Policy Alert #173 | September 13, 2018

This month marks the fifth anniversary of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), initially announced as the New Silk Road Economic Belt in September 2013. As China celebrated the BRI at a special forum on August 27th, and wooed its African partners at the 2018 Beijing Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) days later, economic ministers of the members of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which includes China, India, and Japan, met in Singapore to iron out details before its planned launch by the end of this year. In this RPI Policy Alert, we catch up on the recent developments in the Rising Powers’ efforts to improve connectivity and trade in the Indo-Pacific ahead of our panel “The Indo-Pacific and Regional Trends: Towards Connectivity or Conflict?” later this month.

 

CHINA

At the celebration of the Belt and Road Initiative, Chinese President Xi Jinping claimed that the BRI’s defining characteristic is its unprecedented inclusiveness: “[The BRI] does not differentiate countries by ideology nor play the zero-sum game. As long as countries are willing to join, they are welcome.” The highlight of the 2018 FOCAC was the announcement of $60 billion of financing to African countries for eight major initiatives. In addition to projects to improve infrastructure and trade, China will also be assisting with green development, healthcare, and human capacity improvements, which closely mirrors the goals of India and Japan’s Asia-Africa Growth Corridor, which was announced in May 2017. Xi emphasized China’s “five-no” approach in China’s relations with Africa, which seemed to be a counter to foreign criticism of the country’s alleged exploitation of BRI recipient countries.

• An editorial in the People’s Daily, the official paper of the Communist Party of China, hailed the FOCAC as a success, and called for support of Xi’s efforts: “It is not only an important move to implement Xi’s thought on the diplomacy of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era, but also a centennial project in the history of international relations and exchanges with human civilizations.” One article in the People’s Daily explained how infrastructure projects through the BRI are already benefiting African countries. Coverage of the BRI anniversary heavily featured the project’s purported success in bringing European goods to China and vice versa.
• The state-supported China Daily went out of its way to describe China’s approach to aid in Africa as uniquely beneficial for recipient countries: “China is not the only one making promises to Africa. But what is special about those from Beijing is, they are not made with the intention of imposing its will on African countries. […] In a show of good faith, Xi simultaneously wrote off inter-government interest-free debts due at year’s end that are owed by the least developed and heavily indebted poor countries”.
• The China Daily also featured an op-ed by Evaristus M. Irandu, associate professor at the University of Nairobi, in which he praised China’s “five-no” policies: “By not interfering in the internal affairs of African states or attaching conditions for financial assistance, and letting them choose the path of development that best suits their national conditions, Xi has re-affirmed that China is a real ‘friend in need’ for Africa.”
• Nationalist Global Times meanwhile pushed back against criticism abroad of China’s programs in Africa. “Although Western media has made groundless accusations on the relationship, Africa’s evaluation has been decisive. When Africa welcomes Chinese investment, the high volume of opposition fades into noise,” one proudly claimed. Another took offense to the suggestion that China was participating in “neocolonialism”: “Some Westerners made up rhetoric about Chinese colonialism in Africa. They accused China of plundering resources in Africa and leading countries into a debt trap. But African countries are sniffing at such accusations.”
• The independent South China Morning Post was cautiously supportive of the BRI and China’s investments in Africa, but alert to reservations from Africa. In one editorial, the Post praised Xi’s “pledge to expand imports beyond resources needed to fuel China’s industrial economy” in response to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s warning that China’s trade relationships were imbalanced. Post contributor Kinling Lo reported on US-based AidData’s findings that China’s BRI investments correlate strongly to measurable growth in gross national product, whereas World Bank projects do not. However, Post journalist Sarah Zheng also reported government censors furiously removing criticisms of the country’s investments in Africa on online forums such as Weibo. One comment from Zheng’s reporting read, “You should first raise your own children. My God, there have been so many natural and man-made casualties recently, can you please take a look at our low-income people?”

INDIA

• The left-leaning Hindu called on the government to maintain its commitment to the RCEP despite the issues that remain, namely, the current trade deficit with China and what a free trade agreement that includes the country would mean for India: “[Leaving the RCEP talks] would cut India out of the rules-making process for the RCEP and give China further space in the regional trade and security architecture. At a time when the US has broken from the global concord on multilateral trade agreements, an Indian walkout would endanger the united message that RCEP countries […] would like to send out. It would also be a sharp departure from India’s ‘Act East’ slogan and its extended outreach to ASEAN.”
• Former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran echoed these concerns in an op-ed for the liberal Hindustan Times. In response to those who speculated that India should leverage its size for more amenable treatment, such as the gradual opening of its markets, Saran put foreign policy first: “Regional economic integration is an indispensable component of the Act East policy. India cannot sustain an expanding political and security role in the Indo-Pacific with a shrinking economic role. […] Opting out of RCEP may push India irretrievably on the margins of Asia.”
• Ahead of the bilateral meeting between the Indian and Chinese Defense Ministers in late August, the pro-government Daily Pioneer called for the US-Australia-India-Japan “quad” to form a formal alliance with clear policies in order to “counterbalance” China as its influence in the Indo-Pacific spreads: “Whatever our views on Beijing’s domestic policies, structures and governance model, the fact is that global real-politik and the national interests of all four countries in the Quad require the proto alliance to confine its dynamic to engaging exclusively for the foreseeable future with China’s external policies — its expansionist impulse, desire to gain strategic depth as a rising world power and quasi-hegemonic ambitions. To do that, members of the Quad also need to control anti-Beijing hotheads within precisely because a conformation with China is in nobody’s interest while international cooperation with an effectively contained Beijing certainly is.”

JAPAN

• In its review of the Belt and Road Initiative’s first five years, the center-right Japan Times acknowledged the allegations that China is ensnaring recipient countries into “debt traps” and securing “unfair advantages” to its businesses, but ultimately advocated for Japan and other major players in the region to cooperate: “The truth […] is that Asia’s infrastructure needs greatly exceed that which any single government or country can provide. A cooperative, coordinated effort is the only practical response. Japan, the U.S. and Australia, along with European governments, should be working with China in various international financial institutions to fill local needs while promoting international best practices.”
• The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun criticized China’s current development aid practices in Africa and described Xi’s “five-no” policies as “problematic.” However, the Yomiuri supported Japan’s efforts to lead by example and encourage better practices from China through cooperation: “There are likely many elements of Japan’s assistance that China should adopt in its own. Japan, which is not as strong as China in terms of financial power, is avoiding excessive rivalry with China over winning [infrastructure] orders, while also exploring ways to cooperate with that country. Japan is calling on China to participate in Japan-led projects, such as one to build major roads linking West African countries.”
• Regarding the ministerial meeting for RCEP, the Yomiuri advocated for Japan to “exercise leadership in the RCEP talks” given its success in resuscitating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) following the US’s hasty exit. The Yomiuri also cautioned against allowing negotiations to water down the agreement: “[P]referential treatment cannot be given even to China and India, both large economies. It is necessary to avoid an agreement whose level has been lowered just so it can be concluded in a hurry, and a move that would reduce the advantages of reaching such an accord.”

RUSSIA

• Aydin Mehtiyev, a correspondent for the nationalist Pravda Report, claimed that China’s BRI investments in the Middle East and Central Asia are a threat to both Russia and the US’s strategic interests in the region: “China’s ultimate goal is to oust Russia and the United States from the Middle East by creating a gigantic financial web that will put the countries of the Middle East […] in economic dependence on China.”
• Lyuba Lulko, another Pravda Report contributor, meanwhile argued that Russia has better things to do than work with the US to counter China: “Washington cannot wage a war on two fronts either financially or morally, but the Americans still try to do it. A normal dialogue in the US-Russian relations can begin only after the White House and Congress understand that Russia is one of the world’s poles of power with its rights and interests, rather than a geopolitical supporter for ‘deterring China.’”
• State-owned Sputnik News interviewed Ekaterina Arapova, a researcher at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, for her thoughts on what the driving motivations are behind RCEP: “[T]he recent actions by the US administration, including the sanctions war against Russia and the US withdrawal from the TPP, indicate, first and foremost, that the present system of global trade regulation, led by the World Trade Organization (WTO), does not exercise its functions. In these conditions, other players, especially such large countries as China, are concerned about the chaos that has engulfed the world trading system. Therefore, they are trying to find some alternative mechanisms for global or regional trade regulation.” Sputnik’s article characterized RCEP as China’s “new powerful tool to counter Trump’s trade offensive” and suggested that other states, such as Japan, are late comers to the agreement. However, RCEP was a mutually announced endeavor by the ten member states of ASEAN and its six free trade agreement partners at the 21st ASEAN Summit in 2012.

 

RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.