Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
One Belt, One Road, No Dice
Jan. 12, 2017 China’s ambitious infrastructure plans have a long way to go to become a gamechanger.
By Jacob L. Shapiro
In September and October of 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled the One Belt, One
Road (OBOR) initiative in visits to Kazakhstan and Indonesia. Before Xi, Chinese strategy had
been built off of Deng Xiaoping’s warning in the early 1990s for Chinese leaders to “hide our
capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It is tempting to think of Xi’s OBOR as an ambitious economic development program that will
vault Chinese political power ahead in the 21st century and break with Deng’s guidance. A
closer analysis of OBOR tempers this kind of thinking for two key reasons. First, the mechanisms
by which China will carry out OBOR are in their infancy. More than three years after Xi’s
unveiling of the policy, OBOR remains ill-defined and underfunded, and faces an uphill battle
against many constraints like geography, Eurasian instability and current trade patterns.
Second, OBOR is first and foremost about China’s domestic economic inequalities rather than
about China spreading its influence around the globe.
One of the most common analogues used in the media for OBOR is the Marshall Plan. This is a
faulty comparison. The Marshall Plan was codified into U.S. law as the Foreign Assistance Act of
1948. A comparison of this document with the OBOR action plan published by various Chinese
government agencies on March 28, 2015 is striking. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 is a dry,
23-page document written in American legalese. It established clear guidelines for organizations
set up to administer funds, advisory boards to oversee those organizations, salaries for officials
in charge of the organizations and where they were to live. The Marshall Plan was a highly
focused and targeted set of measures formulated and executed with a clear goal in mind:
rebuild Europe so that the Iron Curtain could not spread further than it already had across the
Continent.
1/8
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 Summit on Sept. 4, 2016 in Hangzhou, China. Lintao Zhang/Getty Images
The OBOR action plan bears no resemblance to this document. It begins by touting the virtues of
what it calls the “Silk Road Spirit,” which include “peace and cooperation, openness and
inclusiveness, mutual learning and mutual benefit.” That the Silk Road was first and foremost
about trade (i.e. making money) and that the Han and many subsequent dynasties for years
paid tribute to the various tribes and enemies it encountered on its western frontiers – and at
times conquered in Central Asia – seems to have been forgotten, or at least politely ignored. No
concrete action items are set out in the Chinese government’s action plan for what has become
one of Xi’s most visible policy initiatives. The document contains a number of generic proposals
without delineating any concrete steps forward and is intermixed with various platitudes about
cooperation and understanding.
Those who are bullish on OBOR point out that China has taken concrete steps toward realizing
the ambitious goals outlined in the action plan, and a few are noteworthy. A Silk Road Fund with
$40 billion provided by the Chinese government has been established. The Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank (AIIB) came into being in October 2014 armed with $100 billion of funding, of
which more than a third comes from China. The New Development Bank, which is a funding
2/8
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
source for BRICS countries, has another $100 billion of investment it can draw on. These are all
positive steps for OBOR, but they are extremely small steps insufficient for the size and scope of
OBOR’s ambitious, if ill-defined, goals.
(click to enlarge)
OBOR is supposed to create multiple economic corridors that would cover almost two-thirds of
the world’s population and a third of global GDP. The One Belt portion refers to overland
corridors; One Road refers to maritime routes. This is a herculean undertaking, and $240 billion
barely makes a dent in the total amount of required funding. The infrastructure necessary to link
Eurasia will require construction of roads, railways, ports and other elements across vast
distances in some of the harshest geography and least populated areas in the world. (Not to
mention some of the most lawless and insecure parts of the world.) The fact that over 4.4 billion
people only account for a third of the world’s GDP is often skirted over when OBOR’s impressive
goals are espoused. But it is an indicator of just how poor many of these areas are. HSBC has
projected that OBOR will require at least $4-6 trillion over the next 15 years if it is to take form.
That estimate is probably too conservative. Even if accurate, from where and whom this money
3/8
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
will come remain open questions.
Besides the capital needed to get OBOR’s ambitious programs off the ground, two deeper
problems exist. The first is that even if China and other countries identified as Silk Road partners
come up with the money, there is no centralized organizing body or strategic goal that OBOR is
supposed to accomplish beyond enriching all of Eurasia. Looking at the projects the AIIB
approved last year is telling: a power plant in Myanmar, an electricity supply improvement in
Bangladesh, a hydropower project in Pakistan, a highway in Pakistan, a Tajik-Uzbek road
improvement program and a slum improvement project in Indonesia. The Marshall Plan had a
sharp focus, a clearly defined goal and a set of organizations charged with distributing money to
achieve that goal. By comparison, OBOR is an amorphous, unconnected list of projects without a
clear and consistent funding mechanism and without an authority overseeing how these smaller
projects fit into a much broader scheme.
The second problem is that China’s main purpose in pushing for OBOR is not to increase its
foreign power, but rather to alleviate some of its own domestic economic pressures. OBOR is
one small part of Xi’s attempt to accomplish what successive Chinese leaders have failed to do:
distribute the wealth of the coast to the impoverished parts of China’s interior without causing
crippling levels of social instability. The most concrete part of the OBOR action plan is how
Chinese provinces will profit from infrastructure development and increases in trade that are
supposed to accompany OBOR. The goal is to enrich interior provinces, which despite
preternatural growth rates China has seen in the last three decades, remain woefully
impoverished compared to the richer coastal regions.
4/8
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
(click to enlarge)
The One Belt portion of the plan (overland trade routes) aims to achieve this by creating easy
access to overland markets to help absorb China’s massive excess capacity of steel, coal and
other key commodities. China is struggling to cut production of these commodities but has found
that it cannot do so without sacrificing economic growth rates. China is still a country with a
great deal of poverty, and a large gulf exists between the economic enrichment of Chinese
citizens living on the coast and those in the hinterlands. China hopes One Belt will help it find a
place to dump the surplus commodities it has produced and justify increased infrastructure
spending in less-developed regions. Currently, that infrastructure doesn’t exist, but at least it
can be fixed with money and time. Demand for these products is another story, and it is not
clear that China will find an enthusiastic market for the commodities it is trying to offload onto
5/8
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
its neighbors in Central Asia and the Middle East.
One Road, the maritime component of the plan, is more notable because the global shipping
routes that form the basis of the world economy are the true 21st century Silk Road. According
to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, about 80 percent of global trade
by volume and over 70 percent of global trade by value is shipped via maritime routes. Even
China’s interior provinces trade mostly by shipping goods overland to and from the coast, not
via overland routes to the west. The issue for China is that its economy depends on these
routes, whose security is guaranteed by the U.S. Navy. Many countries in Asia will happily take
Chinese money and put it to good use, but there is also a great deal of suspicion of Chinese
intentions. The ports that China is helping to build will not come with permanent basing
agreements for Chinese destroyers or the People's Liberation Army in those countries, and the
first goal of China’s navy is to improve capability to assert Chinese territorial claims in the
waters off its coast. China is at minimum decades away from having the kind of naval power
projection necessary to challenge the United States for control over global shipping routes.
(click to enlarge)
Eurasia is not the pivot of the world as it was when the ancient Silk Road was a vibrant and
flourishing trade route. Today, most global trade happens by sea, which is the U.S.’ domain, and
OBOR will not change that. OBOR as currently imagined, funded and directed by China is
theoretically seductive, but when you examine the boring yet crucial facts of where the money
6/8
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
will come from, who will oversee the overall scope of the project, who will buy Chinese steel
shipped overland and why OBOR would make countries want to spend more to ship goods
across unstable areas, it becomes clear that OBOR is more mirage at this point than gamechanger. OBOR has brilliantly succeeded at one thing though: It has greatly increased China’s
international prestige and Xi’s domestic credibility, which is the basis of most Chinese moves on
the global stage.
Nationalism vs. Internationalism
Nationalism has influenced recent elections across the world. Learn how
this resurging trend will play out in the coming years with our free
special report Nationalism vs. Internationalism. Click the button below to
claim it now!
7/8
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
hbspt.cta.load(2632125, '44c2e0d7-a608-4dc2-96b5-1041251c97f9', {});
8/8
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)