The Silk Road is one of the most important international trade routes in history. In 2013, the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) was launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping to revitalize the ancient Silk Road. Although this project aims at economic development, commercial activities and political cooperation, the BRI should not be seen as a purely economic project. It also provides international social and cultural interaction.
From this point of view, Ankara Center for Crisis and Political Studies (ANKASAM) presents the views of Dr. Ladislav Zemánek, Researcher at the Hungary-Budapest based China-Central and Eastern European Countries (China-CEE) Institute to evaluate the Belt and Road Initiative in its 10th anniversary.
1. Last year, the Belt and Road Initiative completed its 10th anniversary. What can be said about the achievements of the project in this process?
The Belt and Road Initiative is an innovative and forward-looking project whose aim is to give a new impetus to and accelerate global development. It is designed to bring benefits to both developing and developed countries. Given the fact that China is the strongest developing country and the second-largest economy in the world by nominal GDP, successes in her modernisation, reforms and opening up are of key importance to all members of the international community. According to recent findings of the International Monetary Fund, economic growth in China has positive spillovers on the international community as a whole―each 1 per cent of the Chinese GDP generates an average increase of 0.3 per cent in output in other economies.
The BRI is an integral part of China’s internal and external model. As such, it emerges from China’s modernization efforts and from its internal socioeconomic needs. At the same time, it can be perceived as an instrument of coping with the “secular stagnation” of developed economies after the global economic crisis in the late 2000s, which poses a serious challenge to both China and Western liberal democracies. Last but not least, the BRI is aimed at deepening globalisation which is facing increasing protectionist and regressive tendencies. These are partially a natural reaction to a wide array of negative consequences of the neoliberal model of globalisation starting from cementing inequalities and exclusion of the Global South together with minor developed countries from equal participation, decision-making and benefits from globalisation and ending with destructive impacts on local social patterns and cultural peculiarities. Therefore, the goal is to keep the advantages and benefits of globalisation while overcoming the negative aspects of neoliberalism. The BRI has made important achievements in this regard.
All in all, the BRI has contributed to connectivity, exchanges and mutual understanding, helped underdeveloped and landlocked countries to boost their economic development and created favourable conditions for countering protectionism, bloc mentality and conflicts. The spirit of peaceful cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning and benefit is a vital source of handling current problems and challenges. The advantages of the BRI outweigh some negative side-effects at the moment.
2. One of the main objectives of China’s Belt and Road Initiative is to ensure the economic development of participating countries by utilizing intercontinental infrastructure. In this context, what is the role of the project in global trade?
The BRI is a significant contribution to the world economy, international trade and inclusive and sustainable global development. One can mention positive remarks made by the leading representatives of such prominent organisations as the United Nations, World Economic Forum and World Trade Organisation. China has signed more than 20 free trade agreements with 28 countries and regions including the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which has become the largest free trade zone in history. The BRI enhances trade and investment liberalisation and pursues unimpeded and efficient trade. According to official statistics, the cumulative value of imports and exports between China and other BRI participants exceeded 19 trillion USD, amounting to an annual growth of 6.4 per cent on average.
The International Monetary Fund has recently warned against the risk of policy-driven geoeconomic fragmentation. Paradoxically, this risk has been emerging predominantly from the protectionist and security-based policies adopted by liberal democratic countries. At the current stage of development, liberal democracies are giving up both neoliberal policies, that took the lead after the end of the end of Cold War, and the fundamental liberal principles. A pivot to excessive securitisation and authoritarian practices on the part of Western actors poses an obstacle to the open international environment, inclusive and participatory globalisation and a democratic international order.
China’s external policies including but not limited to the BRI go in the opposite direction. The initiative sets no political preconditions for participation and, therefore, it is open for any government and any country and its citizens. China together with the European Union and the United States are the largest trading actors in the world so they should seek ways to include the BRI in global economic architecture along with strategies and projects of other members of the international community.
By the same token, the international community expects that China will further expand market access and accelerate the opening up of her economy inclusive of foreign capital inflow and expansion of trade with goods, services, digital products and e-commerce. Imbalance in economic exchange as well as restrictions on foreign access to the Chinese market remain a relevant topic of discussions with Beijing.
3. How can the role of intercultural interaction in the success of the Belt and Road Initiative be explained?
Intercultural and intercivilisational communication, interaction and exchanges are an integral part of the BRI. The important point is that the project is inherently multilayered, multifaceted and multilateral and corresponds with the “spirit of the time”. Let us sketch the main contours of the ongoing transformations in world economy and international relations, geopolitical and geoeconomic landscape. The shift of economic as well as political power from the West to the Asia-Pacific region, the emergence of regional powers and the overall emancipation of the “world majority” are inevitable processes. These entail the democratisation of international politics and the strengthening of multipolarity (polycentrism).
This macrotrend was accelerating during the Cold War and the prevalence of multipolarity was hindered only as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Communist regimes in Europe. That specific historical constellation gave birth to an unprecedented dominance of the Western model based on neoliberal capitalism, liberal democracy and liberal internationalism. As the emancipation and rise of world majority has been accelerating and China’s model is demonstrating the viability of alternative modernisation and modernity, a wide array of actors claim equal recognition and assert their legitimate interests. Liberal democratic elites are confronted with the fact that world majority does not want to follow Western way of life and conform to neocolonial practices of a world minority.
Individual countries largely advocate the right to their own development path based on local peculiarities, traditions and civilisational values. The BRI is responsive to such aspirations, being an instrument of local development embedded in multilateral and supranational cooperation. It enables a due combination of the local and global. The BRI upholds the principles of peaceful coexistence, which seems to be a necessary foundation for the transition to a post-hegemonic, democratic and inclusive world order. In this regard, it coincides with a number of projects such as the BRICS, Eurasian Economic Union, Greater Eurasian Partnership and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. All of them contribute to the emancipation of the world majority, strengthen true multilateralism and democratise the international ecosystem.
The number of agreements with both individual countries and multilateral organisations along with interconnection with their strategies and initiatives is huge. By mid-2023, China signed more than 200 BRI cooperation agreements with more than 150 countries and 30 international organisations. The implementation of transport, digital, institutional, financial and cultural infrastructure is diversifying resources and available instruments and reducing dependencies as well as vulnerabilities of participating countries without isolating them from the existing structures and creating further divisions. The BRI thus helps to improve the material basis of the participants while building bridges between individuals, nations, countries, cultures and civilisations. The BRI owes its successes to both China’s economic capabilities and respect for the interests, needs and visions of actors from Eurasia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania alike.
4. How can Italy’s participation in the US-backed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor project be evaluated following Italy’s withdrawal from the Belt and Road Initiative?
Italy’s decision to join the initiative regarding the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and subsequent withdrawal from the BRI indicates that the Italian government has opted for closer alignment with Atlantic allies in general and the United States in particular. Such a decision can be linked to Giorgia Meloni’s internal agenda. There have been several countries in the EU which have been critical of the liberal democratic model. Illiberal actors have limited leeway in promoting their interests and, therefore, can resort to a strategy of close alignment with Washington to reduce the pressures from Brussels. It was the case of Poland under the Law and Justice’s rule. Warsaw was submissive to American interests while carrying out a conservative turn at home. Rome has apparently adopted the same stance. The Italian government has embraced the security-based attitude towards cooperation with China, being in favour of the European Commission’s “de-risking” strategy. Similarly, Meloni’s zealous support for Ukraine in its war against Moscow contrasts with the tradition of Russo-Italian friendship.
At the same time, the withdrawal from the BRI need not result in a slump in the bilateral relations necessarily. Another example from Europe confirms this argument. After the quarrel with Beijing inclusive of the withdrawal from the 17+1 mechanism in 2021, Lithuania’s imports from China hit record levels in the following year and Lithuanian exports to the Asian country soared last year. It might be the case of Italy as well. Nevertheless, Italy’s position in relation to China was undoubtedly weakened upon the decision to exit from the global initiative which is attended by an overwhelming majority of countries. By the way, Rome will likely help Greece to strengthen its position as a trade hub in the Mediterranean. It is up to the Italian citizens to evaluate such a policy and its benefits to the Italians.
Dr. Ladislav Zemánek
Dr. Ladislav Zemánek is a non-resident research fellow at the China-CEE Institute, established by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Budapest (Hungary). He is a contributor to the Valdai Discussion Club (Russia) and also works as an independent policy consultant. He has research experience from the Parliamentary Institute of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the Czech Academy of Sciences. Upon graduation from East European studies at Charles University (Czechia), he obtained a national degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhDr.). He is expected to defend his PhD dissertation, dedicated to Sino-Soviet relations and a comparative analysis of Soviet perestroika and China’s reform and opening up, in 2024.
His latest articles focus on the present transformation of international relations and Western liberal democracy (postliberalism), the rise of Eurasia and complex relations in the China-Europe-Russia triangle. He presented his research and ideas at such respected institutions as the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Czech Academy of Sciences, Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, Institute of International Politics and Economics (Serbia), Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Political Science Association and the University of Hong Kong.
