Diaitadoc’s recent diary suggesting that Russia is pursuing a Nationalist/Fascist ideology of Eurasian dominion inspires, for me, visions of Putin galloping bare-chested across the steppes. The diary, and accompanying discussion, is a must read. But just as Orangebrain’s Putin pandering, on top of Putin’s riding roughshod over our elections, has made Russia’s ambitions an urgent domestic issue, Orangbrain’s war of tariffs with China makes that country’s intentions a matter of some concern. As a complement to the Russia discussion, I offer here a quick introduction to one major aspect of China’s global posture.
Following Mao’s successful unification of the Middle Kingdom and the failure of his isolationist economic development efforts, the country opened to the world and Deng Xiaoping initiated progressive liberalization of the domestic economy. That, along with growing international trade, led to China’s becoming about as Communist as Kansas, except for a commitment to raising standards of living and economic equality. Rather than pursuing the export-led model typical of developing countries, however, the ideal was infrastructure-led growth. That is, building domestic infrastructure for self-sufficient economic development. Building infrastructure, however, requires capital, which China raised partly through exports boosted by currency manipulation and bending the rules of fair trade just short of the breaking point. China is also famous for industrial espionage and technology theft.
They’ve been successful. Spectacularly so, to the point that, for example, Thailand where I call home is now inundated by Chinese tourists whose parents were barely able to scratch out mere subsistence. Note, by the way: the common people are not cowering behind the bamboo curtain, as some still seem to think, but traveling internationally. (Someone will complain of China’s brutal suppression of ethnic minorities. That, however, is a separate topic.)
China has been so successful, in fact, that they want to expand their infrastructure-led development model to the rest of the world. Thus the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also known as the New Silk Road. Announced in 2013, this is envisioned as a network of roads, railways and shipping lanes linking China with all of Asia, Africa and Europe. Other projects supporting the network include, for example, power plants and waterworks in developing countries. There are even proposals for projects in South America. In addition to linking up with the developing world there are now actual railway connections with Europe. In effect, the BRI is a process of drawing what used to be called the third world fully into the global economy, but an economy where all roads lead to Beijing. Participating countries accept loans and aid to build local infrastructure as links in the wider network, under Chinese supervision and with sometimes large contingents of Chinese workers. Thailand and Lao, for example, are currently constructing segments of a railway that will eventually link Kunming with Singapore. Cambodia is heavily involved in BRI with multiple projects. Such projects create local jobs and bring in cash as well as producing infrastructure that supports development in the host countries. There is even a separate fund for investing in businesses along the routes, making the BRI quite attractive: there are now well over a hundred member countries, including, by the way, Italy.
An Asia Times article by Benjamin Zawacki (link) likens the BRI to the post-war Marshal plan in which, along with rebuilding Europe and boosting development further afield, the United States exported liberal-democratic values. China’s reach, he maintains, similarly exports values along with development—but illiberal totalitarian values. Whether or not that proves to be the case, in effect, the BRI sometimes, as Zawacki puts it, “paves over rules and rights”. Chinese projects with large numbers of Chinese workers threaten an unwelcome Sinicization of Lao (link), for example, and Cambodia seems to be becoming a virtual client state of the Chinese patron (link). On the other hand, national governments must share the blame for failing to protect their own.
As Zawacki notes, the BRI and the related Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) were set up as direct competition to Western (and Japanese) dominated development institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, which condition aid and loans on such “Western” values as human rights and good governance. The BRI and AIIB have no such scruples. While I do not think that China is specifically interested in exporting illiberal political systems, their tolerance of such systems gives a ready alternative to regimes eager to resist or suppress democratic forms of governance. Thailand’s 2014 military coup, for example, drew protests and the withholding of military cooperation from the US, with the Chinese ready and eager to fill the gap. Also, as creditor and patron, China has outsized influence on local policies that affect Chinese interests. Again, we may point to Thailand’s willingness to return refugees seeking asylum to China and certain prison or death (link. Though perhaps not specifically tied to BRI, this action indicates the effects of China’s expanding influence of which BRI is a part). Governments in continental Southeast Asia that have long held China at arm’s length are now gravitating toward their warm embrace. Lao and Cambodia seem to be all in (Myanmar always has been) while Vietnam, attracted by the assistance but with historical mistrust (and just plain dislike) of the Chinese remains cautious (link). Thailand, as always, plays the major powers to its own advantage.
Long-term, a robust BRI will involve a broad network of treaties and trade agreements implemented largely under Chinese stewardship. Short-term, lending has caught client countries in a “debt trap”. The best known example is Sri Lanka, which accepted massive loans to build a seaport. Unable to keep up payments on the loan, they sold the port to China which now administers it. China, in other words now has its own major Indian Ocean seaport. Assurances that the port is (ostensibly) purely commercial rather than military misses the point that China’s push for domination is commercial, not military. A very similar scenario is playing out in Kenya leading to charges that the BRI amounts to neo-colonialism (link). Vietnam and others are also fearful of being caught in these traps.
What the BRI gets China ultimately, is access to markets for its excess production, potential offshore sites for over-producing factories, and generally, wealth-generating trade. But also, if successful, it will give China global influence rivaling or exceeding that of the US and Europe.
The big obstacle that China is facing at this point is that it has been over ambitious and is approaching dangerous levels of debt; part of that is due to making loans that recipient nations may not be able to repay—the debt traps may not be intentional.
I’m not going to opine here whether the BRI on balance is good or bad, I simply want to give an introduction to China’s global posture. The lesson, though, is that China is not primarily a military threat and that if it’s an economic threat, it is an intelligent global force, with long-term multilateral plans and projects beyond the comprehension of Orangebrain. If Putin is riding bare-breasted across the steppes raping, pillaging and conquering, Xi is having polite suppers with local chieftains, quietly and methodically building alliances and influence around the globe. Engaging China productively, and countering its trade misbehavior, will involve low-key multinational cooperation, not one nation’s blustering and tariffs.
--------------------------------------
Reading: Wikipedia has a good article, and the Asia Times article cited above is worth a read.
For the UN’s response and efforts to guide BRI projects toward Sustainable Development Goals see: https://www.brisdgs.org/about-bri-sdgs. The World Bank’s take is available here.
Search “Belt and Road Initiative” for much, much more. For the US, Japanese, Indian and Australian anemic attempt to counter the BRI search “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”.
Update:
This turned up in my inbox this AM. What’s DKos coming to? Thank you Rescue Rangers!!
Thanks to all who have added details in the comments! This is a huge topic. Allow me to emphasize that the point is not to paint China as an enemy to be contained, but to see it as a global geoeconomic force to be engaged productively and intelligently (which evidently must wait till 2021).