The Belt and Road Initiative: Why Globalization Drives in Asia and Beyond Need to be Integrated?

Bali Ram Deepak

Professor, Center of Chinese and Southeast Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India

The development of the Belt and Road Initiative

Ever since the Belt and Road Initiative (B&R) has been proposed by President Xi Jinping, it has evoked hopes as well as suspicion across continents. And that even if silk routes existed in ancient times, but what is the relevance of such initiatives in modern times? And also whether such initiatives are in sync with China's foreign policy goals such as multipolarity, despising hegemony, and common security etc. notions or is the initiative an antidote to the US foreign policy goals like “pivot to Asia” or “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement” (TPP)? Or, is China challenging the US hegemony and rewriting the rules of global geopolitical and economic architecture?

Undoubtedly, the B&R Initiative is rooted in history, as there was an overland Silk Route and an Maritime Silk Route (MSR) that connected China to countries across Asia, Africa and Europe. In the last three decades of reforms, China built a network of highways and railroads from north to south and from east to less developed western and south western regions. Having achieved that, China sees an opportunity to link the hinterland with south Asia, Europe, Africa and even the Americas by revitalizing the ancient channels of communion and commerce.

The concept was first proposed by Xi Jinping during a speech at Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan on 7thSept. 2013 when he said that “To forge closer economic ties, deepen cooperation and expand development in the Euro-Asia region, we should take an innovative approach and jointly build an ‘economic belt' along the silk road. This will be a great undertaking benefitting the people of all countries along the route.” Xi proposed that traffic connectivity need to be improved so as to open the strategic regional thoroughfare from the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea, and gradually move toward the set-up of a network of transportation that connects Eastern, Western and Southern Asia. Chinese President also urged the regional members to promote local-currency settlement so as to improve their immunity to financial risks and their global competitiveness. Undoubtedly, the economic connectivity is the heart of the matter for which President Xi Jinping also announced the establishment of a Silk Road Fund with 40 billion US dollars to support infrastructure investments in countries involved; however, the notion is equally significant strategically as it will imply common security or security dilemmas at regional and trans-regional levels.

The initiative of building the 21stCentury MSR was proposed by Xi Jinping during his visit to Indonesia in October 2013 in order to deepen economic and maritime links. The MSR begins in Fuzhou in Southeast China's Fujian province and heads south into the ASEAN nations, crosses Malacca Strait and turns west to countries along the Indian Ocean before meeting the land based Silk Road in Venice via the Red Sea and Mediterranean. Under the ambit of MSR, China plans to build hard and soft infrastructure from Indo-Pacific to Africa, including transport, energy, water management, communication, earth monitoring, economic and social infrastructure. The B&R Initiative advocates policy communication, infrastructure connectivity, unimpeded trade, monetary circulation, and people to people relations. Some scholars have added a sixth element to it – interconnected network or the internet silk road thus making the notion as One Belt Two Roads.

Why the B&R Initiative is an opportunity?

China has sought the participation of countries and regions touching the Belt and Road zone. For example, most of the ASEAN countries with which China has a trade volume of over 400 billion dollars have welcomed the idea. As far as South Asia is concerned except India most of the smaller nations have also welcomed the idea as they perceive the initiative as a great opportunity to comprehensively deepen economic and people-to-people relations. As of date 65 countries along the B&R Initiative have been part of the project. These countries account for 63% of the world population but contribute only 29% to the world GDP, of

which China alone accounts for over 50%. Therefore, it is indeed an opportunity for these countries which are largely developing countries, and could push their economic growth and alleviate poverty.

China realises the importance of the geo-economic as well as geo-strategic importance of the MSR, for there are 32 littoral countries including China that touches the 21stCentury MSR. The combined population of these countries is around 4 billion people, and the GDP of around $21 trillion. These are the countries with huge potentials and have archived rapid economic growth recently. From 2007 to 2012, the lowest annual growth rate was 5.27% that of Sudan, and the highest average annual growth rate of 22.83% that of Myanmar. In the view of these figures, China believes that the 21stCentury MSR is going to be an important driver of regional as well as global economic growth. And given the over capacities and structural adjustments being carried out in China, also pronounced as “New Normal”, China sees an opportunity for sustaining its domestic economy on one hand while strengthening strategic partnership with various countries on the other.

In the context above, the B&R Initiative is the reiteration of the geo-civilizational paradigm of the yesteryears, for it connects via land and sea the four major civilizations such as Egypt, Babylon, China and India, of which the latter two are the oldest yet living civilizations. The geo-civilizational paradigm is an antidote to geopolitics of the present day lead by the US that has divided the nations rather than uniting them, and we still witness the raging flames of war across continents even today. It is not however, to say that there were no problems with the geo-civilizational thinking, there were minor ones, but largely the concept remained anti-expansionist, one that cast off hegemony and preaches peaceful co-existence.

The B&R Action Plan released during the Boao Forum on Asia in Hainan in 2015 points out that economic connectivity is the heart of the matter for which Chinese President Xi Jinping also announced the establishment of a Silk Road Fund with 40 billion US dollars to support infrastructure investments in countries involved, and have also linked the establishment of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and BRICS New Development Bank to the initiative as well. Therefore, the B&R Initiative will also redefine the rules of global governance, where emerging economies like the BRICS along with others will have a bigger say in the institutions of global governance. The BRICS countries have been vocal in asking for greater representation in the global governance architecture for quite some time now. Unimpeded trade and monetary circulation could be guaranteed by these institutional mechanisms listed above.

The B&R Initiative rather than just ‘rebalancing to Asia' or a certain region, aims at global rebalancing where the ‘Silk Road Spirit' would be brought into full play. The B&R Initiative action plan has interpreted the ‘Silk Road Spirit' as the one that advocates “peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning and mutual benefit.” It says that initiative is in line with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. The initiative is open and inclusive, former Chinese ambassador to India, Amb. Le Yucheng does not subscribe it a Chinese solo but ‘a symphony performed by various countries.' Therefore, the B&R Initiative will not only aim to realise the Chinese dream, but also the dreams of other countries along the Belt and Road. The B&R Initiative essentially is an antidote to the ‘China threat theory' and ‘pivot to Asia' etc. notions. Unlike the Marshal Plan that resulted in creation of the NATO and Cold War, the B&R Initiative aims to create inclusiveness. Chinese scholars including Prof. Shi Ze of the China Institute of International Studies have denounced the western criticism of the initiative and have maintained that the Three-Nos Policy that is non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations;not to seek the so called ‘sphere of influence'; and not to strive for hegemony or dominance equally applies to the Belt and Road Initiative. The initiative indeed is larger than the Marshall plan as it attempts to encompass the entire world, the economic value of which could reach whopping 21 trillion US dollars. Will this grandiose concept succeed and realise not only the Chinese dream but the dreams of various countries and people around the world? Or will it give rise to geostrategic rivalries around the world and cold or hot war with the sole and declining superpower of the world?

Old and new Globalization forces

With increasingly intense globalization and interdependence, various regional economic blocks such as Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Southeast Asia, European Union (EU) in Europe, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in North America, Mercado Común del Sur or Southern

Common Market (MERCOSUR) in Latin America, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in South Asia, Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) sprawling across Russia and Central Asian Republics and many more at sub regional basis have emerged all over the globe.

As regards Asia, the initiation of reforms and open door policy in China especially since Deng Xiaoping's south China tour in 1992, Indian economic reforms in 1991 especially its ‘Look East Policy' (LEP); similar opening from Bangladesh in the 1990s and Myanmar in late 1980s has created favourable conditions for further regional economic groupings and triggered trends of integration.

The Belt and Road Initiative which is rooted in is essentially a globalization process that will spur domestic, regional as well as global economic growth. It is essentially a re-globalization drive from the East in the backdrop of the financial woes of the West and its increasingly protectionist tendencies of late. In the same vein, India, ever since Prime Minister Modi has ascended to the power, has also initiated a series of projects such as ‘Make in India', ‘Digital India', ‘Start up India', ‘Sagarmala', and ‘Bharatmala' etc. with global ramification.

We have witnessed that China immensely benefitted from the deep globalization of 1990s and 2000s, thus lifting millions of people from poverty. Can India and China integrate or dock their respective processes and create a new global economic ecosystem that with deeper economic and political stakes? Or, should we allow building spheres of exclusive interests? Should not we move away from the Westphalian paradigm of security? Shouldn't we argue in the favour of “security with” as opposed to “security against” the adversary? Should we build a common economic, cultural and security community in Asia?

I believe in the metamorphosis of both the Indian and Chinese initiatives along with other similar initiatives will undoubtedly facilitate the integration of the region culturally, economically, and in the process help us to have a paradigm of common and collective security. However, why has India response to the B&R Initiative remained so lackadaisical?

Why has India been so lackadaisical?

Why has India remained silent to China's invitation even if the former has underscored the importance of India as far as the initiative is concerned? At the outset, India has expressed its unhappiness for not being consulted prior to the initiation of the B&R Initiative. Secondly, in the same vein China without consulting India declared the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIMEC) as part of the B&R Initiative which was signed way back during Premier Li Keqiang's India visit in 2013. Also another corridor, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that ran through the disputed territory claimed by India has caused serious concerns in India. Other four corridors that China announced as part of the B&R Initiative are China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor (CMREC); New Eurasian Land Bridge (NELB); China-Central and West Asia Economic Corridor (CCWAEC); China-Indo-China Peninsula Economic Corridor (CICPEC). This is for these reasons that the security analysts and sceptics in India see these initiatives as part of‘strategic encirclement' of India along with the prospective Trans-Himalayan Economic Zone of Cooperation with Nepal and Bhutan, and hence the argument that India cannot give China access to its sensitive areas. Thirdly, India which is embracing the US for security cooperation would not like to antagonise the US by joining China's bandwagon; it would rather tread a fine balancing line between the two. Having said that is the Modi government thinking differently on the issue? It is if we analyse the larger issue of regionalisation and China's economic cooperation with India.

Should India be an Onlooker?

As far as the Belt and Road Initiative of China is concerned, India has been part of the initiative with the signing of the BCIMEC. The work is in progress. As India's Look East Policy has been widening in scope, this is an area where the policy could be integrated, especially when we are thinking of developing landlocked and underdeveloped northeast region of India. India needs to take a leaf out of China's experience as to how it has developed and connected its south-western and southern states to the ASEAN. Is New Delhi ready to forgo its sensitivities in Northeast in turn of economic development of the region? Can the massive trade between China-ASEAN and India-ASEAN percolate to the northeast India and northwest China? The answer to all these questions is yes provided we start looking at boundaries as gateways but not barriers.

In the same vein, India and China could think of developing similar corridors along the northwest regions of China, primarily Xinjiang and Tibet with India's Jammu and Kashmir, and the plains of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh intersecting Nepal. Boao Forum B&R Action Plan defines Xinjiang as a core area both politically and geographically. China considers Xinjiang as a window to the west and Central, South and West Asia. Both the medium and long-term goals have been in place to realize the B&R Initiative. South Asia, I believe is not just the CPEC which according to the Action Plan is medium term goal aimed at completing railway and road connectivity between China and Pakistan within 5-10 years. Long term goals are set to be achieved by the year 2049. These goals are Three Channels, Three Bases and Five Centres in Xinjiang. Three Channels include North-Central-Southern Channels; Three Bases comprise oil & gas, coal and wind power bases; Five Centres are healthcare, traffic, culture etc.

Several possibilities could be explored. An energy corridor could be established, which I believe will be more feasible and viable than the TAPI pipeline. Secondly, some of the nodes from CEPC could run southward and integrate the same with Chinese investment in Gujarat. This may prove another confidence building measure between India and China and may render India's Gwader dilemma irrelevant. Similarly, the Trans Himalayan railway cutting across Nepal and connecting India's prospective line in Nepal would be another option to explore.

As regards the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Route (MSR), India has been responding by its own strategy. It has been expanding and strengthening its maritime partnerships with the United States, Japan, Vietnam, Australia etc countries on one hand and engaging ASEAN in various domains on the other. Besides there are new initiatives such as ‘Project Mausam' initiated by the Ministry of Culture in tandem with Archaeological Society of India (ASI), New Delhi as the nodal agency and Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA), New Delhi as its Research Unit. Since area covered under the project extends from East Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, the Indian subcontinent and Sri Lanka to the Southeast Asia, and has been termed as Indian Ocean “world”, analysts and media has termed it India's response to China's MSR. However, I believe, it is a pure cultural construct that doesn't pose any challenge, whatsoever to the B&R Initiative. Even if the ‘project' sounds ambitious, the kind of economic muscle which is required to materialise it simply does not exist. Contrary to this ‘project', the ambitious ‘Sagar mala' by way of which India desires to lay a network of rails, roads, smart cities, industrial parks and high-speed rail along the east and west coasts of India is the area where Indian and Chinese initiatives could be integrated.

China has regarded India as an important country and crucial for economic integration in the region. China is already a partner in India's development;there is cooperation in railway sector as regards enhancing the speed and heavy haul of the trains, China is also assisting India in the training of railway personnel, design of the stations and in building up a railway university in India. The feasibility study of Delhi-Chennai high speed railway has been going on and will bring down the travel time to 7 hours from present 28. There are mega plans to build industrial parks across India through Chinese capital; the realtors from China have committed billions of dollars investment in Indian markets; telecom and energy sector of India has immensely benefitted from the Chinese investment. However, given the size and population of India and China, the investment and overall trade volume between the two remain very low. There is an upward movement this year, if the figures are to be believed, Chinese investment in India this year has reached all-time high of 700 million dollars.

In this context, it would be unfortunate if India remains outside the value chain of such an initiative; however, it may decide for itself what kind of project it could carry out with China on case-to-case basis. These could be in realm of a variety of infrastructure related projects including energy, transport, power, e-commerce, and projects integrating investment and trade. China will also perhaps frame its own responses and priorities towards countries along the Belt and Road. For example, it will have differentiated strategy while dealing with smaller and medium size countries, with conflicting parties in South China Sea,‘pivot' countries like Pakistan and big and large countries like India.

Secondly, as India faces uncertainties as well as opportunities, it must capitalise on the invaluable geopolitical strategic space it has in the Indo-Pacific. If the US is attempting to offset China's geopolitical pull by way of India confronting China or in tandem with the US and its allies in the seas and land it would be disastrous for all the stakeholders. From an Indian point of view, if the US is looking for a strong economic partnership with India, so is the case of India's economic engagement with China. It would be naïve to say that the US will dump its interests in China for India. Imagine the $521 billion trade volume between China and the US and compare it with our trade with China and the US combine! Therefore, if at all India would like to be a so called ‘swing power' between China and the US, we need to be a swing power as far as cooperation and healthy competition and India's national interests are concerned not the confrontation and conflict, which is neither in India's interest nor in the interest of China and the US.

Finally, since the maritime ambitions of both India and China are soaring, the interests are overlapping too. There is an urgent need for initiating more comprehensive consultation mechanisms; one in the offing could be a substantive maritime security dialogue which has remained a non-starter since 2012; another could be a consultation mechanism on the B&R Initiative itself to explore the possibilities of docking the policies of the two countries in view of the initiatives both have taken to globalise their economies.

References

Chen Dingding,2014.China's‘Marshall Plan'is much more,The Diplomat,10 November, 2014. Available at: http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/chinas-marshall-plan-is-much-more/

Zhang Shiping,2009.China's Sea Rights.Beijing:People's Daily Publication.