Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Increasing geopolitical tensions and domestic political pressures have tested Fiji’s efforts to strike a balance in relations with its traditional partners and China. Its actions also illustrate that on questions of sovereignty, external pressure, undue influence, and interference extend beyond China. When the Coalition Government led by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka was sworn into power in Fiji on Christmas Eve 2022 it marked an historic moment: the beginning of a peaceful transition of power, uninterrupted by coups or civil disturbance. But international attention was preoccupied not with whether Fiji had finally ended the coup cycle, but with what the new Government’s stance would be towards China. As a recently aired documentary by the Australian television program 60 Minutes makes clear, that preoccupation has fanned claims in Western media about China as a disruptive – if not predatory – actor in Fiji and the wider region. It is little wonder that the Fijian prime minister (who is also foreign minister) has repeatedly described the Pacific as being “at the centre of geopolitical tensions.” Major powers were, in his view, seeking to “polarize the Pacific into their own camps,” compelling countries to choose sides and further militarising the region. Like a number of other Pacific island countries, Fiji has long held the position of “friends to all, enemies to none.” In the Pacific islands context, this posture has been interpreted to mean being free to choose who to partner with; and not being told by others who they can or cannot be friends with. It is a form of non-alignment that does not preclude security agreements but seeks to avoid or resist being confined to spheres of influence. As former Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama declared in 2015: “We have no desire as a Pacific Small Island Developing State to be drawn into the conflicts of others.” This non-alignment principle has been qualified to some extent by the foreign policy orientation of the government of the day. During the early years of the Bainimarama era, there was a tilt towards China. This was primarily a response to the diplomatic isolation and sanctions imposed on the government by Western partners (including Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) after the coup of 2006, which had compelled Fiji to actively seek new friends and allies. After the return to elected government in 2014, relations were restored with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, and some foreign policy equilibrium was achieved. But it was not long before the Western partners, led by Australia, began publicly asserting the existence of a Chinese strategic threat to the region. Soon thereafter, these states launched a new campaign of “strategic denial” and, inter alia, escalated their engagement with Fiji. When Bainimarama’s regime was ousted by a coalition of parties dominated by Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party in the 2022 general election, it was expected that the new government would be less friendly towards China and realign itself more with its “traditional” Western partners. Some saw signs of such a shift in Rabuka’s cancellation of a meeting with the visiting Chinese foreign minister in April 2023, the March reinstatement of the Taiwanese mission’s name to Trade Mission of the Republic of China (Taiwan) to Fiji (after a 2018 downgrade), and promises of an end to Fiji’s longstanding police cooperation agreement with China. But Western optimism did not last. The diplomatic upgrade of the Taiwan Trade Office was reversed; Fiji withdrew its signature from the 51 country statement at the UN calling for an end to China’s persecution of its Uighur minority; and revised but did not terminate the policing agreement. Fiji also accepted a large Chinese grant for the construction of roads in Vanua Levu and, to great alarm among its Western partners, announced on the sidelines of APEC that China had agreed to help with port upgrades and with developing a shipbuilding industry. The Chinese government admitted that the quid pro quo for this infrastructure assistance to Fiji was that “China expects Fiji to continue providing firm support on issues concerning China’s core interests and major concerns.” The “core interests and major concerns” are the One China policy, China’s domestic sovereignty, and its rights in its territorial disputes with neighbouring states. Fiji’s governments are likely to continue to provide such support as long as there is no serious conflict with Fiji’s fundamental foreign policy interests. These include upholding the sanctity of the principles and rules embedded in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Moreover, Fiji benefits from Chinese development assistance, and does not view China’s regional presence as strategically threatening as do its Western partners. Rabuka’s continued engagement with China has had the effect of provoking these Western partners into seeking to outbid or delegitimise Chinese initiatives, especially in the security sector where China is suspected of attempting to extend its strategic reach. But, while his government would have anticipated and welcomed the Australian offer to replace China as its partner in upgrading Fiji’s ports and shipbuilding industry, Australia’s attempt to delegitimise the policing arrangement with China by associating it with official Chinese transnational drug promotion was not appreciated. As the Fiji government’s reaction to the latter suggests, its concerns about the effects on its sovereignty of external pressure, undue influence, and interference extend beyond China. That Western partners, and in particular Australia, have increasingly asserted their right to a say in regional and individual Pacific Island Countries foreign policy decisions has caused some dismay and discomfort. The Rabuka government may be attempting to maximise Fiji’s foreign policy independence, manoeuvrability, and leverage, or to strike a balance between its relations with its traditional partners and China. But it also may not yet have developed a settled foreign policy posture based on consultation and consensus within its foreign policy and security establishment. If there is some disagreement and a lack of direction and coordination, the recently initiated Foreign Policy White Paper drafting process should, if sufficiently inclusive, prove of great value. Sandra Tarte is Associate Professor and acting head, School of Law and Social Sciences, University of the South Pacific Pacific. Sandra specialises in the international politics of the Pacific Islands region with a particular interest in Fiji’s foreign policy. Nicola Baker lectures in the Diplomacy and International Affairs Program at the University of the South Pacific in Suva. Her research interests encompass various aspects of the region’s geopolitics.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Abstract This study investigates the academic discourse surrounding China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – a multifaceted geopolitical project championed by the central government. Through a critical examination of BRI-related literature, primarily in political science and international relations published between 2015 and 2023, the analysis highlights a burgeoning field marked by both growing depth and intensifying critique. It further contends that despite a rise in scholarship, BRI's smaller players and the Maritime Silk Road Initiative (MSRI) call for further investigation. This nuanced approach fosters a comprehensive understanding of BRI's complexities and its evolving global impact. Keywords China- Maritime Silk Road Initiative- Silk Road Economic Belt- Belt and Road Initiative 1. Introduction Following the 2013 announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by the Chinese President Xi Jinping, the ambitious undertaking has garnered significant attention from observers for its vast scope and projected economic and political implications.1 The BRI's potential impact on the global order, its member states, diverse regions, and all involved actors has raised a multitude of concerns. A huge body of literature on (BRI) aligns with China’s positive view of the initiative.2 However, a comprehensive review showed that previous research had limitations in scope and depth. Notably, repetitive investigations into established topics and examinations of prior inquiries are prevalent, which hinders the production of novel insights. Furthermore, the trend towards proliferation of topic areas, instead of deeper analysis within existing themes, impedes scholarly advancement. Additionally, many studies assign marginal roles to (BRI), disproportionately focusing on China's perspective. This results in imbalanced literature on China's initiative in terms of quality and nuanced interpretation. From the above mentioned, this study focuses on a key question that revolves around, what are the gaps and limitations in current understanding in BRI’s literatures in the study time period (2015-2023), and what are the challenges and opportunities for the initiative’s researchers and scholars? As focusing on these gaps serves as a catalyst towards more understanding of the dimensions of the initiative, and then contributes to providing a clearer vision for policy decision makers and scholars interested in the initiative. Given these deficiencies, this study aims to critically examine the existing (BRI) literature, drawing upon a diverse selection of academic research, primarily within international relations and political science, published between 2015 and 2023. More significantly, this overview would outline a framework for refining and renewing the discourse surrounding the initiative. This article aims for a deeper understanding of the participants, their plans and future developments. Research should move beyond broad overviews and engage in analyses of the Mari-time Silk Road Initiative (MSRI) and the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB), focusing on specific regions and project development trajectories. This necessitates rigorous analyses and interpretations of data to lay forward local experiences and diverse future aspirations of (BRI) participants. Secondly, a closer examination of (MSRI) and (SREB) application is imperative. This entails meticulously evaluating the financial performance and sociopolitical implications of completed projects, with particular attention to both economic benefits and potential challenges like debt burdens. Furthermore, a thorough analysis of internal and external policy ramifications for participating countries is crucial, exploring how (BRI) projects align with or challenge existing national and regional frameworks. Thirdly, while existing studies have shed light on Chinese foreign policy through (BRI), further inquiries should expand beyond this singular perspective. Independent research conducted by scholars based in (BRI) recipient countries can offer invaluable insights into local needs, priorities, and concerns. Additionally, comparative studies across diverse regions can illustrate region-specific challenges and successes, enriching our understanding of participant experiences. Finally, it is essential to move beyond China-centric narratives and actively incorporate the perspectives of participating nations within BRI research, which necessitates prioritizing analyses that critically examine the role of Chinese soft power, encompassing cultural exchanges, media engagement, and educational initiatives, and their impact on shaping perceptions and fostering cooperation within the initiative. 2. China’s Initiative at Crossroads Since China's 2013 announcement of the (BRI), its purpose has sparked diverse interpretations among researchers, with ongoing debate focusing on the balance between economic and political motivations.3 While some researchers interpret (BRI) primarily as a domestic economic strategy aimed at market expansion, securing energy sources, and creating investment opportunities for Chinese multinational corporations (MNCs),4 others view it as a manifestation of China's global ambition to achieve dominance in the Eurasian region, and global order.5 A third group of scholars further argue that the BRI is a strategic tool for China to improve its diplomatic relationships with participating countries across Asia, Africa, and Europe. They suggest that by promoting economic cooperation and infrastructure development, the (BRI) can foster regional stability and reduce potential conflict.6 A fourth group of (BRI) studies focuses on the Chinese economy's structural vulnerabilities, arguing that they pose long-term risks to both economic growth and political stability. These vulnerabilities include rampant surplus industrial capacity, which threatens job security and social cohesion; overreliance on land-based energy import routes, potentially exposing China to geopolitical disruptions; and the economic stagnation of western regions, exacerbating regional disparities and social tensions. These studies further examine the extent to which the (BRI) can exacerbate or alleviate these challenges, particularly considering China's heavy reliance on investment, exports, and state-owned enterprises as economic drivers.7 Another area of research focuses on the evolving scope of international dispute resolution mechanisms within the (BRI) framework for projects between China and African countries. This study analyzes the strength and transparency of these new entities, considering factors like legal expertise, judicial independence, and efficient dispute resolution procedures. The study aims to contribute to a better understanding of how disputes relating to China-Africa cooperation will be addressed in the future.8 Adding to the complexity of understanding the BRI's aims, some studies analyze its role as a tool for China's soft power projection,9 They highlight how the initiative's focus on cultural exchange, infrastructure development, and media engagement fosters positive international perceptions of China and enhances its global influence. Others suggest that the (BRI) serves domestic political purposes, potentially serving as a means for Xi Jinping to solidify his leadership within the Chinese Communist Party and strengthen his legitimacy on the international stage.10 This diversity of interpretations underscores the complexity of the BRI's objectives, likely driven by a multitude of motives within China's vast political and economic system. While China emphasizes the collaborative nature of the initiative, portraying it as a 'symphony,' concerns remain about how individual participant interests align with China's own ambitions. Further research is crucial to understand how the BRI's complex motivations translate into tangible outcomes for all involved parties.11 Several studies assess the BRI's impact on both benefits and challenges by examining its relationship with past Chinese development initiatives.12 They argue that the (BRI) draws upon earlier programs like the southern and western campaigns, benefiting from existing infrastructure and communication networks in Central and South Asia. Given the multitude of perspectives on the Belt and Road Initiative's objectives and potential consequences, a question arises: do existing research efforts sufficiently cater to the needs and concerns of participating countries? While studies provide valuable insights into aspects like soft power dynamics and geopolitical implications, a crucial factor often remains in the shadows - funding. Despite the BRI's reliance on vast financial resources, research rarely dives into the effectiveness of funding mechanisms, or their potential impact on participants' debt burdens and economic sustainability. To truly gauge the BRI's long-term success and ensure equitable benefits for all involved, future research must prioritize a deeper understanding of its financial dynamics and their consequences for diverse stakeholders. Despite the vast sums promised to the (BRI), a veil of ambiguity hangs over its true financial picture. While platforms like the (MSRI) and (SREB) lack explicit upper limits for project funding, details regarding specific project budgets remain shrouded in secrecy. This loose terminology surrounding "costs," "loans," and "investments" further obscures the potential debt burdens faced by participating countries. Although numerous financial entities, including banks like China Export-Import Bank and state-owned enterprises like the Silk Road Fund, have expressed willingness to participate, specific committed amounts remain elusive. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential overestimations of the BRI's overall funding capacity and hinders a clear understanding of how financial resources are actually channeled into projects. Future research must prioritize unraveling this tangled web of finances to assess the BRI's true economic feasibility and its implications for all stakeholders involved. The financial picture of the (BRI) remains obscure despite estimations ranging from $400 billion to $8 trillion. This ambiguity stems partly from the lack of publicly disclosed budgetary allocations for specific projects under platforms like (MSRI) and (SREB).13 Further compounding the opaqueness is the loose terminology used by observers, who often conflate "costs," "loans," and "investments" without adequately differentiating their financial implications. Though numerous financial entities, including banks like the China Export-Import Bank and state-owned enterprises like the Silk Road Fund, have expressed interest in BRI projects, concrete commitments regarding specific funding amounts remain elusive.14 This lack of transparency impedes a clear understanding of the initiative's true financial capacity and raises concerns about potential overestimations of total funding. Unraveling this tangled web of financial ambiguity is crucial for future research to assess the BRI's economic feasibility and its implications for participating countries.15 Despite the increasing number of countries engaged in (BRI), its participant roster remains shrouded in a cloud of ambiguity. However, with the initiative's rapid expansion, accurately delineating participants has become increasingly complex. While some prominent nations like the United States, India, and Japan remain firmly outside the initiative, others, including Vietnam,16 Ethiopia,17 Myanmar, Nepal,18 Latin America,19 Africa,20 and numerous numbers of countries nearly 140 in the BRI,21 play significant roles. Estimates suggest the total number of BRI participants now approaches 140. This lack of readily accessible and transparent participant data poses a significant challenge for research and analysis. Accurately understanding the BRI's geographic scope, assessing its economic impact on diverse participants, and predicting its long-term geopolitical implications hinge upon a clear and comprehensive understanding of who stands as part of the initiative. Despite the multitude of studies analyzing (BRI), much remains opaque regarding the distinction between its "connectivity" and "non-connectivity" projects. This is surprising given the initiative's emphasis on hard infrastructure development, encompassing projects like railways, highways, bridges, airports, and seaports.22 However, beyond these tangible linkages lies a spectrum of critical "non-connectivity" projects vital for economic development. These include initiatives addressing areas such as bolstering economic growth, fostering diverse investment opportunities, facilitating mining development, establishing special economic zones, and even deploying satellite monitoring stations. Failing to delve into both connectivity and non-connectivity domains hinders a comprehensive understanding of the BRI's economic impact and broader geopolitical implications. Only by recognizing the intertwined roles of these project types can we fully grasp the initiative's complex landscape and its potential consequences for participating countries.23 While (BRI) draws extensive attention for its transformative hard infrastructure projects like railways, highways, and bridges, its success hinges on an equally crucial yet less visible layer: soft infrastructure. Bilateral investment treaties,24 and free trade agreements form the backbone of this soft infrastructure, establishing clear legal and regulatory frameworks that underpin cross-border investments, trade liberalization, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Recognizing the vital role of this soft infrastructure, alongside the hard connectivity projects, is essential for comprehending the BRI's full scope and assessing its potential impact on participating countries.25 To overcome the limitations identified, future research on (BRI) should shift its focus from broad analyses of the initiative as a whole to delving deeper into specific platforms like (MSRI) and (SREB). These platforms often lack transparency regarding project details, including participants, features, costs, and funding mechanisms. By conducting focused studies on these platforms, researchers can contribute substantially to demystifying the BRI's financial picture and identifying its true participants. 3. Problems Arising in Edited Volumes This section identifies limitations in existing edited volumes on (BRI) and proposes potential solutions, acknowledging varying degrees of implement ability. Remarkably, current volumes often prioritize specific aspects of the BRI, such as its geographical scope, key drivers, diverse stakeholder involvement (including private and public actors), and the participation of subnational and international organizations. However, this fragmented approach overlooks the initiative's broader implications for global governance, power dynamics, international trade flows, transportation infrastructure (including high-speed networks), social movements, and government accountability. Therefore, future edited volumes on the BRI require a more holistic analytical framework that transcends individual thematic strands and comprehensively examines the initiative's multifaceted impact across these interconnected dimensions.26 Another critical concern with a subset of edited volumes on (BRI) lies in the editors' failure to ensure consistent thematic engagement across chapters. This often leads to a lack of focus on empirical analysis, with some chapters delving into specific case studies or data-driven investigations, while others remain mired in theoretical discussions or abstract conceptualizations. This inconsistency undermines the potential for cross-fertilization between chapters and hinders the volume's ability to offer a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the BRI's multifaceted realities.27 The thematic inconsistencies between chapters in many edited volumes on (BRI) hinder the development of a comprehensive understanding of the initiative. To enhance the value of their work, (BRI) editors should prioritize thematic coherence and avoid redundancy by curating chapters that offer diverse perspectives and delve deeper into specific aspects of the initiative, rather than presenting overlapping analyses. Several edited volumes on (BRI) suffer from critical lacunae. A significant number lack robust introduction or conclusion, impeding the synthesis of key findings and the formulation of future research directions.28 While individual chapters may possess abstracts, these often fail to engage with overarching thematic threads, identify areas of divergence within the volume, or propose new avenues for inquiry. This fragmentation hinders the volumes' capacity to foster a holistic understanding of the BRI. Furthermore, some edited volumes suffer from outdated data, often relying on information presented at workshops or conferences years prior.29 This presents readers with potentially stale facts and hinders informed analysis. Additionally, a lack of consensus among contributors regarding key terms like "economic growth" and "global governance" can fragment the discussion. With varying definitions, contributors essentially discuss the (BRI) through different lenses, limiting the potential for cohesive analysis and knowledge accumulation. Building upon the identified weaknesses in edited volumes on the (BRI), this study has highlighted several challenges facing BRI research. However, it also offers invaluable groundwork and potential solutions for overcoming these limitations, paving the way for more robust and comprehensive future scholarship in this critical area. 4. BRI’s Operational Problems Operational challenges within (MSRI) and (SREB) projects necessitate a deeper understanding of the dynamic interplay between several factors. This includes the relationship between on-the-ground project realities and the expectations outlined in relevant treaties, as well as the internal and external political and economic forces that can facilitate or hinder project modifications. Such knowledge is crucial for informing sound decision-making. Furthermore, a granular understanding of these critical factors within specific states and regions holds the potential to significantly enhance research on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a whole. While a plethora of studies and analyses on (BRI) exist, many suffer from limitations that impede our understanding of (MSRI) and (SREB) projects. A significant portion focuses on a narrow range of cases, repeatedly analyzing the same treaties or memorandums of understanding. This repetitive approach overlooks the diverse factors and dynamics impacting (MSRI) and (SREB) development. Additionally, an overemphasis on specific, well-documented aspects like high-speed railways in certain Asian countries, such as Sri Lanka, Laos, and Pakistan, obscures the broader picture of project complexities and variations across the BRI's vast geographical scope. To enhance the analysis of project execution within (MSRI) and (SREB), four key areas warrant further investigation. Firstly, robust, comprehensive data on project development is crucial. Analyzing actual progress before drawing conclusions about (MSRI/SREB) nature will yield more reliable and nuanced insights. Secondly, researchers must scrutinize the factors with the highest impact on project development. Identifying these critical drivers will enable a deeper understanding of project outcomes and trajectories. Thirdly, examining the dynamic interplay between initial expectations and evolving ground realities is vital. Unveiling the reasons for deviations from expected outcomes, whether positive or negative, will provide valuable knowledge for project management and adaptation. Finally, researchers should delve into the complex interplay between funding mechanisms, project requirements, and associated costs. Untangling these financial relationships is essential for assessing project feasibility and optimizing resource allocation.30 Finally, a comprehensive analysis of project execution necessitates thorough examination of the diverse actors involved in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This includes scrutinizing their domestic political landscapes, individual characteristics, and contextual operating environments. Understanding these multifaceted influences helps illuminate the motivations, capabilities, and potential limitations of various stakeholders, thereby enabling researchers to more accurately predict their behavior and its impact on project outcomes.31 5. Statement of the Problem It is crucial to examine the multifaceted factors directly or indirectly affecting (MSRI) and (SREB) project execution. This includes a nuanced understanding of the initiative's benefits and costs across various scales: universal, regional, sub-regional, national, and subnational. These benefits encompass a wide range of aspects, including economic development, trade growth, infrastructure improvement, industrial development, productivity enhancements, technology and experience transfer, energy availability and production development, job creation, poverty alleviation, transportation cost and time reduction, and regional economic integration. Investigating the distribution and realization of these benefits, alongside the associated costs, is essential for assessing the overall impact and sustainability of projects.32 While existing research delves into various economic aspects of (BRI), crucial areas warrant further attention. Concerns surrounding heightened domestic trade competition, potential de-industrialization, rising trade deficits, and FDI displacement require deeper investigation. Similarly, political issues related to potential sovereignty concerns and BRI's impact on domestic and foreign policy deserve thorough analysis. Finally, social issues like environmental degradation, pollution, and potential social disintegration demand urgent attention from researchers beyond economics.33 Beyond economists, development specialists, and trade and infrastructure experts, scholars in political science, international relations, and related fields must actively engage with these critical (BRI) dimensions. Recognizing the multi-faceted nature of the initiative's impacts necessitates a concerted effort across diverse disciplines to ensure a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the BRI's potential consequences. Comprehensive data on the costs and benefits of (BRI) projects serves as a critical tool for enhanced decision-making. Several studies investigating (BRI) rely on broad-stroke statistical analyses and projected benefits without sufficient project-specific detail.34 This approach suffers from several limitations. Firstly, while (BRI) projects unfold over extended periods, these studies often base their conclusions on data from limited timeframes and utilize short-term analytical frameworks. This can paint an incomplete picture and lead to inaccurate predictions. Secondly, these studies often make optimistic assumptions about the guaranteed success, sustainability, and completion of all BRI projects. This overlooks potential challenges and complexities, hindering a balanced and nuanced understanding of the initiative's true potential and pitfalls. A common weakness is overlooking the ground realities of project implementation. While acknowledging potential tensions and rivalries among participating countries,35 these studies often fail to delve deeper into their impacts on project outcomes. Similarly, qualitative research on BRI benefits tends to provide fragmented views. While highlighting positive aspects like training, connectivity, technology transfer, and industrialization, these studies rarely conduct comprehensive analyses or compare benefit distribution across different parties. Additionally, the focus on specific sectors, regions, or countries in a limited number of studies,36 restricts our understanding of the initiative's broader implications. Furthermore, scarce research investigates the total costs of BRI projects in specific regions or their potential negative impacts, such as exacerbating trade deficits, hindering industrialization, or closing certain sectors. While some studies acknowledge the potential boost to China's global reputation and public approval in participating countries, this aspect needs further exploration.37 Likewise, existing research highlighting problems within (BRI) partner countries deserves deeper and more nuanced investigation.38 Elevating the quality of (BRI) research necessitates prioritizing three key areas. Firstly, rigorous studies exploring the proof of identity of (MSRI) and (SREB) are crucial. Secondly, quantitative research on (BRI) projects demands a shift towards realism. Moving beyond the ambitions and aspirations enshrined in official narratives, researchers must utilize robust data and meticulous analysis to assess project costs, benefits, and potential risks. Thirdly, both quantitative and qualitative research should dedicate greater focus to the distribution of (BRI) benefits. Lastly, it is important to focus on projects that affect the environment and society, represented by hydroelectric projects that are required to implement the BRI’s projects. In addition to the energy extraction projects, mining operations and power generation. Thus, it is important for both Finally, a critical research gap lies in analyzing the environmental and social impacts of infrastructure projects associated with the (BRI). This includes, but is not limited to, hydropower dams, energy extraction ventures, mining operations, and power generation facilities. Both quantitative and qualitative researchers must devote attention to assessing the environmental consequences of these projects, such as potential biodiversity loss, pollution, and resource depletion, evaluating their social impacts, including community displacement, cultural disruption, and potential violations of labor rights, and investigating the effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented to address these concerns. 6. Political Influence This section delves into the political ramifications of (BRI) projects for participating countries. It specifically examines the extent to which both internal and external Chinese policies influence the foreign policy characteristics of BRI partners. This includes analyzing the impact on: a) domestic foreign policy features, such as priorities, alliances, and voting alignments; and b) international positions, particularly voting behavior on China-related issues in international forums like the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). While several studies have explored Beijing's foreign policy influence within the BRI framework, focusing on specific countries like Cambodia, Ethiopia, Greece, and Sri Lanka,39 a comprehensive understanding necessitates systematic comparative analysis across diverse (BRI) partners, in-depth investigation of both internal and external policy dynamics, and consideration of alternative explanations for shifts in foreign policy beyond solely attributing them to Chinese influence. Such a nuanced approach will ensure a deeper and more accurate understanding of the complex interplay between (BRI) projects, national interests, and the evolving foreign policy landscapes of participating countries. This section further explores the potential spillover effects of Beijing's domestic policies onto participating (BRI) countries. While some studies suggest that the attractiveness of (BRI) projects incentivizes compliance with Chinese regulations, this hypothesis requires closer scrutiny. More research is needed to systematically analyze the specific content and implementation of relevant Chinese policies and their potential impact on partner countries, investigate the mechanisms through which such influence might occur, beyond mere project incentives, and consider alternative explanations for policy changes in (BRI) partner states, such as domestic drivers, regional pressures, or global influences. By moving beyond simplistic assumptions and conducting rigorous empirical research, we can gain a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between internal Chinese policies, (BRI) projects, and the evolving legal and regulatory landscapes of participating countries. The interplay between economic incentives and the political behavior of countries holds substantial research potential. Several studies have highlighted a correlation between economic and commercial relationships and the behavior of actors within those relationships. This link often involves a nuanced interplay of both positive and negative incentives, suggesting that economic factors can influence political decisions and actions in complex ways. Further research in this area should delve deeper into the specific mechanisms through which economic incentives translate into political behavior, the conditions under which these incentives have the strongest impact, and the potential unintended consequences of using economic levers to influence political outcomes.40 While political and economic factors are critical considerations for policymakers, it is crucial to avoid oversimplification. Assuming a direct and uniform impact of economic and political costs and benefits arising from bilateral relations between (BRI) partners and China on project-level outcomes would be inaccurate. As previously discussed, believing that all (BRI) projects will be flawlessly executed, yield solely positive outcomes, and universally benefit all participants is unrealistic. A nuanced understanding requires distinguishing between bilateral and project-level dynamics based on an interplay of economic and political factors which may differ significantly in individual (BRI) projects compared to broader bilateral contexts. Then, acknowledging project heterogeneity as (BRI) projects encompass diverse goals, scales, and contexts, necessitating an analysis that recognizes their potential for varying degrees of success and varying impacts on different stakeholders. Finally, accounting for unforeseen challenges as project implementation can be affected by unforeseen complexities, political shifts, and external factors beyond purely economic and political considerations. Therefore, policymakers should adopt a comprehensive perspective that goes beyond simple cost-benefit calculations and considers the interplay of diverse factors across different levels of analysis.41 Numerous studies highlight the fallacy of assuming uniformity in (BRI) projects' outcomes and universally positive net benefits. This critique stems from the understanding that economic relationships involve a complex interplay of positive and negative incentives, with clear linkages between economic stimuli and political behavior. Therefore, emphasizing the influence of political factors alongside economic ones becomes crucial. While pro-China sentiments and economic incentives often act as prominent motivators for countries to join (BRI), deeper analysis reveals that political factors frequently play a more primary role. Internal political motives can be particularly influential. Next, foreign policy objectives as joining the BRI can help countries secure allies, gain international leverage, or advance specific diplomatic goals. Finally, domestic policy priorities as (BRI) projects can be leveraged to address internal challenges like infrastructure deficiencies, economic underdevelopment, or resource scarcity. It is crucial to recognize that these political motives can interact with, and even supersede, economic interests in driving a country's decision to join the (BRI). Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of (BRI) participation necessitates going beyond simplistic cost-benefit calculations and carefully considering the complex interplay of internal and external political factors.42 Moving beyond participation alone, research needs to delve deeper into the implementation and impacts of (BRI) projects within partner countries. This entails addressing crucial questions such as project completion and success, political and economic costs and benefits and unforeseen consequences. Understanding BRI’s success necessitates analyzing the role of third-party actors. While existing research often focuses on bilateral dynamics between China and (BRI) partner countries, neglecting third parties introduces blind spots. A critical research gap exists in understanding (BRI) ramifications for China's People's Liberation Army (PLA). While existing studies often delve into specific aspects like hardware acquisition or naval base plans, a more comprehensive understanding necessitates examining the initiative's broader impact on the PLA's military posture and engagement. This entails investigating, firstly, the potential alterations to the PLA's strategic capabilities, its strategic resources, logistical networks, or potential overseas deployment points. Secondly, research should illuminate the initiative's effects on China's strategic priorities. Thirdly, it is crucial to analyze the BRI's influence on inter-ministerial dynamics within China.43 Research on (BRI) requires careful consideration of China's internal institutional landscape. While existing studies often focus on external factors or aggregate dynamics, a critical gap lies in understanding the role of Chinese institutions in shaping and implementing the initiative. This necessitates investigation into both formal and informal structures.44 7. Understanding BRI from Different Lenses While existing research on (BRI) encompasses wide-ranging analyses, shifting the focus towards implementation, impact, and other enriching areas holds significant potential for advancing understanding of the initiative's outcomes. Examining the practical realities of project execution, assessing its tangible and intangible effects, and exploring complementary avenues can significantly improve the BRI's overall contribution. Future research on (BRI) should prioritize several understudied yet crucial areas. These include the role of non-state actors, the interplay with Chinese foreign policy, the efficacy of soft power, the impact on global governance and regional and infrastructural variations. A critical gap exists in (BRI) research, particularly understanding the diverse actors shaping its dynamics. Existing studies often focus solely on state-level interactions, neglecting the significant roles played by internal actors like Chinese ministries, think tanks, and subnational entities, as well as external actors like Chinese multinational companies and non-BRI regions. Such a comprehensive lens is crucial for appreciating the multifaceted dimensions of the initiative and the factors influencing its trajectory.45 While numerous studies dissect Chinese foreign policy, with detailed analyses of its key players, driving forces like ideology, culture, nationalism, internal factions, the military, and public opinion, a crucial research gap exists around (BRI). This lacuna lies in overlooking the internal and external actors who significantly shape the initiative's dynamics. Understanding the roles of Chinese internal actors, and non-BRI regions is essential for grasping the BRI's multifaceted dimensions and navigating its trajectory.46 The BRI's potential impact on Chinese soft power merits nuanced inquiry beyond simplistic assumptions. While the initiative positions China as a prominent economic sponsor, superpower, or development actor, its influence on international perceptions is likely multifaceted and context-dependent. Analyzing the soft power implications should move beyond mere project scale and "get-things-done" narratives. Crucial research avenues include deconstructing and activating soft power. By adopting this nuanced approach, research can move beyond simplistic claims about enhanced Chinese prestige and instead provide a comprehensive understanding of the BRI's complex soft power dynamics. This can inform more effective strategies for both China and partner countries in navigating the potential opportunities and challenges associated with the initiative's global engagement.47 A significant deficit within (BRI) research lies in its limited engagement with the issue of global governance. While existing studies often explore the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), their focus frequently remains narrowly confined to its creation, primary function as a (BRI) funding institution, and potential to challenge the established global economic order. This restricted lens obscures the broader ramifications of the BRI for global governance structures, norms, and practices.48 However, studies lack a deeper understanding of the BRI's interaction with and potential impact on global governance structures, norms, and practices. This includes international law and standards in various fields relevant to the initiative, such as trade, finance, environment, and development. A critical gap exists in (BRI) research: an overreliance on China-centric perspectives. While understandable given China's ownership and primary funding role, this viewpoint often leads to superficial analyses that neglect deeper examination of the initiative's multifaceted objectives. This results in a profusion of research that, despite focusing on the BRI, fails to adequately unpack its core aims and motivations.49 Beyond a solely China-centric lens, research on the (BRI) must delve deeper into regional variations, local-level impacts, and the complex interplay of international political and economic forces driving participation. Prioritizing the viewpoints of (BRI) partner countries is crucial for a more comprehensive understanding than can be achieved solely through analysis of Chinese perspectives. 8. Conclusion This study critically engages with the (BRI) research landscape with two guiding objectives. First, it systematically appraises existing scholarship, identifying gaps and limitations in current understanding. Second, it seeks to shape future (BRI) research by proposing avenues for more impactful and fruitful investigations. Through a comprehensive review of (BRI) related topics and analyses, the study reveals key shortcomings in current research including overreliance on China-centric perspectives, neglecting diverse viewpoints and local-level impacts. Surface analyses of (BRI) objectives and motivations, often overlooking complex political and economic driving forces. Inadequate exploration of implementation challenges and project outcomes across various regions and sectors. Limited engagement with translation issues, hindering accurate understanding of (BRI) dynamics in non-Western contexts. To address these limitations, the study proposes specific interventions for future research including prioritizing diverse perspectives of (BRI) partner countries, local communities, and critical scholars, deepening the analysis of objectives and motivations, conducting in-depth case studies and comparative analyses through investigating implementation intricacies and project impacts across different contexts and leveraging translation as a research tool via employing multilingual approaches to gain deeper insights and overcome cultural biases. By actively addressing these critical gaps and adopting more nuanced research strategies, this study aims to significantly enhance the field of (BRI) scholarship and guide future investigations towards a more comprehensive and impactful understanding of this complex global initiative. This study's critical engagement with (BRI) scholarship holds profound implications for policymakers. By unveiling significant limitations in existing research, it demonstrates that overreliance on specific perspectives, superficial analyses of objectives, and inadequate exploration of implementation and impacts can mislead judgments. Decision-makers and policy analysts must therefore exercise caution when navigating the BRI research landscape. To avoid misinterpreting progress, political and economic ramifications, domestic/foreign influences, and broader implications, they should prioritize access to high-quality studies that address the identified shortcomings, critically evaluate all research: consider methodological rigor, bias, and the limitations outlined in this study and seek diverse perspectives: consider research beyond dominant viewpoints to gain a more comprehensive understanding. These steps are crucial for ensuring sound policy decisions informed by reliable and nuanced BRI scholarship. Similar caution applies to entrepreneurs engaging with BRI projects. Basing business, investment, and operational choices solely on analyses prone to the identified drawbacks can be reckless. They should either utilize analyses conducted with rigorous methodologies and awareness of existing research limitations or fully acknowledge the limitations of available research and factor them into their decision-making. By adopting these measures, entrepreneurs can mitigate potential risks and navigate BRI opportunities with greater prudence. For researchers and scholars, this study presents both challenges and opportunities. While the identified gaps indicate the need for considerable future research efforts, they also unlock exciting avenues for investigation. Scholars can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the BRI by conducting in-depth case studies that explore implementation intricacies and project impacts across diverse contexts, deepening the analysis of objectives and motivations, unpacking the interplay of domestic, regional, and global factors, prioritizing diverse perspectives, incorporating voices of partner countries, local communities, and critical scholars and addressing the limitations unveiled in this study is imperative for all stakeholders. Through rigorous and comprehensive research, we can navigate the complexities of the BRI with greater informedness and foresight, ultimately leading to more effective policymaking, informed entrepreneurial decisions, and a deeper scholarly understanding of this global initiative. Despite its continued, albeit bumpy, trajectory, the (BRI) faces growing research challenges that mirror its own complexities. A burgeoning volume of publications, propelled by an expanding pool of publishers, editors, and scholars, often overlooks methodological rigor and critical depth. Consequently, the full potential of BRI research remains unrealized. To unlock its true value, a shift towards more focused and nuanced investigations is imperative. This necessitates bolstering the infrastructure underpinning social science analysis through deeper engagement with diverse perspectives to incorporate voices from partner countries, local communities, and critical scholars beyond dominant viewpoints. Next, strengthened data collection and analysis which could employ rigorous methodologies and ensuring comprehensive project-level data across various regions. Additionally, enhanced communication and collaboration to foster interdisciplinary dialogue and knowledge sharing among analysts studying different BRI facets. Lastly, leveraging existing pathways by fully utilizing insights from diverse disciplines covering the BRI's multifaceted scope. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Dr, Mona Alaa, Professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Languages and Translation, October 6 University for her helpful feedback on this manuscript. Disclosure Statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.   References 1 Robert Berke, “China’s New Silk Road Could Change Global Economics Forever”. Business Insider, May 22, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-new-silk-road-could-change-globaleconomics-forever-2015-5. Economist, “China’s Belt-And-Road Plans Are to Be Welcomed—and Worried About”, July 26, 2018. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/07/26/chinas-belt-and-road-plans-are-to-be-welcomed-and-worried-about. Zhi-Hua Hu, Chan-Juan Liu & Paul Tae-Woo Lee, “China’s Global Investment and Maritime Flows in the Context of the Belt and Road Initiative”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 129. Jane Perlez, and Yufan Huang, “Behind China’s $1 Trillion Plan to Shake Up the Economic Order”, The New York Times, May 13, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/business/china-railway-one-beltone-road-1-t. 2 Wing Lo, T, Dina Siegel, and Sharon I. Kwok, eds, “Organized Crime and Corruption Across Borders: Exploring the Belt and Road Initiative”, 2020. Abingdon: Routledge. Maximilian Mayer, ed, “Rethinking the Silk Road: China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Emerging Eurasian Relations”, 2018, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Carmen Amado, Mendes, eds, “China’s New Silk Road: An Emerging World Order”. 2019. Abingdon Routledge. Ray Silvius, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative as Nascent World Order Structure and Concept? Between Sino-Centering and Sino-Deflecting”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 128. Jawad Syed, Yung-Hsiang Ying, eds, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative in a Global Context”, Vol. I: A Business and Management Perspective, 2019, Cham: Springer. Li Xing, ed, “Mapping China’s ‘One Belt One Road’ Initiative”, 2019, Cham: Palgrave MacMillan. Wenxian Zhang, Ilan Alon, and Christoph Lattemann, eds, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Changing the Rules of Globalization”, 2018, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 3 Michael Clarke, “the belt and road initiative: Exploring Beijing’s motivations and challenges for its new silk road”. Strategic Analysis, 2018, 42 (2): 84–102. Young Deng, “How China Builds the Credibility of the Belt and Road Initiative”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 131. Michael Dunford, Weidong Liu, “Chinese perspectives on the belt and road initiative”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2019, 12 (1): 145–167. Lauren A. Johnston, “the belt and road initiative: What is in it for China?”, Asia & The Pacific Policy Studies, 2019. 6 (1): 40–58. Peter J Rimmer, “China’s belt and road initiative: Underlying economic and international relations dimensions”, Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 2018, 32 (2): 3–26. Judit Sagi, Istvan Engelberth, “The belt and road initiative-a way forward to China’s expansion”, Contemporary Chinese Political Economy and Strategic Relations, 2018, 4 (1): 9–37. Ray Silvius, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative as Nascent World Order Structure and Concept? Between Sino-Centering and Sino-Deflecting”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 128. 4 Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “Probing China’s 21st century maritime silk road initiative (MSRI): An examination of MSRI narratives”, Geopolitics, 2017, 22 (2): 246–268. Peter Cai, “Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative”, Lowy Institute for International Policy, March 22, 2017, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/understanding-belt-and-road-initiative. Michael Clarke, “The belt and road initiative: China’s new grand strategy?”, Asia Policy, 2017, 24: 71–79. Young Deng, “How China Builds the Credibility of the Belt and Road Initiative”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 131. Michael Du. M, “China’s ‘one belt, one road’ initiative: Context, focus, institutions, and implication”, The Chinese Journal of Global Governance, 2016, 2: 30–43. Veysel Tekdal, “China’s belt and road initiative: At the crossroads of challenges and ambitions”, The Pacific Review, 2018, 31 (3): 373–390. Yong Wang, “Offensive for defensive: The belt and road initiative and China’s new grand strategy”, The Pacific Review, 2016, 29 (3): 455–463. Yu Hong, “Motivation behind China’s ‘one belt, one road,’ initiatives and establishment of the Asian infrastructure investment bank”. Journal of Contemporary China, 2017, 26 (105): 353–368 5 Cai Peter, “Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative”. Lowy Institute for International Policy, March 22, 2017. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/understanding-belt-and-road-initiative. Veysel Tekdal, “China’s belt and road initiative: At the crossroads of challenges and ambitions”. The Pacific Review, 2018, 31 (3): 373–390. Li Xing, “China’s Pursuit of the ‘One Belt One Road’ Initiative: A New World Order with Chinese Characteristics?” In Li Xing, ed, Mapping China’s ‘One Belt One Road’ Initiative, 2019, Cham: Palgrave MacMillan, 1–27. Yu Hong, “Motivation behind China’s ‘one belt, one road,’ initiatives and establishment of the Asian infrastructure investment bank”. Journal of Contemporary China, 2017, 26 (105): 353–368. Jingjing An, Yanzhen Wang, “The impact of the Belt and Road Initiative on Chinese international political influence; An empirical study using a difference -in-difference approach”, Journal of Chinese political Science, June 2023. Eiichi Shindo, “Moving toward global governance through the belt and road initiative; how the global axis is shifting from west to east”, China international strategy review, volume 5, 2023. 6 Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “Probing China’s 21st century maritime silk road initiative (MSRI): An examination of MSRI narratives”, Geopolitics, 2017, 22 (2): 246–268. Cai Peter, “Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative”. Lowy Institute for International Policy, March 22, 2017. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/understanding-belt-and-road-initiative. Chan, Debby Sze Wan, Ngai Pun, eds, “forthcoming, Renegotiating belt and road cooperation: Social resistance in a Sino-Myanmar copper mine”, Third World Quarterly, 2021. Le Iiu, “the construction of inclusiveness; Chinese political philosophy in China’s diplomatic innovations for Belt and Road cooperation”, China international strategy review, Volume 5, 2023. 7 Young Deng, “How China Builds the Credibility of the Belt and Road Initiative”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 131. Hongyi Lai , “The Rationale and Effects of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Reducing Vulnerabilities in Domestic Political Economy”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 128. 8 Magdalena Łągiewska, “International Dispute Resolution of BRI-Related Cases: Changes and Challenges”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2022. 9 Chan, Debby Sze Wan, Ngai Pun, eds, “forthcoming, Renegotiating belt and road cooperation: Social resistance in a Sino-Myanmar copper mine”, Third World Quarterly, 2021. Fanny M.Cheung, Ying-yi Hong, eds, “Regional Connection under the Belt and Road Initiative: The Prospects for Economic and Financial Cooperation”, 2018, London: Routledge. Shisheng Yang, “The cultural orientation of ‘belt and road’ strategy and the construction of its cultural pattern”, Canadian Social Science, 2018, 14 (11): 11–18. Yahia Zoubir H. & Emilie Tran, “China’s Health Silk Road in the Middle East and North Africa amidst COVID-19 and a Contested World Order”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2022, Volume 31, Issue 135. 10 Young Deng, “How China Builds the Credibility of the Belt and Road Initiative”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 131. Baogang He, “The domestic politics of the belt and road initiative and its implications”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2019, 28 (116): 180–195. Min Ye, “Fragmentation and mobilization: Domestic politics of the belt and road in China”. Journal of Contemporary China, 2019, 28 (119): 696–711. Min Ye, “The Belt and Road and Beyond: State-Mobilized Globalization in China: 1998–2018”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Guiguo Wang, “The belt and road initiative in quest for a dispute resolution mechanism”. Asia Pacific Law Review, 2017, 25 (1): 1–16. 11 China Daily, “China’s Belt and Road Initiatives Not Solo, but Symphony”, 2015, March 8. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2015-03/08/content_19750844.htm 12 Young Deng, “How China Builds the Credibility of the Belt and Road Initiative”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 131. Jonathan Holslag, “How China’s new silk road threatens European trade”, The International Spectator, 2017, 52 (1): 46–60. Christopher Johnson, K, “President Xi Jinping’s ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative: A Practical Assessment of the Chinese Communist Party’s Roadmap for China’s Global Resurgence”. CSIS, 2016, March. https://www.csis.org/analysis/president-xi-jinping%E2%80%99s-belt-and-road-initiative. Hasan H Karrar, “From Central Asia to the World: China’s Regional Diplomacy as a Precursor for Global Connectivity”, In Jawad Syed and Yung-Hsiang Ying, eds, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative in a Global Context”, Vol. I: A Business and Management perspective, Cham: Palgrave MacMillan, 2019, 61–86. Mohan Malik, J, “Myanmar’s role in China’s maritime silk road initiative”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2018, 27 (111): 362–378. Veysel Tekdal, “China’s belt and road initiative: At the crossroads of challenges and ambitions”, The Pacific Review, 2018, 31 (3): 373–390. 13 Eisenman, Joshua and Devin T. Stewart, “China’s New Silk Road is Getting Muddy”. Foreign Policy, 2017, January 9. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/09/chinas-new-silk-road-is-getting-muddy. Daniel Rush Doshi, Kliman, Kristine Lee, and Zack Cooper, “Grading China’s Belt and Road”. CNAS, 2019, April. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/beltandroad. Terry Mobley, “The belt and road initiative: Insights from China’s backyard”. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 2019, 13 (3): 52–72. 14 Jean-Marc F Blanchard, and Colin Flint, “The Geopolitics of China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative”, Geopolitics, 2017, 22 (2): 223–245. Chaisse, Julien, Mitsuo Matsushita, eds, “China’s ‘belt and road’ initiative: Mapping the world trade normative and strategic implications”, Journal of World Trade, 2018, 52 (1): 163–186. Jonathan Holslag, “How China’s new silk road threatens European trade”, The International Spectator, 2017, 52 (1): 46–60. Stokes, Jacob, “China’s road rules”, Foreign Affairs, 2015, April 19. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2015-04-19/chinas-road-rules. Yu Hong, “Motivation behind China’s ‘one belt, one road,’ initiatives and establishment of the Asian infrastructure investment bank”. Journal of Contemporary China, 2017, 26 (105): 353–368. 15 Joy-Perez, Cecilia and Derek Scissors, “The Chinese State Funds Belt and Road, but Does not Have Trillions to Spare”. American Enterprise Institute, 2018, March. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-chinese-state-funds-belt-and-road-but-does-not-have-trillions-to-spare. 16 Le Hong Hiep,” The Belt and Road Initiative in Vietnam: Challenges and Prospects”. ISEAS Perspective, 2018, 18. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/pdf/ISEAS_Perspective_2018_18@50.pdf. 17 Mariom Esteban & Iliana Olivié, “China and Western Aid Norms in the Belt and Road: Normative Clash or Convergence? A Case Study on Ethiopia, Journal of Contemporary China, 2021, Volume 31, 2022 - Issue 134. 18 Monalisa Adhikari, “The BRI as an Iterative Project: Influencing the Politics of Conflict-Affected States and Being Shaped by the Risks of Fragile Settings”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2023. 19 Gustavo Oliveira de L. T. & Margaret Myers, “The Tenuous Co-Production of China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Brazil and Latin America”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 129. Juan Pablo Sims, Yun-Tso Lee, Brice Tseen Fu Lee, “New Chinese economic policy to Latin America? AQCA approach to the belt and road initiative, Chinese political science review, 2023. 20 Emmanuel Edeh, Zhi Bin Han, “The belt and road; understanding the China-Africa proposed co-construction of the belt and road initiative”, East Asia, Volume 40, 2023. 21 Baogang He, “The domestic politics of the belt and road initiative and its implications”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2019, 28 (116): 180–195. Tritto ,Angela & Alvin Camba, “The Belt and Road Initiative in Southeast Asia: A Mixed Methods Examination”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2022, Volume 32, Issue 141. 22 Gerald Chan, “Understanding China’s New Diplomacy: Silk Roads and Bullet Trains”, 2018, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “China’s Twenty-First Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative and South Asia: Political and Economic Contours, Challenges, and Conundrums”. In China’s Maritime Silk Road and South Asia, ed. Jean-Marc F. Blanchard. Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 2018, 1–31. Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “China’s MSRI in Southeast Asia: Dynamism amidst the Delays, Doubts, and Dilemmas”.” In “China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Southeast Asia”, ed. Jean, Marc F. Blanchard. 2019, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 1–34. Jean-Marc F Blanchard, and Colin Flint, “The Geopolitics of China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative”. Geopolitics, 2017, 22 (2): 223–245. David M. Lampton, Selina Ho, and Cheng-Chwee Kuik, “Rivers of Iron: Railroads and Chinese Power in Southeast Asia”, 2020, Berkeley: University of California Press. Shaleen Khanal, Hongzhou Zhang, “Ten years of China’s belt and road initiative; A bibliometric Review”, Journal of Chinese political science, November 2023. 23 Alexander Demissie, “Special Economic Zones: Integrating African Countries in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.” In Maximilian Mayer, ed, “Rethinking the Silk Road: China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Emerging Eurasian Relations”, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, 69–84. Daniel Rush Doshi, Kliman, Kristine Lee, and Zack Cooper, “Grading China’s Belt and Road”. CNAS, 2019, April. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/beltandroad. Liu, Hong, and Guanie Lim, “The political economy of a rising China in Southeast Asia: Malaysia’s response to the belt and road initiative”. Journal of Contemporary China, 2019, 28 (116): 216–231. 24 Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “China’s Twenty-First Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative and South Asia: Political and Economic Contours, Challenges, and Conundrums”. In China’s Maritime Silk Road and South Asia”, ed. Jean-Marc F. Blanchard. Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 2018, 1–31. Chaisse, Julien, Mitsuo Matsushita, eds, “China’s ‘belt and road’ initiative: Mapping the world trade normative and strategic implications”, Journal of World Trade, 2018, 52 (1): 163–186. Mariom Esteban & Iliana Olivié, “China and Western Aid Norms in the Belt and Road: Normative Clash or Convergence? A Case Study on Ethiopia”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2021, Volume 31, 2022 - Issue 134. Gustavo Oliveira de L. T. & Margaret Myers, “The Tenuous Co-Production of China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Brazil and Latin America”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 129. Shan, Wenhua, Kimmo Nuotio, and Kangle Zhang, eds, “Normative Readings of the Belt and Road: Road to New Paradigms”. 2018, Cham: Springer. Sooksripaisarnkit, Poomintr, and Sai Ramani Garimella, eds, “China’s One Belt One Road Initiative and Private International Law”. 2018 Abingdon: Routledge. Guiguo Wang, “The belt and road initiative in quest for a dispute resolution mechanism”. Asia Pacific Law Review, 2017, 25 (1): 1–16. 25 Martinico, Giuseppe, and Xueyan Wu, eds, “A Legal Analysis of the Belt and Road Initiative: Towards a New Silk Road?”, 2020, Cham: Palgrave MacMillan. 26 Chan, Debby Sze Wan, Ngai Pun, eds, “forthcoming, Renegotiating belt and road cooperation: Social resistance in a Sino-Myanmar copper mine”, Third World Quarterly, 2021. Shisheng Yang, “The cultural orientation of ‘belt and road’ strategy and the construction of its cultural pattern”, Canadian Social Science, 2018, 14 (11): 11–18. Sokphea Young, “China’s belt and road initiative: Patron-client and capture in Cambodia”, The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, 2020, 8 (2): 414–434. Suisheng ,Zhao, “China’s belt-road initiative as the signature of president xi Jinping diplomacy: Easier said than done”. Journal of Contemporary China, 2020, 29 (123): 319–335. Yun Zhao, ed, “International Governance and the Rule of Law in China under the Belt and Road Initiative”. 2018, New York: Cambridge University Press. Zhou Weifeng, and Mario Esteban, “Beyond balancing: China’s approach towards the belt and road initiative”. Journal of Contemporary China, 2018, 27 (112): 487–501. 27 Fanny M.Cheung, Ying-yi Hong, eds, “Regional Connection under the Belt and Road Initiative: The Prospects for Economic and Financial Cooperation”, 2018, London: Routledge. Lim, Tai Wei, Henry Hing Lee Chan, Katherine Hui-Yi Tseng, and Wen Xin Lim, “China’s One Belt One Road Initiative”, 2016, London: Imperial College Press. Wei,Liu, ed, “China’s Belt and Road Initiatives: Economic Geography Reformation”, 2018, Singapore: Springer. Sakhuja, Vijay, and Jane Chan, eds, “China’s Maritime Silk Road and Asia”, 2016, New Delhi: VIJ Books. Visvizi, Anna, Miltiadis D. Lytras, Wadee Alhalabi, and Xi Zhang, eds, “the new silk road leads through the Arab peninsula: Mastering global business and innovation”. 2019, Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Jie Zhang, ed, “China’s Belt and Road Initiatives and its Neighboring Diplomacy”, trans. XU Mengqi. 2017, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. 28 Yu Cheng, Lilei Song, Lihe Huang, eds, “The Belt & Road Initiative in the Global Arena”, 2018, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. Deepak, B.R., ed, “China’s global rebalancing and the new silk road”, 2018, Singapore: Springer. 29 Deepak, B.R., ed, “China’s global rebalancing and the new silk road”, 2018, Singapore: Springer. 30 Mordechai Chaziza, “Egypt in China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative: Relations Cannot Surmount Realities”, In Jean-Marc F., ed, “China’s Maritime Silk Road, Africa, and the Middle East”, Blanchard, 2021, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. Shaofeng Chen, “Regional responses to China’s maritime silk road initiative in Southeast Asia”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2018, 27 (111): 344–361. Mohan Malik, J, “Myanmar’s role in China’s maritime silk road initiative”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2018, 27 (111): 362–378. Negara, Siwage Dharma and Leo Suryadinata, “China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Indonesia”, In Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Southeast Asia: Dilemmas, Doubts, and Determination”, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 2019, 65–94. 31 Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “Malaysia and China’s MSRI: The Road to China was Taken before the (Maritime Silk) Road was Built”. In “China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Southeast Asia”, ed. Jean-Marc F. Blanchard. 2019, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 95–132. Jean-Marc F Blanchard. and Edson Ziso, “The Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Ethiopia: Transforming Policies, Institutions, and Politics in Expected and Unexpected Ways”, In, Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s Maritime Silk Road, Africa, and the Middle East”, 2021, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. Jonathan Fulton, ed, “Regions in the Belt and Road Initiative, 2020”, Abingdon: Routledge. Pheakdey Heng, and Vannarith Chheang, “The Political Economy of China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative in Cambodia”, In, Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Southeast Asia”, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 2019, 163-190. Lu, Yue, Yunlong Lu, Zeng Ka, and Li Yadong, “China’s outward foreign direct investment and the margins of trade: Empirical evidence from ‘one belt, one road’ countries”. China: An International Journal, 2018, 16 (1): 129–151. 32 China Daily, “BRI-Related Economic Trade Cooperation Zones Create 300,000 Local Jobs”, 2019, April 6. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201904/06/WS5ca89f3ca3104842260b4a84.html. Mariom Esteban & Iliana Olivié, “China and Western Aid Norms in the Belt and Road: Normative Clash or Convergence? A Case Study on Ethiopia”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2021, Volume 31, 2022 - Issue 134. Sophie He, “Infrastructure Investment in B&R Economies ‘Offers Rich Rewards”. China Daily, 2018, June 8. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201806/08/WS5b19da8ba31001b82571ed54.html. Ge Huang, “China Leads BRI with Full tech Support”. Global Times, 2019, April 19. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1146644.shtml. Ahmad Rashid Malik, “The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): A Game Changer for Pakistan’s Economy”, In B.R. Deepak, ed, “China’s Global Rebalancing and the New Silk Road”, 2018, Singapore: Springer, 69–83. Xiaojin Ren, and Chen Meiling, “Belt, Road Markets Drive Strong Growth in Exports, Imports,” China Daily, 2019, May 10. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201905/10/WS5cd4d315a3104842260bae58.html. Tritto ,Angela & Alvin Camba, “The Belt and Road Initiative in Southeast Asia: A Mixed Methods Examination”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2022, Volume 32, Issue 141. 33 Alice Hughes, C, “Understanding and minimizing environmental impacts of the belt and road initiative”. Conservation Biology, 2019, 33 (4): 883–894. Daniel Rush Doshi, Kliman, Kristine Lee, and Zack Cooper, “Grading China’s Belt and Road”, CNAS, 2019, April. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/beltandroad. Jessica Williams, M, “Emerging costs of China’s belt and road strategy for Transboundary water in south and Southeast Asia”. International Journal of Energy and Water Resources, 2019, 3: 81–92. 34 Julan Du, and Yifei Zhang, “Does one belt one road initiative promote Chinese overseas direct investment?”, China Economic Review, 2018, 47: 189–205. Zhai Fan, “China’s belt and road initiative: A preliminary quantitative assessment”. Journal of Asian Economics, 2018, 55: 84–92. Lu, Yue, Yunlong Lu, Zeng Ka, and Li Yadong, “China’s outward foreign direct investment and the margins of trade: Empirical evidence from ‘one belt, one road’ countries”. China: An International Journal, 2018, 16 (1): 129–151. Pradumna Rana B. and Xianbai Ji, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Impacts on Asia and Policy Agenda”, 2020, Singapore: Springer. 35 Julan Du, and Yifei Zhang, “Does one belt one road initiative promote Chinese overseas direct investment?”, China Economic Review, 2018, 47: 189–205. 36 Enrico, Fardella, and Giorgio Prodi, “The belt and road initiative impact on Europe: An Italian perspective”. China & World Economy, 2017, 25 (5): 125–138. Maha S Kamel, “China’s belt and road initiative: Implications for the Middle East”. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2018, 31 (1): 76–95. Mao, Haiou, Guanchun Liu, Chengsi Zhang, and Rao Muhammad Atif, “Does belt and road initiative hurt node countries? A study from export perspective”. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 2019, 55 (7): 1472–1485. Cliff Mboya, “The Maritime Silk Road Initiative: Connecting Africa”. In Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s Maritime Silk Road, Africa, and the Middle East”, 2021, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. 37 Jianhong Qi, Kam Ki Tang, Da Yin & Yong Zhao, “Remaking China’s Global Image with the Belt and Road Initiative: Is the Jury Out?”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2023, Volume 32, Issue 141. 38 Jean-Marc F Blanchard. and Edson Ziso, “The Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Ethiopia: Transforming Policies, Institutions, and Politics in Expected and Unexpected Ways”, In, Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s Maritime Silk Road, Africa, and the Middle East”, 2021, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. China File, “Is Chinese Investment Good for Workers”, 2017, December 13. https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/Chinese-investment-good-workers. Sophie He, “Infrastructure Investment in B&R Economies ‘Offers Rich Rewards”.’ China Daily, 2018, June 8. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201806/08/WS5b19da8ba31001b82571ed54.html. David Karl, J, Sri Lanka, “the Maritime Silk Road, and Sino-Indian Relations”. In Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative and South Asia”, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 2018, 137– 172. Jessica Williams, M, “Emerging costs of China’s belt and road strategy for Transboundary water in south and Southeast Asia”. International Journal of Energy and Water Resources, 2019, 3: 81–92. 39 Monalisa Adhikari, “The BRI as an Iterative Project: Influencing the Politics of Conflict-Affected States and Being Shaped by the Risks of Fragile Settings”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2023. Jean-Marc F Blanchard, and Edson Ziso, “The Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Ethiopia: Transforming Policies, Institutions, and Politics in Expected and Unexpected Ways”, In, Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s Maritime Silk Road, Africa, and the Middle East”, 2021, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. Mariom Esteban & Iliana Olivié, “China and Western Aid Norms in the Belt and Road: Normative Clash or Convergence? A Case Study on Ethiopia”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2021, Volume 31, 2022 - Issue 134. Pheakdey Heng, and Vannarith Chheang, “The Political Economy of China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative in Cambodia”, In, Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Southeast Asia”, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 2019, 163-190. Jonathan Hillman, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Five Years Later”, 2018, January 25, Statement before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-five-years-later-0. David Karl, J, Sri Lanka, “the Maritime Silk Road, and Sino-Indian Relations”, In Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative and South Asia”, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 2018, 137– 172. Gustavo Oliveira de L. T. & Margaret Myers, “The Tenuous Co-Production of China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Brazil and Latin America”, Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 30, 2021 - Issue 129. Tritto ,Angela & Alvin Camba, , “The Belt and Road Initiative in Southeast Asia: A Mixed Methods Examination”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2022, Volume 32, Issue 141. van der Putten, Frans-Paul, “European seaports and Chinese strategic influence”, Clingendael Report, December 2019. https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/Report_European_ports_and_Chinese_influence_December_2019.pdf 40 Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “Brazil’s Samba with China: Economics brought them closer, but failed to ensure their tango”, Journal of Chinese Political Science, 2019, 24 (4): 583–603. Jean-Marc F Blanchard, and Norrin M. Ripsman, eds, “Economic Statecraft and Foreign Policy: Sanctions and Incentives and Target State Calculations”, 2013, London: Routledge. Scott Kastner, “Buying influence? Assessing the political effects of China’s international trade”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2016, 60 (6): 980–1007. 41 Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “China’s maritime silk road initiative (MSRI) and Southeast Asia: A Chinese ‘pond’ not ‘Lake’ in the works”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2018, 27 (111): 329–343. Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “Malaysia and China’s MSRI: The Road to China was Taken before the (Maritime Silk) Road was Built”, In “China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Southeast Asia”, ed. Jean-Marc F. Blanchard. 2019, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 95–132. Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “Problematic prognostications about China’s maritime silk road initiative (MSRI): Lessons from Africa and the Middle East”. Journal of Contemporary China, 2020, 29 (122): 159–174. 42 Jean-Marc F Blanchard and Edson Ziso, “The Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Ethiopia: Transforming Policies, Institutions, and Politics in Expected and Unexpected Ways”, In, Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s Maritime Silk Road, Africa, and the Middle East”, 2021, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. Mordechai Chaziza, “Egypt in China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative: Relations Cannot Surmount Realities”, In Jean-Marc F., ed, “China’s Maritime Silk Road, Africa, and the Middle East”, Blanchard, 2021, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. Jonathan Fulton, “Domestic politics as fuel for China’s maritime silk road initiative: The case of the Gulf monarchies”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2020, 29 (122): 175–190. Pheakdey Heng, and Vannarith Chheang, “The Political Economy of China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative in Cambodia”, In, Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, ed, “China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative and Southeast Asia”, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 2019, 163-190. David M. Lampton, Selina Ho, and Cheng-Chwee Kuik, “Rivers of Iron: Railroads and Chinese Power in Southeast Asia”, 2020, Berkeley: University of California Press. David Styan, “China’s maritime silk road and small states: Lessons from the case of Djibouti”. Journal of Contemporary China, 2020, 29 (122): 191–206. 43 Alessandro Arduino, Gong Xue, eds, “Securing the Belt and Road Initiative: Risk Assessment, Private Security, and Special Insurances along the New Wave of Chinese Outbound Investments”, 2018, Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. Roland, Nadege, ed, “Security the Belt and Road Initiative: China’s Evolving Military Engagement along the Silk Roads,” NBR Special Report 80, 2019. https://www.nbr.org/publication/securing-the-belt-and-road-prospects-for-chinese-military-engagement-along-the-silk-roads. 44 Baogang He, “The domestic politics of the belt and road initiative and its implications”, Journal of Contemporary China, 2019, 28 (116): 180–195. 45 Mingjiang Li, “China’s economic power in Asia: The belt and road initiative and the local Guangxi government’s role”, Asian Perspective, 2019, 43 (2): 273–295. Xiaojun Li, and Ka Zeng, “to join or not to join? State ownership, commercial interests, and China’s belt and road initiative”, Pacific Affairs, 2019, 92 (1): 5–26. Weiqiang, Lin, and Qi Ai, “Aerial silk roads’: Airport infrastructures in China’s belt and road initiative”, Development and Change, 2020, 51 (4): 1123–1145. 46 Jean-Marc F Blanchard, “The People’s Republic of China leadership transition and its external relations: still searching for definitive answers”, Journal of Chinese Political Science, 2015, 20 (1): 1–16. Johnston, Alastair Ian, and Robert Ross, eds, “New Directions in the Study of China’s Foreign Policy”, 2006, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Samuel Kim, S, ed, “New Directions and Old Puzzles in Chinese Foreign Policy”, In Samuel S., Kim. Boulder, ed, “China and the World: New Directions in Chinese Foreign Relations”, Westview Press, 1989. Robinson, Thomas W., and David L. Shambaugh, eds, “Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice”, 1994, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Quansheng Zhao, “Interpreting Chinese foreign policy: The micro-macro linkages approach”, 1996, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Suisheng, Zhao, ed, “The Making of China’s Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: Historical Sources, Institutions/Players, and Perceptions of Power Relations”, 2016, London: Routledge. 47 Jean-Marc F Blanchard, and Fujian Lu, eds, “Thinking hard about soft power: A review and critique of the literature on China and soft power”, Asian Perspective, 2012, 36 (4): 565–589. 48 Cai Peter, “Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative”. Lowy Institute for International Policy, March 22, 2017. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/understanding-belt-and-road-initiative. Alice Ekman, ed, “China’s Belt & Road and the World: Competing Forms of Globalization”,” Etudes de I’Ifri, April, 2019. https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ekman_china_belt_road_world_2019.pdf. Ryan Manuel, Twists in the Belt and Road. “China Leadership Monitor”, September 1. 2019, https://www.prcleader.org/manuel-belt-road. 49 Ehizuelen, Michael Mitchell Omoruyi, “More African countries on the route: The positive and negative impacts of the belt and road initiative”, Transnational Corporations Review, 2017, 9 (4): 341–359. Anchi Hoh, “China’s belt and road initiative in Central Asia and the Middle East”. 2019, DOMES 28 (2): 241–276. Anu Sharma, “An analysis of ‘belt and road’ initiative and the Middle East”. Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, 2019, 13 (1): 35–49.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском The ongoing skirmishes in the South China Sea between China and regional states represent another severe threat to the world economy, directly affecting Africa. As China grows increasingly aggressive in its race for global hegemony and influence, and the United States (US) slowly plunges into the battle to prevent China’s rise, the world is watching the unfolding of this rivalry with unease. Although a few places have felt intense pressure from this alarming competition, the South China Sea (SCS) region is where a violent showdown looks increasingly probable. Unlike the war in Ukraine or Gaza, the US and China may start a direct war in the SCS. And amidst this multifaceted new Cold War 2.0, Africa remains cautious. The South China tinderbox On 23 April, another skirmish took place between China and the Philippines when two Filipino patrol boats approached the shallow turquoise waters of a disputed shoal around 194 km west of the Philippine Islands province of Palawan. The patrol boats were there for an underwater survey near the disputed shoal claimed by both China and the Philippines, thus prompting a Chinese response. A Chinese coast guard, via radio, instructed them to leave the area and threatened hostile measures. Following several radio exchanges, the Chinese coast guard damaged both the Philippine patrol boats by firing high-pressure water cannons at them. However, this was not the first time China’s assertion in this region has caused friction with other SCS neighbours, including Japan and South Korea. China has used an unconvincing U-shaped “nine-dash line” that crosses the exclusive economic zones, or EEZs, of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam to demonstrate its claim in the region. Despite their low intrinsic value, the region lies along a vital trade and supply corridor that supports over US$3 trillion in yearly shipborne commerce. Oil, gas, and fishing sources abound in the area. Beijing has declined to acknowledge a 2016 decision from the Permanent Court of Arbitration that ruled Beijing’s broad claims invalid based on historical grounds. China and the Philippines have already fought many times over the Second Thomas Shoal and the Bashi Channel. China has become increasingly aggressive in the region in the last few years, putting regional stability at high risk. So far, these skirmishes will likely remain regional without the risk of any full-scale war. However, there are risks of casualties or even the vessel capsizing. Making of Cold War 2.0 over the SCS Washington’s response to the upcoming crisis is still modest. US President Biden raised concerns about China’s actions in the SCS , including efforts to impede the Philippines from resupplying its forces on the fiercely disputed Second Thomas Shoal. The US has repeatedly warned China that it’s obligated to defend the Philippines, its oldest treaty ally in Asia, if Filipino forces, ships or aircraft come under an armed attack. The US also conducted Balikatan drills (‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ in Tagalog) with the Philippines with more than 16,000 American and Philippines military personnel. Indeed, its resources are thinly stretched, and Beijing seems to be moving ahead. To deter China by stepping up regional defence diplomacy, Washington is exploring the possibility of a security alliance with Japan, Australia, and the Philippines, tentatively called SQUAD. This is in addition to two other existing groupings in the region, “Quad” and “AUKUS,” a defence pact among Australia, the United Kingdom and the US. While AUKUS is a defence pact, Quad is simply a dialogue platform. Africa’s tricky balancing act Even while the socioeconomic repercussions of the Russia-Ukraine war have not yet wholly subsided in Africa, the ongoing skirmishes in the SCS represent another severe threat to the world economy, directly affecting several African nations. Despite being geographically far, the conflict’s spillover effect would impact the continent’s food security in terms of both the availability and pricing of some food crops. In addition, the SCS region represents a crucial geographic sweet spot for Africa as a source of trade and investment, translating into growth and development for many African economies. The crisis can potentially fuel price rise, particularly for oil-importing countries. The prospect of a consequential price rise of essential commodities will have enormous ramifications for domestic stability in most African countries. Furthermore, many African economies heavily rely on trade, investment, and aid from South and Southeast Asia, the crisis will significantly hamper the development and growth of the continent. There are also strategic lessons for Africa to learn from the conflict. China’s principal interest in Africa consists of protecting its BRI investments and ensuring steady trade flow. Africa is also essential for China to fulfil its resource needs, maintaining industrial growth and energy security. Therefore, securing stability in countries where China has invested is in China’s interest, just like keeping a stable relationship with China is in the interest of those investment-starved countries. Further, since many investment projects in China are located in different African countries, these countries should be careful. China can become aggressively irredentist, even in Africa. Currently, China owns a naval base in Djibouti and a ballistic missile tracker Yuan Wang 5, off the coast of Durban. It has strong economic influence across the countries of Africa’s east coast thanks to its Belt Road Initiative (BRI). On the West Coast, China has many seaports financed or constructed by Chinese entities. If the national governments of these countries fail to pay, China would happily take control of these ports through lease as it did in Hambantota, Sri Lanka. In addition to Sri Lanka, other South Asian countries such as Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Myanmar also faced dire consequences due to the failure of their BRI debt payment, leading to economic crises, and sometimes even political crises. Therefore, caution would be expected from these African governments. Conclusion China’s increasingly aggressive posture over the SCS raises concerns about the stability of the region. As the current uneasy détente between the US and China bears remarkable similarities to the Cold War, questions are raised regarding the possibilities of a new Cold War 2.0. Questions are also raised concerning the possible reactions from different African countries vis-á-vis Chinese aggression in the region. Undoubtedly, any serious conflict between China and the Philippines would be dangerous. These frequent skirmishes may not lead to a direct war between the US and China. Yet, the risk of vessel capsizing and casualties is high. Any such event would ultimately spark a crisis in Africa. So far, Africa is cautious and continues to balance its great power relationships. Undoubtedly, it is increasingly concerned with the aggressive posture of the Chinese in the region. On the other hand, it needs China for economic purposes. Therefore, Africa will continue to walk the tightrope where it would want US involvement in de-escalating the situation without ruffling any feathers with China. The views expressed above belong to the author(s).

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском While the flurry over Vladimir Putin’s visit with Xi Jinping last May caused a gush among many media outlets, the public declarations of an enduring alliance is more of the same old bluster rather than a serious démarche. A longer view of Sino-Russo relations tells a far more serpentine story. Future historians will be amused by the irony of how quickly, in world historical time, China and Russia changed places. In 1949, China was the Soviet Russian empire’s vassal, a victorious Communist state that tried to emulate all things Soviet. By 2024, a mere 75 years later, Russia had become China’s vassal, a stale dictatorship hoping to survive a pointless war it had initiated a year before. Rising from the misery of World War II and its own civil war, China entered the succeeding era adrift. Its economy was in ruins, its military vulnerable. As leader of the Communist bloc, the USSR appeared as the natural strategic big brother. The mutual benefits were obvious. China was in desperate need of assistance. The USSR required access to Chinese rail links and ports in the Far East. Moscow felt it needed to defend its interests against potential armed attacks from Japan, while China was wheeling toward international isolation. Both countries feared the growing dominance of the United States. Since that time, relations between Soviet Union/Russia and China have undergone a unique push and pull. The interplay has shift from patron/client state to a formal military alliance (1950-59), schism (1960s), open conflict (1969), détente (1970s), rapprochement (1980s) and, normalisation (after the collapse of the Soviet Union). Now, the war in Ukraine has set loose a new politesse between Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC)—a “no limits” partnership. Or so the Russians would like to believe. The Chinese disagree: their EU ambassador Fu Cong characterised the partnership in 2023 as “nothing but rhetoric.” To be sure, Russia’s need of a market for its natural resource wealth and China’s energy intensive growth have certainly impelled them to seek a mutually beneficial arrangement. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin have met 40 times since 2012. Both men share a similar family story as well as similar views about civilisational wars, the decline of the West, color revolutions, and the threat posed by the United States and NATO. However, despite these personal, philosophical, and trade complementarities, the PRC and Russia are moving on diverse tracks. Fu Cong’s dismissive attitude is on the mark. To start, the economic synergy is exaggerated. Russia is fourteenth among China’s largest trading partners. Its trade with Russia is relatively inconsequential. Each is more dependent on third countries than on the other. Russia needs the EU. China relies on other Asian countries and the United States. Further, despite its economic heft, China cannot match Europe’s potential as a driver of industrial and commercial modernisation for Russia. Secondly, due to its monopsonistic position, China forces Russia to sell oil, natural gas, and coal at heavily discounted prices. These discounts are so deep that Russian gas exports to China often do not cover the operational costs of their extraction and transportation. Additionally, the PRC makes payments to Russia in Chinese renminbi and uses these transactions to leverage its position over non-Russian suppliers. Unsurprisingly, direct Chinese investment in Russia has almost exclusively focused on the energy and other extraction industries. Sectors with the greatest potential for productivity gains, such as high-tech manufacturing, utilities, construction, financial services et al, go undeveloped. In addition to trade priorities, another reason for this neglect is that the Chinese have found that doing business in Russia is as daunting for them as it is for western investors. The infrastructure in Russia’s Far East is so underdeveloped that the PRC has had to make substantial investments to get access to the resources it wants. By all reports, these investments have underperformed. Further, the lack of rule of law and the absence of a business-friendly ecosystem leave even the Chinese frustrated and grumbling. Russia wants investments but not investors—a common refrain often directed at the PRC. The Russian economy has long been beset by structural problems: low diversification, a faltering industrial base, uncontrolled corruption, the absence of an entrepreneurial class and now, inflation. The mounting costs of the war in Ukraine exacerbates existing matters and will probably prolong the economic dysfunctionality far into the future. In short, Putin’s hunger to reconstitute the Soviet empire is “making Russia a smaller, worse-educated and poorer country.” China’s own economy has its challenges, too. Rising corporate debt, labour shortages and, poor investment efficiency are driving it into stagnation. In 2012, the PRC launched its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in order to link its economy with under-developed regions from Central Asia, Africa, and Europe. The dream was to provide its export-oriented economy with markets. There have been several major defaults, and recipients of Chinese loans are subject to falling into debt traps. In light of the current pressures on the economy, the risk is even more intense. By most analyses, the PRC will need cooperation from the West if the scheme has any hope of success. In Central Asia, a confrontation with Russia may be percolating. China’s Belt and Road could compete with Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). From the beginning, the Eurasian Union was a token attempt at economic regionalism and a veiled instrument of Russian geopolitics. Many contend it survives as merely another façade to reconstitute the Soviet Union. While it offers little incentive in the way of any real political or market institutions, it represents Russia’s bid to bolster its influence in the region and beyond. Although its threat to the BRI is not significant, it has prompted one regional expert to conclude China may fear a Russian victory in Ukraine because it could strengthen Moscow’s influence in Central Asia. In a move that diminishes Russian energy policy as a source of political influence, Chinese companies have taken stakes in Central Asian oil and gas fields and have built a network of pipelines. Beijing also abandoned its interest in investing in the Power of Siberia II pipeline. Additionally, the China-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) froze lending to Russia and Belarus in 2023. As a vassal state, there is little Moscow can offer Beijing except for its agency as a counterbalance against the United States. The fundamental difference is that Xi wants to reform the global economy, while Putin wants to upend it. As one Chinese analyst puts it, “Russia is seeking to subvert the existing international and regional order by means of war, whereas China wants to resolve disputes peacefully.” Russia’s war against Ukraine has troubled the Chinese. The global economy on which China depends so greatly is being disrupted. Indeed, Beijing may be preparing for a Russian defeat. A recent analysis by Beijing University’s Feng Yujun is worth quoting at length for what it surely reveals about the current Chinese leadership’s views of Moscow: “Russia’s eventual defeat [is] inevitable. In time it will be forced to withdraw from all occupied Ukrainian territories, including Crimea…. Ukraine may yet rise from the ashes. When the war ends, it can look forward to the possibility of joining the European Union and NATO. “The war is a turning-point for Russia. It has consigned Mr. Putin’s regime to broad international isolation. He has also had to deal with difficult domestic political undercurrents, … Mr. Putin may recently have been re-elected, but he faces all kinds of possible black-swan events.” At some point the Kremlin will become a liability for Beijing. Putin and his circle can bray at the moon about the constant state of siege between nations and societies, invoke other nuggets of Leninist doctrine, and even claim how Poland attacked Nazi Germany and, thus, began World War II. But when the time comes, Xi, rather than conjure up Lenin, will take counsel from another source – Sun Tzu: “There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” When that moment finally arrives is uncertain. However, the sway China holds over Russia and the tide of events suggest it is approaching.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, paid a visit to Pyongyang this week and signed a defence pact with reclusive North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, as he looks for new allies who can help him increase Russia’s supply of munitions for the war in Ukraine. As part of this mutual aid deal, the two leaders promised that each country will come to the defence of the other if attacked. Kim also promised North Korea’s full support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. What’s interesting about the entire Russia-North Korea showy display of camaraderie is China’s response: silence. China has misgivings about how things are unfolding, which reports suggest prompted Chinese president Xi Jinping’s call to Putin to call off the latter’s visit to Pyongyang. Obviously, Putin didn’t heed Xi’s request. Why would Beijing be so rattled by the Russian-North Korea defence treaty? After all, China has its own defensive pact with North Korea, which was inked in 1961 and renewed in 2021. Beijing also has a “no limits” partnership with Russia. Logically, if China could sign its own defence treaty with North Korea, so can Russia. But the pact made by Putin and Kim severely threatens Chinese security. China was already worried that whatever control it has over North Korea was weakened when Pyongyang reportedly supplied almost 7,000 containers worth of weapons to Moscow. And this is why, in April, the Middle Kingdom sent its third most senior leader within the Chinese Communist party hierarchy, Zhao Leji, to assure the North Korean strongman that Beijing was still a strong ally. Now the defensive pact that draws Moscow and Pyongyang closer threatens to further diminish China’s influence over Kim. The Kremlin knows that one of Beijing’s greatest fears is that a renegade North Korea may one day point its weapons at China. And this is a key reason behind Putin’s peace treaty with Pyongyang. China and North Korea’s turbulent past For decades, China had tried to maintain its influence over Pyongyang by being the mediator between North Korea and the rest of the world. This included attempting to curb North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Beijing does so to safeguard its own safety and survival, and probably believes that as long as North Korea remains dependent on China, it wouldn’t bite the hand that feeds it. China also remains North Korea’s biggest trade partner. This all sounds awfully bizarre, since China’s mutual defence pact with North Korea suggests that both nations are close allies. But North Korea has a tradition of defying China, and this deal with Russia might embolden it further – and that will be worrying Beijing. In 2017, for instance, Kim Jong-un, in clear defiance of China, ordered the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, in Malaysia. And when China retaliated by halting all coal imports from North Korea into China, North Korea not only condemned Beijing for “dancing to the tune of the United States”, but also vented its anger by firing missiles in the direction of Japan. But where the missiles originated from in North Korea and the distance that it covered towards the direction of Japan provided China with a rather grim check on reality: North Korea’s weapon capabilities extend to major Chinese cities. The Sino-Korean animosity dates back centuries and took shape when Korea was a vassal state of imperial China. Unfortunately, this animosity extended to modern times when Mao Zedong decided to station Chinese troops in North Korea even after the conclusion of the Korean war, and when Beijing did not aid Pyongyang in its nuclear ambitions. It didn’t help either that the founding leader of North Korea, Kim Il-sung, was suspected of espionage and was nearly executed by the Chinese Communist party in the 1930s. All this history plays a part in what decisions and alliances are being made today, and why. It would be a serious mistake to think that the Russians, even in desperation, would believe that making North Korea an ally would turn the tide of the Ukrainian-Russian war in Russia’s favour. But this move, and his recent trip to Vietnam, shows Putin’s desperation. Even if Pyongyang continues to supply Russia with much-needed ammunition and weapons, Moscow will need greater technology and firepower to win against a Ukraine that uses weapons supplied by the US and Europe. Putin’s agenda This fact is not lost to Putin, and he knows that for Russia to stand a winning chance in the war that he started in 2022, requires its partner of “no limits” to stand firmly by Russia’s side. But beyond supplying Russia with the dual-use technology (which could be used for civilian or military purposes) to fuel Russia’s industrial war complex, China appears to have fallen short of supplying actual weapons to Russia. Even if China wanted to provide weapons to Russia it can’t. This is because it fears further antagonising the west, and triggering economic sanctions would prove lethal for an already ailing Chinese economy. China knows that it needs a strong Russia so that the west doesn’t consolidate its resources to deal with the perceived Chinese threat. But on the other hand, helping Moscow may prove too much for Beijing to stomach since that would harm China’s economy. So, Putin needs to force Beijing’s hand, and the peace treaty that he just signed with North Korea might just do the trick.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском China's geopolitics and Russia's concessions While the Western media continues to speculate about China's role in the Russian war of aggression, Beijing is seeking to maximize its benefits: from China's point of view, the aim is to exploit Moscow's dependence on the People's Republic and expand cooperation in its own interests - and not just in economic terms. In geopolitical terms, this relates in particular to China's access to the Sea of Japan, but Beijing's plans extend as far as the Arctic. A paragraph from a joint statement by Presidents Xi and Putin, which at first glance seems inconspicuous, could have far-reaching geopolitical implications and become a serious security policy challenge for Japan and South Korea. New balance of power opens up room for maneuver for Beijing The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) experienced a premiere of a special kind on July 24: for the first time, fighter jets from the USA and Canada had to take off over the Bering Sea as two Chinese H-6K bombers approached the coast of Alaska. These were accompanied by two Russian Tupolev Tu-95MSs.[i] Just a few days earlier, Russia and China had held a joint naval and air force exercise called "Joint Sea-2024" near the southern Chinese province of Guangdong. But while these joint military exercises attracted media attention, Beijing and Moscow are creating facts in the background that could have far-reaching consequences for the security architecture in the Sea of Japan and around the Korean peninsula: Russia's ruler Vladimir Putin and China's President Xi Jinping recently published a joint declaration on deepening their strategic partnership.[ii] The background to the paper was the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, or the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, 75 years ago. It contains the following resolution: "Russia and China wish to conduct a constructive dialog with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the navigation of Chinese ships across the lower reaches of the Tumen River." What seems inconspicuous could, from Seoul and Tokyo's perspective, change the strategic balance of power vis-à-vis China to their own disadvantage and have a decisive impact on the sensitive security architecture in the region. The Tumen River: will China's maritime impasse disappear? The 521-kilometre-long Tumen River forms the border between China and North Korea and becomes the border river between North Korea and Russia downstream before flowing into the Sea of Japan. At present, Chinese ships can only navigate the river freely as far as the village of Fangchuan at the eastern end of the inland province of Jilin. Permission from both Russia and North Korea is required for the remaining 15 kilometers to the Sea of Japan. A Soviet-era "Friendship Bridge" less than ten meters high also blocks the passage of larger ships. Historically, China held the area until the Russian Empire gained control in the 1860s. China has repeatedly called on Russia and North Korea to permanently allow Chinese ships to navigate the river to the Sea of Japan and has proposed the creation of a special economic zone along its banks. China's goal is clear: Beijing is keen to gain access to the Sea of Japan via the Tumen River. Japan and South Korea: concerns about geopolitical implications There is concern in Japan that the strategic balance of power vis-à-vis China could shift to Japan's disadvantage: In an interview with the daily newspaper Nikkei Asia, Chisako Masuo, professor of Chinese foreign policy at Kyushu University, warns that in the future, Chinese coast guard patrol vessels could enter the Sea of Japan via the Tumen River alongside larger ships. "This could force the Japanese navy to withdraw its coast guard vessels from the Senkaku Islands, which would weaken surveillance in the East China Sea."[iii] Japan and China are in dispute over the Senkaku Islands. Japan controls them, China calls them Diaoyu and claims them for itself. Recently, the presence of Chinese ships in the waters around the islands has increased again. "There are likely to be similar concerns in South Korea. Chinese ships could now reach the Korean peninsula from both sides. In addition, both Japan and South Korea are close allies of the USA. A deterioration in the security situation - even if it is only perceived - would therefore also have an impact on the plans of the US armed forces," analyses journalist Michael Radunski, who reported from Beijing as a correspondent for several years[iv]. The Sea of Japan: Gateway to the Arctic Beijing is pursuing a much broader goal beyond access to the Sea of Japan: access to the Arctic. In a paper published on May 13, 2024, researchers from northern China's Dalian Maritime University argue that access to the Sea of Japan could strengthen China's position in the Arctic and significantly advance Beijing's vision of a "Polar Silk Road."[v] If the Arctic is indeed largely ice-free by mid-century, new and shortened sea routes would open up for Chinese shipping. "With the Polar Silk Road, China is also embedding the Arctic region in the so-called New Silk Road (Belt and Road Initiative), a large-scale Chinese project to expand an intercontinental infrastructure and trade network. The potential shipping routes of the "Polar Silk Road" run west of Greenland along the Canadian coast (Northwest Passage), from Scandinavia along the Siberian coast of Russia (Northeast Passage) and centrally between Spitsbergen and Greenland (Transpolar Route) into the Bering Strait," states David Merkle, China expert at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, in a comprehensive analysis of Chinese policy in the northern polar region. [vi] Currently, a significant proportion of Chinese trade has to pass through the narrow Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia. A blockade of this strait, which is only around 50 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, would pose a serious threat to China's energy security. In addition, an ice-free Arctic would shorten the existing sea routes from Asia to Europe by around 8,000 kilometers and to North America by around 4,500 kilometers. Overcomeable challenges or deliberate uncertainty? Russia and North Korea have so far been extremely sceptical of China's plans. Moscow fears that China's influence in North-East Asia could increase. Meanwhile, North Korea also has a lot at stake: until now, all Chinese goods have crossed the Tumen River via a bridge and been transported overland to the port of Rajin. "Therefore, the idea of allowing China to ship directly to the Pacific via the Tumen River would make this port redundant. North Korea would lose a lot of revenue as a result," states Melik Kaylan from the business magazine Forbes.[vii] He points out that massive dredging and widening would be required to make the Tumen navigable for large ships. In his view, the idea of restoring Chinese access seems like a fantasy, "an improbable one". So why did Putin and Xi bring up this idea? His explanation: "The coastal strip was ceded to Russia by the Qing dynasty in the 19th century and the People's Republic of China has been demanding it back for decades. Putin is running out of incentives he can offer Beijing to support his war in Ukraine. Such an offer goes down well with the Chinese public - but triggers anger in Moscow among supporters of the Putin regime, who are filled with Great Russian fanaticism. (...) But Putin is making a certain point: if Beijing gains direct access to the Sea of Japan, the strategic equation will change radically. Currently, the Chinese navy has to sail around the entire Korean peninsula to get to this area. Suddenly, Beijing could directly threaten Japan (and various disputed islands)."[viii] Consequently, the burden on the US and its allies to expand maritime projection, protection, readiness and resources would increase dramatically. So is it all just a PR stunt designed to create uncertainty among the US and its allies - and also generate applause among the Chinese public? This theory is contradicted by the fact that there are hardly any reports in the state media of the People's Republic that address the issue. Furthermore, there is increasing movement in the matter: Chinese online portals have reported that Putin agreed further resolutions at his meeting with North Korean ruler Kim Jong Un in mid-June. Accordingly, North Korea and Russia are said to have already signed a bilateral agreement on the construction of a new bridge over the Tumen River. "It can be seen that cooperation between Russia and China is becoming ever closer in light of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and increasing Western sanctions. The redesign of this bridge is not only an infrastructure project, but also a symbol of strategic cooperation between the two countries [Russia and China] and heralds a new era of economic cooperation," judges Yi Dan Qing Cheng, who writes under a pseudonym and is one of the few commentators from China to have dealt with the issue in a journalistic capacity.[ix] Outlook There is no question that the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has changed the balance of power and relations between Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang. Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement in Pyongyang in June. Putin traveled to North Korea for the first time in a quarter of a century to personally deepen relations between the two states. Meanwhile, Russia is dependent on Chinese goods: in 2023, goods worth a record value of more than 240 billion US dollars were traded between Russia and China, an increase of 26.3 percent compared to the previous year. These shifts in Russia's power and dependencies open up new opportunities for the People's Republic, including geopolitically. If the project to provide Chinese access to the Sea of Japan is successfully pursued, China could develop the Tumen Delta as a secondary shipyard for its naval and patrol vessels and position them strategically close to Japan's international maritime borders. The region appears to be preparing for growing tensions: The foreign ministers of Australia, India, Japan and the USA announced in Tokyo at the end of July that they would be expanding their cooperation within the framework of the so-called Quad. Specifically, this involves the area of cyber security - but also maritime security in the Indo-Pacific. References [i] Siehe ausführlicher: Zwerger, Patrick 2024: Uralt-Bomber aus Russland und China treffen auf US-Jets, abrufbar unter: https://www.flugrevue.de/militaer/tupolew-tu-95ms-und-harbin-h-6-uralt-bomber-aus-russland-und-china-vor-alaskas-kueste/, letzter Zugriff: 30.7.2024. [ii] Außenministerium der Volksrepublik China 2024: Gemeinsame Erklärung der Volksrepublik China und der Russischen Föderation zur Vertiefung der umfassenden strategischen Kooperationspartnerschaft im neuen Zeitalter anlässlich des 75. Jahrestages der Aufnahme diplomatischer Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Ländern, abrufbar unter: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/zyxw/202405/t20240516_11305860.shtml, letzter Zugriff: 30.7.2024. [iii] Tajima, Yukio 2024: China eyes Sea of Japan access via Russia-North Korea border river, Nikkei Asia, abrufbar unter: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/China-eyes-Sea-of-Japan-access-via-Russia-North-Korea-border-river, letzter Zugriff: 30.7.2024. [iv] Radunski, Michael 2024: Chinesisch-russische Partnerschaft: Wie Peking sich Zugang zum Japanischen Meer verschaffen will, China.Table, 28.06.2024. [v] Chang, Yen-Chiang, Xingyi Duan, Xu (John) Zhang & Ling Yan 2024: On China’s Navigation Rights and Interests in the Tumen River and the Japanese Sea, abrufbar unter: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08920753.2024.2347817?src=exp-la, letzter Zugriff: 30.7.2024. [vi] Merkle, David 2023: Der selbsternannte Fast-Arktisstaat: Chinas Politik in der nördlichen Polarregion, in: Auslandsinformationen, abrufbar unter: https://www.kas.de/de/web/auslandsinformationen/artikel/detail/-/content/der-selbsternannte-fast-arktisstaat, letzter Zugriff: 30.7.2024. [vii] Kaylan, Melik 2024: Russia Offers China A River To The Sea In The Pacific, abrufbar unter: https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2024/06/25/russia-offers-china-a-river-to-the-sea-in-the-pacific/, letzter Zugriff 30.7.2024. [viii] Ebd. [ix] Yi Dan Qing Cheng 2024: Was er unserem Land versprochen hat, hat Putin eingehalten. Die Umgestaltung der Tumen-Brücke hat die Sorgen der chinesischen Seite gemildert, abrufbar unter: https://www.163.com/dy/article/J6JBCD8K0552P34A.html, letzter Zugriff 30.7.2024.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Picture: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/ China now has strategic partnerships with 53 of the 54 African countries; investments range from industry to agriculture After holding bilateral meetings with 25 African heads of state in less than a week, China's President Xi Jinping announced on Thursday (5) the project to implement ten partnership actions with the continent that will be financed by the Chinese government to the value of 360 billion yuan (US$ 51,4 billion). According to the Chinese president, the projects should affect various areas of infrastructure and the transfers should be carried out by 2027. He has been meeting with presidents of African countries in Beijing since Monday (2), before and during the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC, in English), which began on Wednesday (4) and runs until Friday (6). In the current edition, China has decided to sign strategic partnerships with all the African countries with which it has diplomatic relations – or 53 of 54. Raising the level of partnerships is a growing practice in Chinese foreign policy to strengthen ties with countries, mainly in the so-called Global South. The total investment will be divided into a credit line of 210 billion yuan (around US$ 29,8 billion), 80 billion yuan (US$ 11,3 billion) in assistance, and 70 billion yuan (US$ 9,9 billion) of investment by Chinese companies in Africa. Regarding health cooperation, it was planned for the joint creation of an alliance of hospitals and medical centers. China has promised to send 2,000 health workers to the continent and launch 20 programs for health facilities and malaria treatment. According to the WHO, in 2022 Africa had 94% of the world's malaria cases (233 million) and 95% of the deaths caused by the disease (580,000). In agriculture and food, China will provide African countries with 1 billion yuan (around US$ 142,1 million) for emergency food assistance, the construction of standardized agricultural “demonstration areas” of more than 6,600 hectares, the sending of 500 agricultural experts and the creation of a “China-Africa agricultural scientific and technological innovation alliance.” In this sector, the Chinese president said that “two-way investments will be encouraged for new businesses of Chinese and African companies”, to help them gain added value and create at least 1 million local jobs. Common security is the tenth area of cooperation announced. Xi said China will offer 1 billion yuan to train 6,000 military personnel and 1,000 police officers, “and invite 500 young [African] military officers to visit China”. It also announced the creation of a digital technology cooperation center to start 20 digital projects and 30 infrastructure connectivity projects in Africa. This week, the presidents and heads of state of Libya, Mali, Comoros, Togo, Djibouti, the Seychelles, Chad, Malawi and Mauritania signed an agreement to upgrade diplomatic relations with China to the level of strategic partnership. Other countries, such as Nigeria and Cameroon, have adopted what is known as comprehensive strategic partnerships. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa signed a “new era comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership” with the Asian giant, which is now the highest relationship with China among African countries. In addition, two documents were signed, the “Beijing Declaration on Joining Hands to Advance Modernization and Build a High-Level China-Africa Community with a Shared Future for the New Era” and the “Beijing Action Plan (2025-2027)” of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation. The long name of this Beijing Declaration is part of the country’s diplomatic terminology and is the highest used for a partnership with an entire region. Right to modernization On Thursday (5), Wang Yi, China's foreign minister held a press conference with his counterpart from Senegal, Yassine Fall, and from the Republic of Congo, Jean-Claude Gakosso, to comment on the partnership, results and prospects. Wang Yi emphasized the need to build multilateralism with Africa. “We must always listen to Africa's voice [...] without being condescending.” The Beijing document argues that Africans “are qualified to serve as heads of international organizations and institutions.” African countries, in return, highlighted in the document their appreciation that China was the first country to support the African Union's entry into the G20. China welcomes the fact that more African countries are joining the BRICS, since in addition to South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia joined the group last year. At the press conference, Wang Yi also called for China and Africa to face together challenges such as “small gardens and high fences”, about the U.S. strategy of protectionism against China. Referring to cooperation with the continent, Wang Yi said the country does not want to “play geographical games, or confront blocs”. “We want to reach a consensus in the international community [...] everyone has the right to modernization.” For his part, Yassine Fall emphasized China's commitment to increasing the supply of exports from African countries to China, the elimination of customs barriers for the least developed countries – which include 33 African countries – and financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises. Translated from Portuguese to English by: Ana Paula Rocha

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Signatories were supposed to execute arrest warrant against the Russian president, but the successful visit undermined the Court's jurisdiction. Russian President Vladimir Putin paid an official visit to Mongolia earlier this week. As the Asian country is a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which issued an arrest warrant against Putin for alleged war crimes related to the conflict in Ukraine, Mongolia should technically have carried out the arrest of the Russian leader. Instead, Putin was warmly welcomed upon landing in the country, with a guard of honor and a grand reception in Genghis Khan Square in the center of the capital, which was adorned with the flags of both countries. Mongolia’s stance has drawn criticism from Ukraine, but there has been no explicit condemnation from the West. As a result, the successful trip to an ICC signatory country has opened a gap in the credibility of the Court’s discretion in third countries and could set a precedent for giving the green light to further trips by the Russian president. In an interview with Brasil de Fato, the deputy director of the Institute of History and Politics at Moscow State Pedagogical University, Vladimir Shapovalov, noted that the position Mongolia took was a “quite adequate reaction,” which reaffirmed its independence and sovereignty in the international arena. At the same time, the political scientist highlighted that “the ICC cannot be seen as an objective legal body”. According to him, the Court is “a simulacrum created by the Western world, by the collective West, to promote and achieve its objectives”. During the meeting with Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, Putin highlighted the development of bilateral relations between the countries, stressing that “in the first seven months of this year, trade turnover increased by more than 21%.” “In addition, trade agreements between our two countries are now almost entirely made in currencies other than the dollar and the euro,” he added. The visit to Mongolia was Putin's first trip to a country that recognizes the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court since the arrest warrant was issued in March last year. The charge against Putin concerns the alleged deportation and illegal transfer of children from Ukraine to territories annexed by Russia during the war. A similar arrest warrant was issued for the Russian Federation's Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova. The reason for the indictment dates to May 2022, when Putin signed a decree on a simplified procedure for orphans from Ukraine to obtain Russian citizenship. Precedent for the G20 in Brazil? Putin's visit to a country that is a signatory to the ICC brings to mind the dilemma of Brazil - which is also a signatory to the Rome Statute - since President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has already expressed his desire for the Russian president to participate in the G20 summit, which will be held in Rio de Janeiro in November. Lula even presented a document to the UN International Law Commission with a legal framework to support the possibility of Putin's visit, but, at the same time, the leader said that the Russian president himself must evaluate the consequences of his visit. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said this week that Putin had not yet made a decision on the G20. “No decision has been made on this issue yet. Our Sherpa continues to work actively with his colleagues. We are defending our interests there, but the president has not yet made any decision,” Peskov said. For political scientist Vladimir Shapovalov, the Mongolia case “really creates a serious precedent and of course this opens up a field for future state visits” for the Russian president. However, there is a complicating factor for Putin's eventual presence at the G20, which is the interference and pressure from other states during the event in Rio de Janeiro, considering that the G20 is largely composed of all the countries that make up what Russia calls the “collective West”. In other words, a multilateral conference with a large presence of countries that antagonize Russia is more complex for a Putin visit than a bilateral visit. “As far as Brazil and other countries are concerned, the situation here is ambiguous. We must take into consideration several factors, understanding that providing unconditional security guarantees to the Russian president is the country’s top priority. If such conditions are guaranteed, a visit to this or that country may make sense. If such guarantees do not exist, it is better for Russia to receive visits from other leaders,” Shapovalov says. In this sense, the leaders of Brazil and Russia have already set a date for a meeting on Russian soil together with other leaders from the Global South. The BRICS Summit, which will take place in Kazan from October 22 to 24, has confirmed the presence of President Lula. This event may provide the next signs about Putin's chances of visiting Brazil. “Mongolia is a sovereign country” For political scientist Vladiimr Shapovalov, Mongolia's position of ignoring the International Tribunal is related to the country's independent and sovereign position in the world, but at the same time reveals a tendency towards strengthening relations with Russia and China rather than the West. “First of all, it is important to emphasize that Mongolia is a sovereign, neutral country. It does not join any military alliances or military-political blocs and seeks to promote a multi-vector policy. However, we see that the current visit proves that the course of strengthening relations with Russia is clearly becoming predominant. It is important to note that the priorities here are very well defined. For Mongolia, Russia, along with China, is one of the key partners,” he says. Regarding Mongolia’s position on the war in Ukraine, Shapovalov points out that the Asian country “takes the same position as most countries in the ‘global majority’.” “That is, Mongolia distances itself from supporting this or that country, does not participate in Western sanctions to any extent. And Russia appreciates this position and expresses gratitude to the Mongolian side for its courage and readiness to follow its national interests, not the interests of the West,” he adds. Mongolian authorities justified their refusal to comply with the international court's arrest warrant by claiming that the country is energy dependent, importing 95% of its petroleum products and more than 20% of its electricity from its closest neighbors. According to government sources cited by Politico magazine, these supplies are essential for the country's survival. In addition, the publication highlighted the country's history of neutrality in its diplomatic relations. "Mongolia has always maintained a policy of neutrality in all its diplomatic relations," says the source. Between Russia and China Mongolia’s refusal was not a surprise, since the country has never condemned Russia for the war in Ukraine and has strong historical ties with Moscow. During the Soviet period, the Asian country remained a kind of “satellite state” of the socialist bloc. Furthermore, the Soviet Union fought alongside Mongolia against the Japanese in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939, a landmark battle in the history of defending Mongolia's territorial integrity. The 85th anniversary of this battle was celebrated during Putin's visit. And during World War II, Mongolian troops also served the Soviet army in the fight against Nazism. Vladimir Shapovalov points out that in the post-Soviet period, unlike, for example, North Korea, Mongolia “began to pursue a multi-vector policy,” in which not only Russia and China, but also the United States and the European Union countries participated. According to him, the Asian country’s relations developed quite actively on several fronts. “Mongolia is not the type of country that follows Russia, or China, but it is a country that, precisely because it is located between Russia and China, has made an effort to diversify the vectors of its movement and, at a certain point, even bet on the US, on strengthening its friendship with the US,” he says. The Asian country, which has always maintained good relations with the West, has always been known for respecting the norms of the international system and its main institutions. Putin's visit, however, shows that Mongolia is willing to challenge the authority of the International Criminal Court, prioritizing its national interests. “All this shows that Mongolia is taking a very active course of strengthening its interaction with Russia. In fact, a trilateral interaction, together with Russia and China. I do not think this means that Mongolia will now abandon its Western vector, refusing to have relations with the United States. But it does mean that Mongolia is taking more active steps towards Russia and China, towards the countries that it calls itself the ‘global majority’, as opposed to the West,” he argues. “The decision adopted by Mongolia is not only a decision that sets a precedent and discredits the ICC as a body that claims to have agency, but it is a decision that very clearly establishes the significant changes that are currently occurring in the world on a global scale,” added the political scientist. US reaction The analyst also notes that the US reaction “was very restrained” and there was no explicit condemnation from the White House regarding Mongolia’s reception of the Russian president. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said the United States “understands the difficult situation Mongolia finds itself in, but we nevertheless remind the country of the importance of meeting its international obligations.” “We understand the position Mongolia finds itself in, sandwiched between two much larger neighbors, but we think it is important that they continue to support the rule of law around the world,” Miller said, adding that the United States will continue to support Mongolia. Ukraine's reaction was more severe. Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Georgy Tikhy called the Mongolian authorities' refusal to execute the International Criminal Court's warrant "a severe blow to justice" and threatened Mongolia with retaliation. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reacted to the Ukrainian diplomat's remarks, calling the statements of Ukrainian officials "rude." The foreign minister said that "the ICC issue is being artificially exaggerated," adding that the West resorts to double standards in this area. Lavrov cited as an example the way in which ICC judges were criticized for merely “suggesting” that Israel’s leadership be included on the court’s list of convicts. He also recalled how the United States threatened the ICC with sanctions for trying to investigate the US bombings in Afghanistan. For political scientist Vladimir Shapovalov, this case reveals that international organizations are largely instrumentalized by Western interests and are "a form of instrument of containment, expansion, pressure and influence of the West in the world." "And this is how it has been, at least in recent decades, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Now we see that the role of these organizations, their influence and their authority, is significantly diminishing," he concludes.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Why Australia, Japan, and South Korea Have Other Concerns While heated debates in Europe have focused on how to respond if Donald J. Trump is re-elected to the White House, discussions in Australia, Japan, and South Korea reveal a greater sense of confidence in Washington’s commitments. The fear that the United States would withdraw its nuclear assurances is much less pronounced in the Indo-Pacific than in Europe. This serenity appears primarily grounded in a shared understanding that a bipartisan consensus is driving the US commitment to contain China’s rise – a goal that requires reliable allies across the Pacific. At the same time, US allies want to maintain the regional status quo and are willing to support Washing­ton’s efforts. Trump’s potential return does little to change these structural incen­tives. Instead, Pacific allies fear challenges to the East Asian regional order, challenges that are also relevant for Europe’s security and prosperity. European and Pacific US allies share similar concerns about a potential second Trump administration: allies everywhere fear that Trump would once again pursue a trans­actional approach to US foreign policy. Disputes between allies would play out in public, unsettling domestic populations, delighting adversaries, and endangering the perceived credibility of the common defence policy. Given Trump’s penchant for cosying up to autocrats, both European and Pacific allies worry that Washington will either trade away key shared interests to extract questionable concessions from dictators or, if negotiations fail (again), that Trump will drag them into unwanted conflicts. However, beyond these shared concerns, policymakers in Canberra, Seoul, and Tokyo seem to be more confident. They believe they know how to manage Trump’s ego and can offer him lucrative deals. Furthermore, they assume that a second Trump adminis­tration will remain engaged in the Western Pacific, necessitating the presence of reli­able partners to maintain influence and contain China. These assumptions do not lead to fewer concerns, but to less fundamental concerns in trans-Pacific relations. However, European allies express fear that Trump may seek to undermine or even ter­minate NATO, which would result in the withdrawal of US nuclear assurances. Even in South Korea, public debate about its own nuclear weapons is primarily focused on the perceived threat from North Korea, rather than on concerns within the alliance. It is primarily the changed regional bal­ance of power and China’s ambitions that worry the trans-Pacific allies. On the one hand, the extensive competition between the US and China gives rise to the expectation that Washington will remain engaged and that the security relationship and extended nuclear deterrent in the Pacific will remain stable. On the other hand, this com­petition demonstrates to Pacific allies that the actions of the current and subsequent US administrations will have a decisive impact on the evolution of the balance of power and the regional constellation in the decades to come. There is therefore concern that a transactional second Trump adminis­tration could undermine protracted joint efforts to maintain order, laying the ground­work for eventual Chinese dominance in this strategically important region. A changing military balance of power Regional and global economic, political, and technological developments are shift­ing the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region in very different ways than in Europe. After all, the starting position is completely different: Russia’s economy is only one-tenth the size of the EU’s, and Europe lacks political resolve and operational military capabilities rather than resources per se. The critical questions are whether the United States would defend Europe in a geographically limited crisis, whether the Western European nations would go to war for their Eastern European allies, and whether the current forces are adequate to deter or repel Russian aggression. In contrast, China’s economy is almost two and a half times larger than the com­bined economies of Australia, Japan, and South Korea – a difference that roughly mirrors the disparity in military spending. While Europeans have consciously delegated their security to Washington, US allies in the Western Pacific have limited options for developing their own conventional capa­bilities to counterbalance China. Hence, the US allies are primarily concerned with China’s determination to re­shape regional dynamics. Under Xi Jinping, Beijing has pursued a more confrontational foreign policy designed to advance China’s regional interests and diminish, if not eliminate, US influence across the Pacific. China has proved willing to underpin its combative diplomacy through both costly economic measures and the rapid modernisation of its armed forces. It is still assumed that the US will continue to play the lead­ing military role for the time being, as Washington retains superiority in conventional and nuclear capabilities as well as in many other areas. However, China is rapidly catching up and asserting its regional claims, making it increasingly difficult for the United States to effectively project power so far from its own shores. This is why allies fear that China could dominate the Asia-Pacific region in future. Against this backdrop, many see Taiwan’s future as the harbinger of the region’s pos­sible development. If Beijing were to con­trol this central component of the first island chain, it would gain both military and political leverage over the East and South China Seas – both of which are stra­tegically important. To signal its resolve, Beijing frequently conducts demonstrations of military power such as in the airspace separating the mainland from Taiwan. The trans-Pacific allies suspect that China could (soon) leverage both conventional and nuclear capabilities to present them with a fait accompli, thus gaining control over Taipei before the US could intervene. This would also damage Washington’s credibility as the guardian of regional order. Whether Beijing would indeed wage war against the United States over Taiwan, or whether it merely seeks to alter the military balance of power by exposing Washington, Taipei, and regional US allies to unacceptable escala­tion risks remains unclear – but the very fact that China keeps its intentions ambigu­ous raises worst-case fears. Nuclear threats In recent years, Beijing has been engaged in a major expansion of its nuclear arsenal. According to US forecasts, China could double the number of its nuclear warheads from the current estimate of 500 nuclear warheads by 2030. While Russia and the United States would still dwarf China’s nuclear forces numerically, Beijing appears to be aiming for the same qualitative league of strategic nuclear weapons systems as possessed by Washington and Moscow. The exact motives behind China’s nuclear build-up remain controversial. Yet the types of weapons and the pace of their development suggest that Beijing would at least like to weaken Washington’s escalation dominance in a crisis. Such developments could theo­retically strengthen the mutual nuclear deterrent between China and the US. On the one hand, it could reduce the risk of a global war. On the other hand, for Washing­ton’s Pacific allies this means that their protective power could no longer credibly threaten nuclear escalation and effectively deter Beijing. As a result, they would be outgunned in a conventional war with China. North Korea’s foreign policy, coupled with its nuclear build-up is a further cause for concern. According to estimates, Pyong­yang could currently have 90 nuclear war­heads at most at its disposal. However, it has significantly diversified its delivery systems. North Korea emphasizes a nuclear doctrine with which it could drive a wedge between the Pacific allies by threatening South Korea with tactical nuclear strikes and the US with strategic nuclear strikes. In addition, Washington and its allies perceive North Korea’s threshold for using nuclear weapons to be very low, as they assume that Pyongyang is also trying to deter con­ventional attacks in this way. Finally, the policy changes Moscow has implemented are intensifying regional con­cerns with respect to the future behaviour of China and North Korea. Russia maintains important military facilities in North-East Asia, militarises the Kuril Islands, and con­ducts strategic air and naval patrols with China across the Western Pacific. Moscow’s focus, however, is clearly on Europe. Never­theless, Australia, Japan, and South Korea fear the concrete consequences of Russia’s cooperation with Beijing and Pyongyang. It is clear that this cooperation fuels Moscow’s war in Ukraine. In the worst-case scenario, closer military cooperation could result in more coordination and opportunistic be­haviour to exploit each other’s conflicts or challenge the US and its allies with addi­tional crises. What is more likely, however, is not a trilateral front, but a triangular dy­namic that remains susceptible to mistrust, power calculations, and priority setting by the respective rulers – and which can none­theless boost existing challenges to regional security and non-proliferation. Moreover, the outcome of Moscow’s on­going war of aggression in Ukraine could set risky precedents for revisionist agendas in East Asia. At this point, China and North Korea could learn from Russia’s nuclear rhetoric how allies can be unsettled and deterred from going “too far” in supporting Ukraine. Converging interests and (radical) alternatives The challenges in the Asia-Pacific region could have a more serious impact on the regional and global order than the conflicts in Europe. They are therefore already influ­encing the balance of interests and thus the room for manoeuvre of the actors involved. First, there is a bipartisan consensus in Washington that American influence in the Pacific must be preserved. Most see the larger Indo-Pacific as the strategic centre of gravity, perceive US influence in the region as key to sustaining America’s preeminent position in international relations, and conclude that containing China is a must. Thus, even in a highly partisan political environment, the status of Taiwan and its treaty alliances with Australia, Japan, and South Korea remain essentially of unques­tioned importance to the United States. Second, Washington needs its allies in the Western Pacific. As the military gap with China narrows, the US military must rely on the critical bases, logistical support, and complementary capabilities of regional allies. Consequently, Australia, Japan and South Korea host significant US military forces, facilitating rapid deployment and sustained operations in the region. The US is not only seeking to strengthen bilateral security cooperation and can also work with Australia and Japan as indispensable partners for regional formats – such as the Quad that includes India – to pool resources to contain Beijing’s ambitions. Conversely, given China’s considerable economic power, any attempt to constrain its technological or financial capabilities requires wide-ranging cooperation. It is thus unsurprising that the Biden adminis­tration has actively sought to garner sup­port across the Indo-Pacific region to foster economic partnerships, supply chain resili­ence, technology transfers and research collaborations. Third, allies in the Western Pacific are prepared to contribute to more effective military action. Many European govern­ments, on the other hand, take US security measures for granted and are reluctant to divert funds from social and other purposes to their armed forces. Australia, Japan, and South Korea each have extensive trade rela­tions with China, having tied their prosper­ity to Beijing. To ensure that this beneficial balance can be maintained, Canberra, Tokyo, and Seoul have reliably invested in allied deterrence and defence. Australia and South Korea have done and continue to do so, even under governments that are more sceptical about relations with Washington. Fourth, although US allies in the Western Pacific greatly benefit from the current strategic arrangements, they have alter­native (even if not attractive) options avail­able – and Washington is acutely aware of this reality. On the one hand, policymakers in Washington suspect that if mistrust of US commitment were to reach an intoler­able level, its Pacific allies might decide to bandwagon with China. As Australia has no territorial dispute with Beijing, and Japan and South Korea have only one limited territorial dispute respectively with China, their concerns are more economic and po­liti­cal in nature. A different regional archi­tecture, though significantly less attractive, would not directly threaten their funda­mental interests and, therefore, would probably be tolerable. On the other hand, Japan and South Korea have the technical capabilities and sufficiently limited regional institutional ties – in Seoul also significant domestic political support – to constrain China’s coercive capabilities by acquiring their own nuclear weapons. In the absence of US reassurance, they could combine the two alternatives and side with Beijing from behind their own nuclear shield. Given these four fundamentals, there is relative confidence in Canberra, Tokyo, and Seoul that the US will continue with its secu­rity architecture in – and therefore with its extended nuclear deterrent for – the Western Pacific, whether or not Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. Moreover, both Trump and his supporters have repeatedly struck a confrontational tone toward China, emphasising their wil­lingness to increase US power projection through military means. Counter-balancing by the United States and its allies Amid a shifting politico-military landscape and aligned US and allied interests in pre­serving the status quo, a concerted effort to counterbalance China’s military expansion is evident. These efforts are extremely ex­pensive. The sunk costs of this effort strongly suggest to all concerned that, regardless of who occupies the White House, the major strategic question facing the future admin­is­tration will likely be how to effectively con­tain China while both maintaining stra­tegic deterrence against Russia and avoiding the escalation of potential crises. For now, the United States seems to pursue a four-pronged strategy that involves developing additional nuclear capabilities, building up conventional options, enhancing allies’ capabilities, and expanding security co­operation. First, planners and pundits in Washington are assessing how to make better use of US nuclear options. While a major nuclear modernisation effort is underway, a grow­ing number of experts and politicians have concluded that the US arsenal needs to be expanded. In addition, the legislative branch has been pushing the Pentagon to pursue additional nuclear options, such as a nuclear-armed cruise missile (SLCM-N). The Trump administration already called for this in 2018 and would likely continue to pursue it, if it returns to power. More­over, some in the hawkish Republican camp are even calling for the first use of such low-yield nuclear weapons to be con­sidered in order to offset China’s operational advantages and prevent an invasion of Taiwan – but it is unclear how much weight such voices could carry in a second Trump term. Second, and more importantly, the US government is building up its conventional capabilities. Although many Democrats criticised the Trump administration’s 2019 decision to abandon the legal prohibition on deploying intermediate-range missiles, the Biden administration has pursued this same course. As a result, US armed forces will soon be deploying such missile systems to their European and Pacific bases; a planned relocation to the US base in Wies­baden was recently announced. For Asia, it has already been announced that the Dark Eagle hypersonic system will be fielded on Guam. In order to equalise the conventional balance of power with China, however, the various other US medium-range systems would have to be stationed on allies’ terri­tory. Given the high probability that Beijing would respond with harsh economic retalia­tion, it remains unclear whether – or under what conditions – Canberra, Tokyo, or Seoul would agree to such deployments. Third, the US government has been work­ing with its allies in the region to im­prove their own military capabilities. First, Australia, Japan, and South Korea continue to develop their national capabilities, par­ticularly where long-range strike capabilities and strategic naval assets are concerned. Sec­ond, the US government seeks to strengthen its allies’ early warning and missile defence capabilities. It is especially relevant that Washington appears to have shifted its posi­tion to weigh deterrence challenges more heavily than proliferation concerns. Indicative of this is the unprecedented technology transfer involved in providing Australia with stealthy nuclear-powered submarines. This transfer requires an un­paralleled level of verification to make it transparent that Canberra does not divert some of the highly enriched uranium needed for submarine propulsion to build its own nuclear weapons. Another example is the US decision from 2021 to lift all restrictions that had long been placed on South Korea’s missile development programs. Equally important is the widespread sale of Toma­hawk cruise missiles in recent years, includ­ing to Australia and Japan. Finally, while bilateral alliances with Washington continue to be characterised by patron-client relationships, Washington appears committed to empowering regional powers not only by helping enhance their capabilities, but also by expanding security cooperation and allies’ roles therein. For instance, the Biden administration wants Japanese shipyards to regularly overhaul US warships, which allows for their constant presence in East Asia. It also upgraded bi­lateral consultations which carve out a South Korean role in US nuclear operations. Further, it is pursuing technology transfers in advanced military capabilities that will buttress Australia’s strategic reach. Although these alliance initiatives bear the hall­marks of the Biden administration, they fit the “burden-sharing while preserving influ­ence” mantra. This tactic characterised Trump’s term in office and is currently aspired to by broad segments of the Repub­lican Party. Thus, while officials and experts in Australia, Japan, and South Korea expect communication and coordination mishaps, procedural quibbles, funding challenges, and implementation delays, these individ­uals strongly believe that bipartisan US sup­port for these measures will remain strong. Nevertheless, concerns abound Although some of Trump’s domestic sup­porters would welcome any reduction in US commitments abroad, a second adminis­tration would have to face the reality that abandoning extended nuclear deterrence remains fundamentally at odds with its primary goals. Abandoned by their long-time protector and facing massive threats, former allies would likely seek to appease China, and could acquire nuclear arsenals independently. Such developments would run counter to the interests of any US ad­ministration, including a Trump White House. Fears of nuclear abandonment are therefore not the dominant concern, leav­ing plenty of room for allies’ other worries. The Pacific allies invest relatively heavily in national and joint deterrence, and defence. But they are also worried about Trump’s penchant for pressuring allies to make con­cessions. Most in Seoul, for example, expect at least a repeat of the tough cost-sharing negotiations of the first term. Trump and his supporters have been vocal about demand­ing increased financial contributions from Seoul for the US troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula, frequently coupled with threats to withdraw some or all of those forces, references to the trade imbalance, and downplaying the threats posed by North Korea. Congressional support ensures the presence of US soldiers, but the White House has considerable leeway in determin­ing the size and mandate of these deployments – and many expect Trump to use security commitments to extract economic concessions from allies. Conversely, some in Canberra and Tokyo worry that a Trump administration would seek to renegotiate various military procurement agreements to shore up US financial gains – but few believe that existing agreements would be revoked in the course of such disputes. Another fear in Australia, Japan, and South Korea is that a second Trump admin­istration will reduce or abandon the Biden White House’s various regional security cooperation initiatives and want all rela­tions to again go through Washington first. On the one hand, Trump and his advisers may be pleased with the burden-sharing benefits associated with these new forms of cooperation and continue to pursue them. On the other hand, a GOP-led administration might seek a return to the traditional centralising “hub-and-spokes” system in order to exert more control over allies. The allies therefore fear that without US leader­ship, these intergovernmental initiatives are likely to stagnate, and competition among protégés for the attention of the common patron will be reignited. This might apply particularly to the very practical, but politi­cally sensitive, trilateral partnership be­tween Japan, South Korea and the United States. Less pronounced than the aforemen­tioned fears are concerns about Trump’s “deal-making” tendencies, such as being abandoned in a costly crisis or entangled in a regional conflict. Ambiguity surrounding Trump’s policies vis-à-vis China, North Korea and Russia reflect general uncertainties about future developments in Europe and East Asia as well as Trump-specific inconsistencies. With regard to China, most expect confrontational security and eco­nomic policies, while a few fear that Trump will seek a grand bargain with Xi. Trump has kept his stance on the status of Taiwan ambiguous: he could either reject all sup­port for Taiwan or, if faced with Chinese intransigence, decide to explicitly commit to defending Taipei. While the former would expose US allies to potential Chinese coercion, the latter could lead to an open military conflict with Beijing – and many allies do not trust Trump’s resolve in such a crisis. Regarding North Korea, most hope that Trump’s failed summitry with Kim Jong Un served as a sufficient lesson. How­ever, some worry he may seek to prove that personal relationships facilitate agreements that would otherwise be difficult to achieve. For example, he could again try to persuade Kim Jong Un to stop his nuclear build-up by offering economic incentives (thus effec­tively breaking sanctions). As a quid pro quo for Seoul, Trump could go so far as to quietly accept South Korean nuclear pro­liferation. Finally, concerning Russia, many fear that Trump might propose a deal to Putin to freeze the conflict in Ukraine, an approach from which Xi could draw con­clusions for revisionism in East Asia. Implications for Europe As Trump is prone to miscalculations and erratic behaviour, caution is required when trying to predict his future policy after re-election. Nevertheless, it is important to understand why Australia, Japan, and South Korea are less concerned about US nuclear assurances. Three conclusions can be drawn from this analysis for Europe. First, even if Trump is re-elected, fundamental changes in Washington’s relations with its Pacific allies are unlikely – which is good news for Europe. For one thing, European economic success depends on the absence of open conflict between China and the US. For another, stable relations in the Asia-Pacific are indirectly a boon to NATO, since US security provision in Europe is heavily dependent upon the success of its more important commitments across the Pacific. Nevertheless, considerable uncertainties remain due to structural challenges as well as Trump’s political agenda and per­sonal idiosyncrasies. However, the pressure from Washington on Europe to adapt its China policy is likely to increase under a second Trump administration, especially as it is likely to be almost exclusively com­posed of China hardliners (China hawks). Second, in the face of these risks, Europeans should recognise that Washington and the Pacific allies will expect economic-political rather than military contributions from Europe. It would therefore be advan­tageous if European governments could use their weight within the global economic system to support the US in containing China’s military expansion. If Europe now helps to influence Beijing’s technological and financial capabilities, it could imply European willingness to impose sanctions on China in the event of war. This would also send a strong signal against revisionism in East Asia. Given Trump’s unpredictability, steps that seem costly today may prove worthwhile in retrospect if regional stability in Asia is severely damaged. Last but not least, one valuable lesson can be gleaned from understanding why US allies in Asia hold more optimistic expec­tations about a potential second Trump administration. Ultimately, the source of their optimism lies in Washington’s depend­ence on its allies and their readiness to take on greater responsibility. Arguably, this particular equation is primarily a result of exogenous factors – such as the region’s strategic importance und China’s ambitions. But it should also now be clear to Europe’s decision-makers, experts and public that the more they invest in their own capabil­ities to influence regional security policy, the less they will have to worry about Washington’s vacillations. Dr Liviu Horovitz and Elisabeth Suh are researchers in the International Security Research Division. This paper is published as part of the Strategic Threat Analysis and Nuclear (Dis-)Order (STAND) project.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском The pursuit of critical minerals does not come at the expense of the environment; a global moratorium on deep-sea mining should be the natural course of action The world is looking at a potential geopolitical and environmental point of conflict, which will affect every country in more ways than one. This dispute stems from a search for critical minerals in the deep sea. Critical minerals are considered the building blocks of contemporary technology. To say that they are crucial to the economic and national security of every country would be an understatement. Due to the inherited complexities of mining and attaining critical minerals from challenging geographies, the hunt for them has intensified. Beyond land, many countries are now looking at space as an alternative. Finding and commercially harnessing minerals from celestial bodies like the Moon and asteroids, however, is still a challenge. Therefore, the search for critical minerals in the deep sea has now entered a new phase of competition, where countries are no longer waiting but are actively engaged in the process of deep-sea mining. In this race, while some countries such as China, India, and South Korea (see Table 1) are preparing to grab the opportunity and are trying to build capacities and capabilities, others have raised the environmental and ecological impacts of deep-sea mining. Against this background, it is crucial to identify the key players in this race and understand the accompanying international legal nuances. Table 1: Exploration Contracts issued by the International Seabed Authority (ISA)   Source: ISA. What’s the rush? The urgency of the critical mineral problem is exacerbated by two factors: Fast-depleting reserves of critical minerals for human use and their rising demand. Behind this sudden rush are two important reasons: Firstly, the focus on clean and renewable energy, which is crucial in driving the green energy transition, and secondly, the increasing consumption of high-technology products, which depends on the heavy use of critical minerals. As an illustration, consider its application in high-tech items of various sizes, such as smartphones, electric car magnets, and intricate machinery like F35 stealth aircraft. A F35 aircraft, for example, needs 920 pounds of rare earth elements, demonstrating the significance of these minerals for any nation. Although deep-sea mining is not an exclusively Indo-Pacific phenomenon, competition is most felt in this region due to the high stakes involved. The major actors involved in this race are China, India, South Korea, and even non-state actors, such as private companies such as the Metals Company (TMC, a Canada-based company, which have considerable stakes in the space. International Seabed Authority: China and influence politics Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Seabed Authority (ISA) was constituted with the mandate to ‘organise and control all mineral resources-related activities’ and guarantee ‘effective protection of the marine environment’ on the seabed of international waters, which are a global commons. ISA is constituted by the Assembly, Council, and Secretariat. ISA’s key advisory body, the Legal and Technical Commission (LTC), should help the authority frame the rules, regulations and procedures (RRPs) to govern mining activities on the international seabed. While the conversation on setting a legal framework for undersea mining has been in process since 2016, ISA has garnered increasing international attention due to the triggering of the ‘two-year rule’ by the island nation of Nauru back in 2021. As per UNCLOS, if the Council of ISA fails to adopt the relevant RRPs within two years of receiving the application for approval of a plan of work for exploitation, the council will have to consider and approve such plan ‘based on the provisions of the Convention and any rules, regulations and procedures that the Council may have adopted provisionally, or based on the norms contained in the Convention and the terms and principles contained in this Annex as well as the principle of non-discrimination among contractors.’ Since this incident, negotiations have naturally picked up, with China playing the leading role in shaping the deep sea mining code, as it wants to influence and is eager to push forward the negotiations in its infancy phase. In the 2023 ISA Council’s July meeting, China blocked the motion introduced by France, Chile, and Costa Rica to discuss a moratorium on deep sea mining. The absence of the United States (US) from the ISA elevates Beijing's role to a prominent position. This discussion will likely have severe implications for the future of the high seas, which cover 60 percent of the world’s oceans. At the ISA’s Council meeting in July 2023, China and other states like Nauru, Japan, Australia, India, Norway, and Russia supported deep-sea mining against a group of 20 countries that opposed it due to lack of scientific evidence and are pushing to put a moratorium in place. France was the exception, calling for a total ban on deep-sea mining. Apart from nation states, many international Multinational Corporations (MNCs) like Google, Samsung, BMW, Volvo Group, and Tesla have also joined the call for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. This call includes 804 marine science and policy experts from 44 countries recommending a ‘pause until sufficient and robust scientific information’ is obtained. The call for a moratorium has increased since the discovery of “dark oxygen” on the seafloor. Even the European Union has adopted a resolution to support a moratorium in response to Norway’s decision to initiate deep-sea mining in the Arctic . Stuck in a limbo As commercial deep-sea mining comes closer than ever to being a reality, it is critical to analyse and take stock of the complex interplay of geopolitical, environmental, and legal challenges that will define the future of international relations and environmental stewardship. As nations such as China, Norway, South Korea, and even India accelerate their efforts to exploit these untapped resources, the world faces a crucial decision: To prioritise immediate economic and technological gains or the fragile ecosystems of the deep ocean. China's geopolitical and strategic goals and its growing influence on international organisations, including the ISA, must be kept in mind while taking a call when the stakes are undeniably high, not just for the Indo-Pacific but for the entire planet. The moratorium is also being proposed as per the established precautionary approach. This approach is a broad legal and philosophical principle that suggests a pause and reassessment in case of a human innovation/activity that could potentially result in harm given the lack of scientific knowledge. In light of the pressing concerns raised by scientists, environmentalists, and several nations, a global moratorium on deep-sea mining should be the natural course of action. While some have argued that such a precautionary pause would not be in accordance with UNCLOS, including the current Secretary General of ISA, it would be an obligation under the constitution of the oceans. In an advisory opinion, the International Tribunal on Law of Sea (ITLOS) has confirmed a trend of precautionary approach becoming a part of customary international law and stated that it is a ‘binding obligation’ on both states and the ISA. This approach is enshrined in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration. An example of such a moratorium under international law is the International Whaling Convention, which was adopted based on the precautionary approach and has been largely followed for the past 35 years. As the global community navigates this uncharted territory, it must ensure that the pursuit of critical minerals does not come at the expense of the environment that sustains us all. The choices made today will have far-reaching consequences, shaping the geopolitical landscape and determining whether the international community can unite in the face of shared challenges or whether the race for resources will lead to further fragmentation and conflict.