russia, Iran and Turkey – as powerful across the East as the US still remains across the much-troubled “Western Hemisphere.”
That has nothing to do with Chinese neo-imperialism. When in doubt, invoke Kublai Khan.
Nice
Some in the West think that BRI is a grand strategic plan to undermine US influence in Asia, but they have it backwards. In fact, US influence in Asia is undermined as a consequence of BRI because many countries will benefit while the US attempts to play the spoiler.
Socio-economics First Law: No two nations who trade with each other will go to war.
Second Law: Trade leads to peace.
China’s yearning for peace is eloquently elaborated in this 5-minute video by XI.
China with India were peaceful nations each producing 1/3 of worlds wealth from 300 BC to 1700 AD. They were invaded by foreigners in search of loot. Kublai Khan was not Han, but an alien to China. Yuan dynasty rule was more like 100 year long Western Capitalist hegemony of China.
Go Xi Go.
And China appears to be creating a 3rd economic theory to compete with Cap and Soc, not through theorizing but by practice, by trial and error. Treating the means of production as state financed infrastructure has allowed China to modernize, now the overproduction inherent in their system is creating a whole new market and whole new national economies through New Silk Road. Our American political process is so corrupt now the only reaction I can see coming from us is violent paranoia. Well, we had our chance to make the world a better place and really screwed the pooch…
Future growth will be in Asia. In the US there will be more tariffs and sanctions. China should invest the $1,2 trillion they have in US bonds along the silk road, not let it rot at low interest in the US, the Chinese funds in the US can be frozen at any time. To increase investment along the silk road, AIIB should get more capital. The Middle East is in ruin after the wars, the rebuilding will create a lot of opportunities. and generate a lot of goodwill for the nations participating.
Europe can be part of all that by associating with Russia. The Lisbon to Vladivostk space is imperative for Europe. And the US may either go back to becoming an imperial power of the Americas, or opt for isolationism.
China , if serious can become peace broker, in Myanmar for Rohyanga peace.
The arrogance and hubris of the country that used to be the shining light on the hillside is so so sad. When history is written honestly in the future the blame will be on the politicians——-whatever there stripes are———–the elite who thought the Chinese were a bunch of dumb, poor Communist "Chinks" that would do what they were told———and the so called academic experts that were pushing that narative————Guess what boys and girls??——–they were wrong. The Middle Kingdom continues to march forward!!
Pepe Escobar
You conclude – "It’s all about …. : a New Silk Road-enabled trade/connectivity condominium – featuring China, Russia, Iran and Turkey – as powerful across the East as the US still remains across the much-troubled “Western Hemisphere.” That has nothing to do with Chinese neo-imperialism." Simply brilliant! You deserve a Nobel Prize!
My simple take on OBOR and the current opposition by the West. It is just Neo-Colonialism – this U.S. imperialistic Western hegemony that is trying to subjugate China.
In the past the insular and parochial and introverted China just wanted ‘direct’ trade to be had only with its immediate neighbours, and these ‘neighbours’ can then trade and pass goods further down or along the Silk Road to their respective neighbours, and those respective neighbours in turn kept moving goods along like in a baton relay race, each maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of its control of its section of the Silk Road.
When the Western Colonial Powers, the ‘gweilos’ (foreign devils) came and could not conquer and subjugate China into becoming their colonies (Napoleon referred to it as the slicing up of the ‘water melon’), they demanded that they be entitled to trade ‘directly’ with China. China said just take up your section at your own end of the Silk Road – that way everyone gets an equitable share and allocation of the ‘trade’.
The ‘gweilos’ took umbrage! How can you slanty eyed heathens tell us what to do? We are Whitemen and Christians! We are God’s chosen people! Imagine that! They went to war with China, on the grounds that they must be given ‘direct’ access to trade with China! And further the Opium Wars forced China to receive ‘opium’, yes, ‘opium’, as legal tender for goods! What criminals and how vile were these ‘gweilos’?
And China cannot and will never forget this humiliation! It is like someone asking you to eat shit!
Now modern day China says, OK we will play the trade game by your WTO rules. We end up doing better at this type of trade and then the gweilos complain and start jumping up and down crying bloody blue murder! What hypocrisy and double standards? You know – change the goal posts when the rules do not go in your favour! Trump is saying to China – reduce the trade surplus you have with us or else we will raise tariffs and impose trade sanctions!
China decides to rejuvenate the Silk Road as OBOR. Same principle, everyone along the OBOR will get its equitable share and reward for the ‘baton relay’ type of trade. Now the same ‘gweilos’ oppose and take umbrage again! History repeats itself!
So you want to humiliate us again? What are you forcing us to take now in your new gunboat diplomacy? What is your new ‘opium’ that you want us to accept as legal tender and be addicted to?
Vincent Cheok
hahahah. The Imperial US/EU lock arms hegimony artists are now complaining. Its very simple. China has a big population. Under their great leader Xi Jinping they have grown masses of highly skilled engineers and managers, mathematecians. So they can logically out produce strategic planning of the old world mobsters in the US and EU. That is not an imperialist plan. Its simply good use of their people in the quanitites they are able to produce. Dr. Ronald Cutburth, engineering scientist, studied in strategic planning, intelligence expert.
Marco Polo died about 1324. Kuglai Kan about then also. Those folks don’t give us any insight about the dynamic strategic planning skills of Xi Jinping. Authors need to fast forward a group of centuries to get into step with the now age. Dr. Ronald Cutburth
US have confiscated money from Iran, Iraq, Libya. They will never get these back. Saudi Arabia has several trillion dollar at US, Will they get it back? Please keep money in your bank. Do not give it to any super evil powers deposit book. Now Myanmar is on China’s grip. Poor nations should concentrate on nationalism, not fall with Imperial Club.
Arjumand Nabi I agree, the US has stolen a lot of deposits. The only way to get some of the money back is to follow the US orders. Iran had to comply to the nuclear arms deal to get back some of the stolen money. Saudis is using their assets in the US to buy weapons. China might burn their fingers by having so much money in the US. Why not invest this money to reduce poverty in China and Asia? There is a lot of good profitable projects in Asia.
By buying US treasury bonds China indirectly funds the US war machine. The US is attempting to destabilize parts of China by using the Turkic “Grey Wolves” and Jihadists. With the new tariffs, China should be careful and become independent from import of US agricultural products and commercial airplanes.
同意
Will the new emperor look into the suffering of Myanmar Rohyanga atrocity by the military.
Falk Rovik, … Can China bring peace for Myanmar Rohyanga since Myanmar is heavily dependent on Chiana. Shall China stand for peace?
Nurun Nabi I do not know if China will put pressure on Myanmar to protect the minorities. China try to avoid getting involved in domestic politics.
It should be in Myanmar interest to do their utmost to protect minorities, it has become a scandal that has hampered investments and tourism. I guess China will mention their concerns privately to the Myanmar Government and not make public statements.
Adam AB
谢谢
Don’t underestimate what was done in the past. The world is in fact a better place than it was at the end of WW2, and the US played a big role in that, despite its many cruel errors. The bigger problems with US policy have developed later, as the world moves on and the US doesn’t.