As the dust settles on the second Belt and Road Summit, the world is wondering how Xi Jinping’s grand strategy is evolving since it was conceived in late 2013.
ince 2014, and even before in some cases (especially Pakistan), China has invested massively in infrastructure projects to enhance connectivity among neighboring countries. Although the BRI is only five years old, China has expanded aggressively in many countries. Beyond China’s actions and the world’s response, the objective of the belt and road progress seems to have evolved. From a more economic focus related to trade connectivity, and thereby for China to export its excess capacity, it has become a soft power tool with a large part of the infrastructure projects considered strategic. The increasingly broad objective of President’s Xi’s global plan has attracted the attention not only from BRI members, but also other major players such as the United States and the European Union.
In a recent empirical analysis, using big data on millions of media outlets globally, we find that the sentiment toward the Belt and Road Initiative had been positive since the early stages of its creation and also varies widely across countries. However, a closer look at the media after the First BRI Summit shows a clear worsening of the Belt and Road’s image globally (Figure 1). The exceptions are Middle East and North Africa. The worsening image of BRI is definitely a wake-up call for China in its pursuit of a successful strategy to increase soft power globally.
Our analysis offers some hint as to the reasons for the worse image of BRI. The first and foremost seems to be trade. Countries appear wary of excessive dependence from Chinese imports and an imbalanced trade pattern. In addition, debt dynamics in recipient countries could be an issue. More generally, China may have been piling up too many objectives under the BRI cover, some of which could be inconsistent. Replicating China’s internal way of doing business in the overseas market, i.e. namely relying on China’s own resources and materials, with a clear flavor of state capitalism, has been questioned.
While keeping state-owned companies busy with BRI projects may be appealing from an economic perspective, it only exacerbates foreign concerns, weakening China’s international image. Most of the recipient countries welcome infrastructure financing from China, but also expect transparency and fair competition. The latter is at odds with China’s existing strategy.
The fact that the BRI is backfiring is not only demonstrated in its worsening image globally, but also by the announcement of alternative proposals both by the US, through the Indo-Pacific Strategy with Australia, India and Japan, and the European Union, in the form of its EU-Asia Connectivity Plan. The US confronts mainly the geopolitical aspects of the BRI, as it focuses on the political and military coordination among states in the Indo-Pacific region through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD). The European Union’s response, on the other hand, is clearly narrower, focusing on the economics behind the BRI, in particular on physical connectivity. Beyond the Indo-Pacific Strategy, the US-led trade war could also be seen as an economic response to China’s rise, not only domestically, but also in other countries through BRI.