From June 8th to 10th, two multi-lateral conferences were simultaneously held; there was the G7 Summit at Charlevoix, Quebec, Canada, and there was also Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Qingdao Summit at Qingdao, China. G7 represents the world's most advanced group of countries, while the SCO is a multilateral cooperation mechanism of developing countries. At the G7 summit, the United States fell out with the other six countries, and did not sign the previously confirmed joint statement. On the other hand, the focus of the SCO Summit in Qingdao seems to have shifted as well, moving from the past focus on security issues to the economic sector. As the host of the SCO Summit this year, China hopes that the economic cooperation of the SCO member states would be supportive to its Belt & Road Initiative.
The China's impressive Belt & Road Initiative began in 2013; this awe-inspiring initiative involves 4.8 billion people in 65 countries, accounting for 44% of the global population that contributes 40% of the world's real GDP growth. For China, this is a cooperative initiative for "going global" to create common markets and shared economic development. However, in the eyes of the West, this is the largest international geopolitical strategy promoted by China.
It has been more than four years since the Belt & Road Initiative was launched. China has invested huge amount of resources in promoting this strategic initiative. According to the estimation of some research institutions in the West, under the highly uncertain political prospects of the United States and Europe, the construction of railways, highways and ports under the Belt & Road Initiative will bring economic prosperity to participating regions. It is estimated that the entire initiative has a value of up to US$1.4 trillion. If calculated in absolute dollar value, the scale is 12 times of the Marshall Plan; China's total expenditure may be as high as 9% of its total domestic economic value, which is about twice the amount spent by the United States on the European Recovery Program after the Second World War. However, Anbound's researchers pointed out that the Belt & Road Initiative cannot be compared with the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan has great geopolitical significance; it reconstructed the world pattern after the Second World War and laid the political and economic foundation for the West to win the Cold War. Although the Belt & Road Initiative also has a strong geographical significance, its main action is investment based on infrastructure construction, and it hopes to build a common market with other countries.
If we have to use the historical label "Marshall Plan", Anbound's scholars also propose the "New Marshall Plan". However, from the actual implementation of the Belt & Road Initiative, China has overdone it. Although the general direction is correct, the focus of actual implementation has been misplaced. The "New Marshall Plan" that Anbound emphasizes would focus more on the macro and strategic aspects, that is, through strategic initiatives to construct an external environment advantageous to China; these aspects are a common market platform and a new international platform for multilateral cooperation. The current situation faced by the Belt & Road Initiative is that there is no obvious gain at the macro-level, yet at the micro-level project, the burdens that China has to bear are huge. From the perspective of the efficiency of resource investment, although China has spent a lot of money, this is mostly concentrated on various project portfolios without bringing about the desired macroeconomic benefits.
More than four years later, the international political and economic situation has undergone great changes. First, with Donald Trump being elected as the President of the United States, his "America First" strategy merged with unilateralism, causing anti-globalization to reach a new height. The China-U.S. trade disputes and the conflicts between U.S. and Europe over tariff issue are parts of the new variants of the global market space battle. It is estimated that the tide of anti-globalization will surge in the future for quite a period of time. Second, important progress has been made to resolve the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue. The United States and North Korea held a direct dialogue and signed a bilateral agreement in Singapore, bypassing other countries. In the future, if the situation in the Korean Peninsula could really be improved, it will be possible to unravel the entwined historical knots and lead the Korean peninsula towards the direction of peaceful development. This will also affect the United States' strategy and strength in the Indo-Pacific region. Third, changes in the situation in Southeast Asia. In post-general election Malaysia, after the change of the Barisan Nasional regime, China's plans and business operations in the region might experience changes. On the other hand, in China's neighboring Vietnam, there has been a lot of "anti-China" sentiments recently. Fourth, changes in the situation in South Asia. Although China and India have stabilized their bilateral relations, Pakistan, as an important pillar of China's Belt & Road Initiative, may experience currency crisis, which would directly affect the implementation of the Initiative.
The international environment faced by China in its promotion of the Belt & Road Initiative has undergone tremendous changes. Incidents from North Korea to Vietnam, to a considerable extent, are in line with the expectations made by Anbound on the geopolitical, economic and financial pressures felt by China when it implemented its Belt & Road Initiative. For instance, the situation in the Korean Peninsula shows that the United States, which has ranked China as its primary strategic competitor, will increase its pressure on China and will have more strength to implement its Indo-Pacific Strategy to restrain China's Maritime Silk Road initiative.
From an objective point of view, China's current external policies are at a critical turning point, and it needs to fully consider and reflect its policies; at the least, China needs to refocus on the changes in the situation and even adjust some of them. Otherwise, if the situation changes while China remains stagnant, China would then enter a "dead end". It should be pointed out that revising external policies is a complex work, and there is no fast solution. It is necessary to find a few key points on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the situation in order to achieve any breakthrough.
To briefly analyze the adjustments of the policies, it should be emphasized that China should reduce its front line in its Belt & Road Initiative and concentrate its resources on the "New Silk Road" strategy based on land rights. If the infrastructure investment of the Belt and Road Initiative is really as high as US$ 1.4 trillion as expected by some institutions, then it will be even more necessary for China to concentrate its resources and efforts on the land "New Silk Road", rather than focusing on both land and maritime "Silk Roads".
Another key point is that China must adhere to reform and opening up. China has become the second largest economy in the world. The world, especially the West would inevitably judge the rise of China with biased perspectives. Earlier, there had been complaints from Western media that China's accession to the WTO and its role in globalization has not led it to the development path that the West wants it to be. If in the future China does not continue its reform and opening up and its enthusiasm for attracting foreign investment are not as high, China's development will be "dangerous" for them.
Final analysis conclusion:
International geopolitical and geo-economic situations are undergoing tremendous changes. China needs to advance with the times, revise its external policies, adjust the focus of its external development strategies, and even revise the original development goals. Whatever the case may be, it will change from time to time; this is the principle that China's foreign policy should adhere to.
