Policy Alert #187 | April 30, 2019

April 25-27th, Beijing hosted the Second Belt and Road Forum (BRF) to promote its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) regional connectivity project. Notably absent were representatives from China’s regional neighbors: India and South Korea did not send official delegations, and Japan was represented by a special envoy rather than a high-ranking official. The United States, too, did not participate. Nevertheless, heads of state from thirty-six countries and attendees from over a hundred more showed up for the unveiling of new programs under the BRI, such as a Debt Sustainability Framework for participating countries, a Green Silk Road Envoys Program to train environmental officials, and a Legal Cooperation Research and Training Program to combat corruption. Participants also signed numerous bilateral and multilateral documents and established new multilateral cooperation mechanisms, such as the Multilateral Cooperation Center for Development Finance which will aid in coordination between key investment banks working in participating regions. Still, the Forum appeared to be more of a photo op with symbolic exchanges rather than a substantive meeting.

 

CHINA

In his speech at the opening ceremony of the BRF, Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed that China would continue its process of “major reform and opening-up” in the years to come by expanding its market access for foreign investment, improving the protection of intellectual property, increasing its imports of goods and services, and expanding its engagement in international economic policy coordination. “We are convinced that a more open China will further integrate itself into the world and deliver greater progress and prosperity for both China and the world at large,” Xi concluded.

• State-owned Xinhua became the media hub of the forum, and featured an extensive array of interviews with visiting officials, such as United Nations General Assembly President Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garces, as well as attending experts and business leaders.
• The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, offered a glowing review of the BRF: “With pragmatic cooperation, the BRI has created great opportunities for the people along the BRI routes, forging closer ties among people of different cultural backgrounds.”
• In its reviews of the Forum, the nationalist Global Times took aim at the United States’ refusal to participate and its open critiques of the Belt and Road Initiative: “Lying, being farfetched [sic], and holding such opinions will not have any real influence. […] The initiative has shown such powerful growth that even the greatest of obstacles cannot block.” “The America First policy has disturbed most global multilateral cooperation platforms. Thus, the BRI may be more attractive because countries only have the goodwill of reciprocity within the framework,” observed another editorial.  
• The independent South China Morning Post called for more Western countries to sign on to the Initiative, and praised Italy’s role as the “first major Western economy” to join: “There is no better approach to growth and development or way to counter rising protectionism through promoting multilateralism, globalisation and openness.”

 

INDIA

As with the First Belt and Road Forum in 2017, India boycotted the event to demonstrate its opposition to the Belt and Road Initiative. One of the key projects of the Initiative, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), passes through Pakistan-occupied areas of the Kashmir region which India claims.

• The center-right Times of India supported the government’s decision to sit out of the Forum: “[T]he BRI is nothing more than an instrument for China to export its own massive debt while simultaneously increasing its influence in recipient nations. [..T]here is no good reason for New Delhi to oblige Beijing.”
• The liberal Hindustan Times critiqued the lackluster results of alternatives to the BRI that have been pitched by India and its liberal allies in the two years since the first BRF in 2017: “[V]ision is not the same as execution. […] India, along with Japan, the US and Australia, have moved ahead to provide better quality alternative to the BRI, but much remains to be achieved on this front.”
• Ahead of the Forum, Atul Aneja, China correspondent for the left-leaning Hindu, suggested that India “pull a leaf out of Japan’s play book” to improve ties with China without undermining its official position against CPEC: “Prime Minister Narendra Modi can also tap an influential party heavyweight to lead an Indian non-official delegation to the BRF, along with business leaders and reputed scholars. A mature and pragmatic Indian response, which keeps the door open for a future partnership with the BRI, may help keep afloat the reset achieved last year following the informal summit between Mr. Modi and Mr. Xi in Wuhan.”
• Ananth Krishnan, visiting fellow at Brookings India, penned an op-ed for the South China Morning Post explaining that Sino-Indian relations are currently dominated by “pragmatism.” Despite India’s official position of opposing the BRI, Krishnan explained that “at least for the moment, New Delhi and Beijing appear content to agree to disagree,” rather than actively undermining each other’s programs.

 

RUSSIA

Russian President Vladimir Putin represented his country at the Forum. At a roundtable discussion, President Putin outlined his country’s investments in transportation and communication infrastructure as part of its larger efforts to improve connectivity: “Russia is committed to active joint work with all interested partners in seeking new growth drivers, boosting relations in the Eurasian continent, and achieving many other common goals. I am confident that by taking joint efforts we will succeed for the benefit of our nations and all Eurasian states.” When asked about how the BRI benefits Russia at a news conference following the roundtable, Putin replied, “Does this meet our interests? Absolutely.”

• Ahead of the BRF, Director General of state-owned TASS Sergei Mikhailov was optimistic about the event in an interview with Xinhua, “I am confident that the second Belt and Road forum will allow Russia and China to find new integrating points when carrying out a number of new joint projects.”
• State-owned Sputnik News featured interviews with Indian scholars about the costs of leaving India out of the deal and coverage of the European Union’s efforts to join the BRI as a group rather than in bilateral agreements.

 

JAPAN

Secretary-General of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party Toshihiro Nikai served as an envoy to the BRF and presented a cordial letter from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to President Xi. Abe, meanwhile, met with US President Donald Trump in Washington as part of ongoing trade negotiations on April 26th.

• Former Japanese Prime Minister and member of the International Advisory Panel of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) Yukio Hatoyama was featured in an interview with China’s state-owned CGTN ahead of the BRF. CGTN reported that Hatoyama advocated for Japan to “play a more positive role in the BRI and offer its experience in multilateral international cooperation.”
• The business-focused Nikkei Asian Review featured an op-ed by James D.J. Brown, an associate professor of political science at Temple University in Tokyo, that called for the Abe administration to “be bolder” in defining its Free and Open Indo-Pacific concept and criticized the government’s lack of a coherent plan of action: “If managed correctly, FOIP has the potential to offer an attractive liberal alternative to China’s BRI. The concept is also an opportunity for Japan to demonstrate its continued importance to regional development and its growing willingness to take a leadership role.”

 

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