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 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 In recent years, Malaysia has emerged as a strategic economic hub in Southeast Asia. In recent years, Malaysia has become a key node in the global production chains of electronic components, especially in the semiconductor sector. The nation can also rely on abundant natural resources, such as oil and natural gas, of which it is an important exporter. Along with other Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and Indonesia, Malaysia presents itself as an attractive destination for foreign investors looking to relocate their manufacturing plants. The trend towards de-risking, in the context of the geoeconomic competition between China and the United States, sees multinationals and governments committed to diversifying their supply chains and strengthening domestic production to minimize dependence on Beijing. Malaysia is a dynamic and complex country. Its society is composed of numerous ethnic groups whose diversity sometimes makes it more difficult for the government to satisfy their different interests. This social complexity is also reflected in the intricate state system, which combines a monarchical aspect with a federal system, where citizens elect their representatives at both the state and federal levels. Despite the multiparty system, for over six decades, Malaysia was governed by a single party, the United Malays National Organization (Umno), which dominated the political landscape [1]. However, this continuity was interrupted in 2018, with four different governments taking turns in power due to corruption scandals and internal political struggles: an unprecedented upheaval in Malaysian history, which from independence in 1957 until then had only seen six prime ministers. The establishment of a new administration in November 2022, under the leadership of Anwar Ibrahim, has not brought the hoped-for stability, and tensions remain in the country, risking the exacerbation of internal divisions and undermining the confidence not only of citizens but also of foreign investors. The Malaysian political system between complexity and unusual instability Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy, where power is distributed among the monarchy, the federal government led by the prime minister, and the central bicameral parliament, as well as the state governing bodies. The political landscape of the country is characterized by strong multiparty politics, meaning that coalitions rather than a single majority party tend to govern, leading in recent times to the formation of fragile alliances and frequent shifts in alignments among parliamentary groups. Malaysia is composed of thirteen states, nine of which are kingdoms led by a sovereign (or sultan), and three federal territories. Each state has its own constitution, an executive council, and a legislative assembly elected by the citizens. The nine sultans, gathered in the Conference of Rulers, every five years appoint the head of state of Malaysia, or Yang di-Pertuan Agong [2]. The core of the country's democratic life is the central Parliament, composed of 70 members of the Senate (26 members elected by the state assemblies and 44 appointed by the head of state, also on the advice of the prime minister) and 222 members of the House of Representatives (elected every five years during the general elections) [3]. Another element of complexity in the country's structure is the dual legal system: a state system, which has jurisdiction over the entire population, and a Sharia-based system for the Muslim community. In fact, Islam is the state religion, and the majority ethnic group of Malays (also known by the English term ‘Malays’) is constitutionally Muslim; therefore, about two-thirds of the population are subject to Sharia. The Islamic authority has jurisdiction over the Muslim population on religious issues, matters of morality, and family affairs [4]. Despite the complexity of its political system, Malaysia, as mentioned, had a stable government from 1957 to 2018 under the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition, composed of parties representing ethnic groups and conservatives such as Umno, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC). However, in 2018, the BN was defeated by the multi-ethnic opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan (PH), which brings together more progressive and liberal parties [5]. The downfall of the BN government was partly due to an internationally resonant corruption and financial fraud scandal related to the sovereign wealth fund 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), involving key figures of the ruling coalition, including then Prime Minister Najib Razak [6]. After Pakatan Harapan's victory in 2018, Mahathir Mohamad, who had previously served as Prime Minister with Umno from 1981 to 2003, returned to office. However, internal conflicts and changes in parliamentary alliances within PH led Mahathir to resign [7]. He was succeeded by Muhyiddin Yassin, one of the parliamentarians who had defected from the PH, leading the newly formed coalition Perikatan Nasional (PN). However, Muhyiddin also lost the majority after 17 months, handing over the reins to seasoned politician Ismail Sabri Yaakob of Umno in August 2021 [8]. Ismail Sabri, leading a government with a fragile majority, was compelled to call for early elections driven internally by his party's push and with the aim of securing a stronger mandate [9]. The succession of these governments through internal political maneuvers in parliament has further eroded public trust in the political class, already damaged by corruption scandals. Moreover, the timing of the political system crisis did not favor government officials, who also had to simultaneously manage the pandemic period and the disastrous economic and social consequences that ensued. In this climate of dissatisfaction and growing political polarization, the 2022 elections resulted in Malaysia's first ‘hung parliament’, where no party managed to secure enough seats to govern outright. The Pakatan Harapan, Anwar's coalition, secured 82 seats out of 222, surpassing the PN – which includes the nationalist Malaysian United Indigenous Party (PPBM) and the conservative Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) – which garnered 74 seats [10]. Meanwhile, the BN managed only 30 seats, demonstrating Umno's struggle to rebuild its image after corruption scandals [11]. The Islamic-inspired PAS, however, won the most seats as a single party, with 41. After lengthy negotiations, the head of state tasked PH with forming a unity government, with cooperation from Umno. Anwar, a key opposition figure for decades, succeeded in obtaining the position of prime minister [12]. Since November 2022, Anwar has been leading the country, but political uncertainties have not ceased with the establishment of his government. Anwar is not seen as a leader capable of forcefully imposing his political line, due to the breadth of his coalition which relies on coexistence and compromise among different political factions within the majority, threatening the government's stability. The need to find broad consensus within his coalition has so far prevented Anwar from implementing significant reforms in the country, especially those that could affect the protections guaranteed to the Malay majority. Umno, with which he governs, despite losing some support from the Malaysian electorate in the recent elections, has historically represented the interests of this segment of the population and does not seem inclined to support Anwar's more liberal and inclusive policies [13]. Furthermore, Muhyiddin's PN coalition, and particularly the PAS party, are proving to be formidable opponents for Anwar's unity government, confirming the positive trend of the 2022 elections. This was evident in the recent state elections where PAS reaffirmed its government in three Malaysian states [14]. A more polarized society: socioeconomic tensions intensify. Disillusionment towards traditional political parties has accentuated political, ethnic, and religious fractures in Malaysia, which have long undermined social cohesion and contributed to the persistence of economic inequalities in the country. One of the major challenges for the government is to mitigate economic disparities among ethnicities and promote social harmony in a country where bumiputera or bumiputra (indigenous populations, including the Malay majority, comprising over two-thirds of the total population), Chinese ethnicity (approximately 20%), and Indian ethnicity (around 6%) coexist [15]. Economic differences between indigenous populations and foreign-origin citizens became more pronounced after independence: during this period, the most prosperous economic activities were predominantly controlled by the Chinese community, which was also gaining increasing political prominence. This led to heightened tensions with Malays, culminating in ethnic riots on the streets of Kuala Lumpur in 1969 [16]. To address these disparities, the government has instituted a regime of preferential policies to promote the prosperity and economic empowerment of bumiputera, which have expanded and evolved over the years. For instance, the New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1971 introduced quotas for ethnic representation in public institutions and universities, along with increased support for bumiputera businesses [17]. While these policies have improved the social conditions and historical economic disparities of bumiputera, the regime of ethnic-based affirmative action has also led to economic inefficiencies and social tensions, fostering patronage and clientelism practices by parties seeking political support from the broader Malay population [18]. Another factor of increasing division in the country is the tension between the Muslim majority and religious minorities (Buddhist, Christian, Hindu) [19]. For instance, the strict implementation of Sharia law has often clashed with civil laws, creating tensions among different religious communities. In recent years, there has also been a rise in religious conservatism at the social level, manifested in the strong electoral performance of PAS, a party that advocates for Malay interests and promotes further Islamization of society, absorbing much of Umno's electorate [20]. To counter this phenomenon of Islamic conservatism, known as the "green wave" [21], Anwar's PH politicians leverage the fear that a more Islamized society may erode civil liberties, resonating particularly among more liberal or non-Malay segments of the population. Conversely, the PN seeks support by accusing Anwar and PH of aiming to limit rights and the preferential system that protects Malays [22]. As a consequence of these socio-economic tensions, Malaysian politics has become increasingly fragmented and polarized, with voting reflecting a radicalization of ethnic and religious identities. Balancing the promotion of socio-economic equity among the country's diverse ethnic groups on one hand and building a more competitive and inclusive social fabric on the other, remains a crucial challenge for Malaysia. The country continues to seek policies that effectively address the needs of all citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion. Challenges to Malaysia’s economic development While Malaysia's political and social situation remains uncertain, the country's economic prospects appear more promising, albeit with some challenges. Thanks to targeted industrial development policies and facilitation of foreign investment, the country has transitioned in a few decades from an agriculture-based economy to an industrialized economy. Particularly, the services sector drives the country's economic growth, accounting for approximately 50% of Malaysia's GDP in 2022, followed by the manufacturing sector at about 23% [23]. The mining sector is also pivotal to the country's economy, alongside the extraction of oil and natural gas. Malaysia is rich in commodities such as tin, bauxite, and copper, which help diversify the Malaysian economy. However, oil and natural gas remain among the most valuable natural resources for Kuala Lumpur, enabling Malaysia to be nearly self-sufficient in energy production. Petronas (Petroliam Nasional Berhad), Malaysia's national oil company, is one of the largest players globally in the energy and oil sectors. As a state-owned entity, Petronas significantly contributes to Malaysia's fiscal revenues, in addition to providing employment and training to the population [24]. In this regard, given the centrality of gas and oil in the country's energy mix, one of the challenges Malaysia will face in the coming decades is transitioning towards renewable energy sources [25]. To advance the country's development, the government is outlining measures to transform Malaysia into a leading production hub, while also fostering growth in the domestic industrial ecosystem. This direction is reflected in the New Industrial Master Plan (NIMP) 2030 introduced in September 2023, which aims to boost the nation's manufacturing sector, targeting an annual GDP growth of 6.5% in this sector. Specifically, Kuala Lumpur is focusing on technology with a specific emphasis on the semiconductor sector. As early as the 1970s, Malaysia was an important hub for semiconductor production, but in the subsequent decades, other players such as Samsung from Korea and TSMC from Taiwan took over the sector. However, the recent geopolitical competition between China and the United States has once again made Malaysia an attractive destination for microchip multinationals, with significant investments revitalizing the sector in the country. Currently, Malaysia holds a significant position in the final stages of microchip production — namely ‘packaging’, assembly, and ‘testing’ — with a 13% share of the global market. Recently, several leading companies in the industry have announced new investments in the country [26]. For instance, Intel has announced $7 billion investments in facilities for microchip packaging and testing, while the U.S. giant Nvidia is planning to invest over $4 billion in collaboration with Malaysian company YTL Power International to create infrastructure for artificial intelligence and ‘supercomputing’ [27]. Additionally, the government has announced the ambitious construction of one of the largest ‘integrated circuit design parks’ in Southeast Asia, aiming to transform the country from a critical hub in the final stages of the value chain to a powerhouse in semiconductor design as well [28]. However, competition with other Asian countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia, requires Malaysia to continue investing to attract capital and strengthen the national industrial ecosystem. To this end, on May 28, 2024, Anwar announced the National Semiconductor Strategy, which plans to mobilize approximately $5.3 billion in fiscal support over the next ten years to drive sector growth. Kuala Lumpur aims to mobilize domestic and foreign investments totaling over $100 billion under the new strategy. The government also aims to train more than 60,000 highly skilled engineers to help the country become a leader in the semiconductor supply chain [29]. However, there are additional critical factors for the development of Malaysia's economy, such as its dependence on exports and the presence of multinational corporations and foreign capital, which make the economy vulnerable to external factors. Global demand and fluctuations in international markets can significantly influence Malaysia's economy, as evidenced by the slowdown in GDP growth from 8.7% in 2022 to 3.7% in 2023, primarily due to weaker external demand and a decline in commodity prices. Exports, crucial for the country's economy, declined by 7.8% in 2023, with contractions also seen in Malaysia's key export sectors such as palm oil, petroleum, and electrical and electronic products. The reduced demand for Malaysian products is also attributed to economic uncertainties in major trading partners such as the United States and China – the former dealing with uncertain monetary policy and the latter seeking new stimuli for economic growth while addressing the real estate sector crisis [30]. Malaysia must also be cautious not to overly rely on the presence of foreign companies to drive its economic development. So far, Malaysia, along with other Southeast Asian neighbors like Vietnam and Indonesia, has been among the beneficiaries in the geo-economic competition between China and the United States. Many multinational corporations, especially in the tech sector, have set up manufacturing facilities or initiated partnerships in Malaysia. However, the resurgence of current conflicts and geopolitical tensions could lead to fragmentations along value chains and further relocations. In an increasingly polarized international system, excessively relying on economic development from the presence of foreign firms could become a risky choice. Despite these challenges, the Malaysian economy has benefited from foreign investments and domestic consumption, supported by government subsidies and price controls to contain inflation [31]. Economic growth for 2024 is projected at 4.5%, driven by increasing domestic demand and higher export demand [32].   Conclusion In recent years, Malaysia has emerged as a strategic economic center in Southeast Asia: the country has attracted investors due to its expanding manufacturing sector and has shown remarkable adaptability, becoming a key player in global production chains-especially in the semiconductor sector. To minimize uncertainties related to current global geoeconomic tensions, the country should continue to focus on a more robust and self-sustaining domestic industrial ecosystem. In addition, recent political instability, characterized by frequent changes of government and growing ethnic and religious tensions, is likely to undermine the confidence of investors and the population.  In sum, Malaysia's success will also depend on its ability to balance economic growth with social cohesion, while addressing challenges arising from economic disparities, ethnic tensions, and economic dependence on foreign markets. The performance of inbound foreign direct investment (Ide) in Malaysia.   [1] M.M.N. Nadzri, “The 14th General Election, the Fall of Barisan Nasional, and Political Development in Malaysia, 1957-2018”, Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, vol. 37, n. 3, dicembre 2018, pp. 139-71. [2] ”List of The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong”, The Government of Malaysia’s Official Portal. [3] “Introduction”, Portal Rasmi Parlimen Malaysia – Pengenalan, 10 dicembre 2019. [4] Malaysia 1957 (Rev. 2007) Constitution, Constitute. [5] R.C. Paddock, “Malaysia Opposition, Led by 92-Year-Old, Wins Upset Victory”, The New York Times, 9 maggio 2018; “MalaysiaGE: full results”, The Straits Times, maggio 2018. [6] “Explainer: Malaysia’s ex-PRIMO MINISTRO Najib and the Multi-billion Dollar 1MDB Scandal”, Reuters, 23 agosto 2023; “Goldman Sachs and the 1MDB Scandal”, The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 14 maggio 2019; S. Adam, L. Arnold e Y. Ho, “The Story of Malaysia’s 1MDB, the Scandal That Shook the World of Finance”, Bloomberg, 24 maggio 2018. [7] S. Lemière, “The Never-ending Political Game of Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad”, Brookings, 30 ottobre 2020 [8] “The Rise and Fall of Malaysia’s Muhyiddin Yassin”, Reuters, 16 agosto 2021; Y.N. Lee, “Malaysia’s New Prime Minister Has Been Sworn in – but Some Say the Political Crisis Is ‘far From Over’”, CNBC, 3 marzo 2020. [9] A. Ananthalakshmi, R. Latiff e M.M. Chu, “Malaysian PM calls for early polls as ruling party seeks to rise above graft cases”, Reuters, 10 ottobre 2022. [10] A. Ananthalakshmi, R. Latiff e M.M. Chu, “Malaysia Faces Hung Parliament in Tight Election Race”, Reuters, 19 novembre 2022. [11] K. Ganapathy, “‘End of an Era’ for Malaysia’s Barisan Nasional, After Corruption Issues Hurt Candidates at GE15: Analysts”, Channel News Asia, 21 novembre 2022. [12] “Anwar Ibrahim: The Man Who Fulfilled His Goal to Lead Malaysia”, BBC News, 24 novembre 2022. [13] F. Hutchinson, “Malaysian Unity Government’s Power Was Retained but Constrained in 2023”, East Asia Forum, 28 gennaio 2024. [14] R.S. Bedi, “Analysis: Strong State Poll Performance by Perikatan Nasional Boosts Stock for Some PAS Leaders, but Obstacles Lie Ahead”, Channel News Asia, 16 agosto 2023. [15] Bumiputera Statistics 2022, Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Portal. [16] “Malaysia: Majority Supremacy and Ethnic Tensions”, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, 1 agosto 2012; N. Bowie, “Fifty Years on, Fateful Race Riots Still Haunt Malaysia”, Asia Times, 29 maggio 2019; “Ethic Tensions Boil Over in Malaysia’s 13 May 1969 Incident”, Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. [17] K.S. Jomo, Malaysia’s New Economic Policy and ‘National Unity’, Londra, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 182-214; H. Lee. “Malaysia’s New Economic Policy: Fifty Years of Polarization and Impasse”, Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 11, n. 2, Agosto 2022; M.A. Khalid e L. Yang, “Income Inequality Among Different Ethnic Groups: The Case of Malaysia”, LSE Business Review, 11 settembre 2019; “2021/36 ‘Malaysia’s New Economic Policy and the 30% Bumiputera Equity Target: Time for a Revisit and a Reset’ by Lee Hwok Aun”,ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, 25 marzo 2021. [18] H.A. Lee. “Perpetual Policy and Its Limited Future as Reforms Stall”, New Mandala, 17 aprile 2018. [19] M. Mohamad e I. Suffian “Malaysia’s 15th General Election: Ethnicity Remains the Key Factor in Voter Preferences”, FULCRUM, 4 aprile 2023. [20] “Buddhism, Islam and Religious Pluralism in South and Southeast Asia”, Pew Research Center, 12 settembre 2023. [21] K. Ostwald e S. Oliver, “Continuity and Change: The Limits of Malaysia’s Green Wave From a Four Arenas Perspective”, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, 27 ottobre 2023; O.K. Ming. “Debunking the Myths of Malaysia’s ‘Green Wave’ in GE15”, Channel News Asia, 28 giugno 2023. [22] D.A. Paulo, “Malaysia’s ‘Green Wave’: A Threat to the Country’s Politics and Religious Restraint?”, Channel News Asia, 10 giugno 2023. [23] “Manufacturing, value added (% of GDP) – Malaysia”, The World Bank Open Data, “Services, value added (% of GDP) – Malaysia”, The World Bank Open Data. [24] “Petronas’ Role in the Larger Economy”, The Malaysian Reserve, 30 agosto 2019; “Petronas Payout to Malaysia Govt Seen Higher at 55-59 Bln Rgt This Year”, Reuters, 22 luglio 2022. [25] G. Musaeva, “Greening Pains: Can Petronas Make the Leap to Renewables?”, The Diplomat, 15 settembre 2022. [26] T. Cheng e L. Li, “Malaysia Aims for Chip Comeback as Intel, Infineon and More Pile In”, Nikkei Asia, 28 settembre 2023. [27] R. Latiff e F. Potkin, “Nvidia to Partner Malaysia’s YTL Power in $4.3 bln AI Development Project”, Reuters, 8 dicembre 2023. [28] “Malaysia Plans Southeast Asia’s Largest Integrated Circuit Design Park”, Reuters, 22 aprile 2024. [29] N. Goh, “Malaysia to train 60,000 engineers in bid to become chip hub”, Nikkei Asia, 28 maggio 2024; D. Azhar, “Malaysia targets over $100 bln in semiconductor industry investment”, Reuters, 28 maggio 2024. [30] Asian Development Outlook April 2024: Malaysia”, Asian Development Bank, aprile 2024, pp. 218-24. [31] Ibid. [32] Ibid.

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 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 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 Australia and Indonesia have long had an uneasy relationship, over issues ranging from Timor-Leste’s independence to asylum seekers and bans on live cattle export to the aftermath of the Bali bombings. While the politics have long been challenging, there’s reason to believe a change may be coming. One of the fastest-growing economies in the world, Indonesia has long been powered by coal. Now, it’s endeavouring to go green through renewables, grid modernisation, electric vehicles and geothermal. That’s where Australia comes in. In March this year, the two nations formalised a climate partnership, named KINETIK. Through the agreement, Indonesia will secure supplies of lithium for EV batteries, and Australia will gain more export markets for its critical minerals, as well as potential access to the batteries’ industry supply chain. Why has the relationship been rocky? Since winning independence from the Dutch, Indonesia has focused heavily on keeping its many islands and ethnic groups united. But Australia’s role has sometimes been destabilising. During the Cold War, Australian agencies backed the Indonesian army’s bloody purges of communists. Australia also backed the cause of East Timorese secession. In 1998, Australian Prime Minister John Howard wrote to Indonesia’s President, B.J Habibie, pushing for East Timorese independence. A year later, over 5,500 Australian soldiers arrived as peacekeepers during a tense referendum over the region’s future. Many people in Indonesia saw Australia’s involvement as a threat to national unity and cohesion. Before Howard and Indonesia’s next president, Megawati Soekarnoputri, had time to restore the relationship, tensions ramped up again after the 2002 terrorist bombings in Bali which killed 88 Australians. Four years later, the Australian decision to grant temporary protection visas to 43 asylum seekers from Papua, which has long sought independence from Indonesia, led Indonesia’s ambassador to Canberra to be recalled. This diplomatic incident bore positive fruit, resulting in improved dialogue and, the same year, the signing of the Lombok Treaty, in which both countries promised not to interfere with the sovereignty of the other. Since then, Australia has been diplomatically silent on other Indonesian territorial issues, such as the separatist movement in Papua. Despite these efforts, many differences remain. Experts have often warned the relationship is tenuous. In 2019, the two nations signed a new Comprehensive Economic Partnership after a tortuous negotiation period. With a focus on climate change and energy transition, this paved the way for this year’s announcement. In a broader context, this partnership also illustrates Australia’s approach as a middle power nation to counterbalance China’s increasing economic dominance in the Indo-Pacific region. Could the green transition help the relationship? In 2022, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited Indonesia, where he promised A$200 million to kickstart climate and infrastructure projects. Now we have a formalised partnership. This is an important step, which should improve the political relationship. The two nations already trade $18 billion of goods and services yearly, centred on Australian coal and beef and Indonesian fertilisers and petrol. But there is room for much more growth. Indonesia’s population is young and large, with almost 280 million people. By 2030, estimates suggest it could be the world’s fifth-largest economy. If the KINETIK partnership works, it will be because it offers both nations what they need – Australia gets a new export market for green minerals, technology and know-how, and Indonesia starts to shift away from coal. The agreement builds on a memorandum of understanding on electric vehicles and another between Export Finance Australia and Indonesia’s State-owned Electricity Company last year. What are we likely to see as tangible outcomes? Indonesia perches on the Pacific Ring of Fire, with a number of active volcanoes and frequent earthquakes. This also means the archipelago nation has huge geothermal resources, estimated at 40% of the world’s total. Many geothermal plants are already running. But making the most of the resource faces many technological challenges. The best underground heat resources tend to be located in mountains or in isolated areas. The KINETIK partnership could help through connecting Australian mining expertise to Indonesia’s deep heat resources. Australia’s expertise in using renewables to power isolated communities will be vital to make exploration easier. And Australian investors will be allowed to own a majority share of Indonesian geothermal plants. The partnerships are expected to align with Indonesia’s National Energy Policy, which aims in part to shift from exporting raw energy resources and critical minerals to exporting value-added energy products through downstream projects such as EV and battery industries. Australia is home to the world’s largest hard-rock lithium mine, Greenbushes. The new partnership will open up options for Indonesian battery manufacturers to access this key metal. Indonesia, in turn, is rich in nickel, which will be needed in great quantities for green technologies. In fact, cheaper Indonesian nickel has pushed some Australian producers out of the market. Indonesia has already secured commercial deals with EV and battery manufacturers such as Hyundai and LG from South Korea, as well as Foxconn from Taiwan. Will this be enough? Politically, the relationship between Indonesia and Australia has long been thorny. A new focus on mutual advantageous investment could help, especially given the deal has strong political backing on both sides. Developing electric vehicles in Indonesia was also a key campaign issue for the newly elected Indonesian president, Prabowo Subianto. From the Australian side, the agreement bolsters the Albanese government’s push to make the nation a green energy superpower. Of course, many agreements stay on paper and don’t shape the real world. But this one has a better chance, given the alignment between Indonesia’s efforts to make itself part of the electric vehicle supply chain, and Australia’s dream of becoming a green superpower. Bilateral agreements like these also show how the world is changing. More and more, middle power cooperation is emerging as a counterbalance against the intensifying Chinese-American rivalry. It’s also a positive sign Australia has realised the need to more actively build alliances across the Indo-Pacific region.

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 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 MAY 2024.- Speaking about the spectacular growth of China's GDP, someone might argue that GDP is not the only indicator to observe in a country's improvement, and that is true. What explains that a country like China, with a per capita GDP ($25.02 thousand dollars per capita, in purchasing power parity) three times lower than that of the United States ($85.37 thousand dollars per capita, in purchasing power parity) has surpassed the latter in life expectancy of its inhabitants? The answer is none other than the quality of human rights enjoyed by Chinese citizens compared to that of American inhabitants. (Datosmacro.com. Expansión)   What explains that a country like China, with a per capita GDP ($25.02 thousand dollars per capita, in purchasing power parity) three times lower than that of the United States ($85.37 thousand dollars per capita, in purchasing power parity), has a much lower poverty rate than the United States? The answer is none other than the quality of human rights enjoyed by Chinese citizens compared to that of American inhabitants. (Datosmacro.com. Expansión)   What are human rights for the West? The most evident thing is that human rights for the West are a media weapon to attack China. Every time Western media mention China, they inevitably, as a self-imposed style guide, have to vilify China for its lack of human rights. “Tell me what you boast of, and I will tell you what you lack.” For the West, human rights focus on defending Western "Democracy" against what they term Chinese “Autocracy." If we look at this Western-style "Democracy," we see that it is characterized (primarily in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in other Western countries) by the alternation in government between two political parties that uphold the same political system. The exclusive dominance of these two parties over the state is built upon the absolute repression of organizations opposed to the system. This repression is executed through various means: Firstly, elections are designed on a marketing basis that requires mobilizing large sums of money to have any chance; secondly, the media, which shapes the population's thinking, is controlled by the same business groups that control the two parties; and thirdly, when any political force emerges with fresh air in this neoliberal jungle, the entire legal and illegal machinery of the state is unleashed upon it until it is annihilated. A system that has been working for two centuries now and has allowed the American empire to rise. The West fills its mouth with the word "Democracy" to cover up all its democratic shortcomings and deficiencies. A "Representative Democracy" based on elections every four or five years where the parties of the neoliberal system always "win" because other parties are prevented from having the necessary means to have any chance. And it uses this supposed legitimacy it claims due to its presumption of democracy to deny human rights to its citizens. (Of course, while the human rights of its citizens are denied, the human rights of citizens in the rest of the world are directly massacred. In addition to the hundreds of interventions in numerous countries, in Latin America and other continents, to manipulate and change their governments in favor of American interests, in just the current century, the United States has waged war with its military against the following countries or regions: Afghanistan -2001/2021-, Iraq -2003/2011-, Somalia -2007/2021-, Indian Ocean -2009/2016-, Libya -2011-, Uganda -2011/2017-, Iraq -2014/present-, Syria -2014/present-, Libya -2015/2020-, Mozambique -2021/present-, and Yemen -2023/present-.) The Political System of China Firstly, and it seems unlike the West, human rights in China consist of 30 rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations), and not just neoliberal democracy. Let's start with "Democracy." In China, there are nine political parties with parliamentary representation, and all of them support the existing participatory democracy in the country: Ø Communist Party of China Ø Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang Ø China Democratic League Ø China Association for Promoting Democracy Ø China National Democratic Construction Association Ø China Association for Promoting Democracy Ø Chinese Peasants’ and Workers’ Democratic Party Ø China Zhigong Party Ø Jiusan Society Ø Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League The political membership of Chinese citizens in these parties is much higher than in the West, and the majority far exceeds one hundred thousand members. If we look at Article 21 of the Declaration of Human Rights, which focuses on the Right to participate in public affairs, we see that it establishes that: 1. "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." 2. "Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country." 3. "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." China's participatory democracy is based on People's Congresses, which currently have 2.77 million elected deputies. There are five levels of People's Congresses: municipality, county, city, province, and national. In last June elections, 921 million voters participated in municipal elections, representing 86.49% of registered voters, and 623 million voters participated in county elections, representing 85.63% of registered voters. The upper three levels of deputies (city, province, and national) are elected by deputies from the lower level. If we look at the XIV National People's Congress (NPC), it consists of 2,977 deputies. Some important characteristics to highlight about the composition of these deputies are as follows: Ø Ethnic minorities: There are 55 ethnic minorities in China represented by a total of 442 deputies. Ø Women: Their representation remains low. There are 790 female deputies, representing only 26.54% of the total NPC. Ø Workers and farmers: With 497 deputies, their participation reaches 16.69% of the total deputies. Ø Communist Party of China: There are 969 deputies, accounting for 32.55% of the total deputies. We can conclude that the North American political system is designed to perpetuate the neoliberal democracy upon which it is based. Similarly, the Chinese political system is designed to perpetuate Chinese socialist democracy. Both systems formally meet the three requirements of Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From the perspective of effectiveness, it seems that the neoliberal system, on one hand, in the current crisis situation, is generating a level of confrontation between the two parties that alternate in power (Republicans and Democrats in the United States, Socialists and Populars in Spain) that is hindering the government's work and muddying the political situation with the goal of obtaining power above any principle. On the other hand, the electoral marketing style on which it is based enhances government actions on short-term needs at the expense of medium and long-term plans, which cease to be an electoral priority. Looking towards China, the Chinese political system centered on grassroots People's Assemblies has two important advantages: on one hand, electoral confrontation does not occur between two national machineries geared to compete and win, but between grassroots individuals known to and neighbors of the voters who will elect them, where the individual holds greater value than the party itself. On the other hand, this system based on individuals allows for their selection based on their capabilities and promotes the rise to power of the most qualified. This phenomenon has been referred to as "Meritocracy" or the government of the best, and China today represents the clearest depiction of this meritocratic system. The other 29 articles of the Human Rights Declaration Without going deep into each of the Human Rights due to space constraints, let's focus on those that are driving the quality of life of Chinese citizens. In general, the United States uses human rights as a political tool for interference in the internal affairs of other countries, to influence and overthrow governments in its strategy of global domination. The State Department periodically publishes reports that are disseminated by Western media. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador expressed a few days ago regarding the latest U.S. report that "The State Department is talking about the human rights situation in Mexico being gray. The only thing is to ask [the agency] to review its recommendations because they violate the sovereignty of peoples. They are no-one to extend letters of good conduct to independent and sovereign countries and peoples." In relation to this latest report, many voices have risen up to rebuke the United States and assert that it lacks the capacity, or even the moral high ground, to criticize what happens in other countries regarding human rights. They point to everything happening with Julian Assange, the brutal repression of students in the United States, or the military support for the genocide of Palestinians, to express that this country cannot speak about human rights because it lacks moral authority. The right to equality and non-discrimination. Articles 1 and 2 are about the right to equality and the prohibition of discrimination. If we use their representation in the highest legislative body of each country for various minority groups to compare their level of discrimination, the result is as follows:   While ethnic minorities in China are overrepresented in the highest legislative body, in the United States, Latinos and African Americans together are discriminated against compared to non-Latino white individuals in the House of Representatives. The situation of women in both countries in their legislative bodies is discriminatory and at a similar level. In China, only 26.5% of deputies in the National People's Congress are women, and in the United States, only 28% of congresswomen in the House of Representatives are women. The respect for ethnic minorities and their national integration in China is notable. The most evident case is the Uyghur minority settled in the Xinjiang region, which is of Muslim origin and for which the United States has been financing all kind of Islamist terrorist groups to destabilize China without any success and launching worldwide discrediting campaigns. The Right to the Satisfaction of Economic, Social, and Cultural Needs According to Article 22, every person has the right to the satisfaction of these needs. China's progress in poverty alleviation, as seen in the previous graph, is spectacular. It shows how, starting from extremely high poverty levels (over 50% in the year 2000), China outpaces the United States from 2014 until its elimination. Meanwhile, no progress is observed in the United States over the last 50 years. Never before so many people have exited poverty in such a short time in human history. This result is the consequence from the different objectives of both societies; while in the United States the focus is on maximizing the benefits of the capitalist system, in China, the focus is on meeting the social needs of the entire population. The Right to Social Security in the Event of Illness, Disability, Widowhood, Old Age, or Other Circumstances Beyond One's Control Article 25 speaks of this right. We have already shown above the evolution of life expectancy in the United States and China, which is the best indicator of the satisfaction of this right. China's advantage in healthcare and social services does not come from higher healthcare spending by this country. On the contrary, the United States is the world's largest spender on healthcare in terms of percentage of GDP, but this expenditure is not distributed evenly and solidarily among all its citizens. Nearly 30 million people in the United States lack health insurance and have had no insurance at all throughout 2022, and worse, they have also lacked the financial means to meet their healthcare needs, which in the United States are all paid for. The U.S. Census does not provide information on how many, in addition to these 30 million, have only had access to health insurance at some point during the year. The Right to Education Article 26: Everyone has the right to education. Let's see how the United States and China spend their budgets:   China has opted for the widespread and open generalization of education. For example, it has been sending nearly 400,000 students each year to American universities until Biden began to prevent their access, and another 300,000 students to other countries worldwide. The gross enrollment ratio in higher education in China reached 59.6% in 2022. Today, Chinese universities host most students worldwide enrolled in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. As a conclusión China draws its strength from human rights to drive its economy and progress. We find a country where the population shares the benefits of progress in solidarity, expanding social security, healthcare, and education nationwide. This has created the world’s most skilled workforce, setting annual records in patents, surpassing both the United States and all combined university systems of European Union countries in graduate students, with 11.6 million new graduates in the last academic year. And it's not just the labor force that the standard of living, healthcare, or education generate in a country; it's also the personal satisfaction of citizens with the respect of all their rights. The French company Ipsos is responsible for conducting worldwide studies on the level of happiness in different countries and has been pointing out China as the happiest country in the world. There is no doubt that Chinese society is a satisfied one. A satisfaction that hints at the pride of belonging to a country that has carried out the largest and fastest economic and social revolution in history.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском “This article was originally published here by the International Crisis Group”Tensions between China and the Philippines are increasing the risk of armed conflict in the South China Sea. In this excerpt from the Watch List 2024 – Spring Update, Crisis Group looks at how the EU can support regional diplomacy to mitigate maritime disputes. Rising maritime tensions between China and the Philippines have highlighted the risk of armed conflict in the South China Sea and the dangers it would pose to global trade. Several countries are implicated in the set of complex sovereignty disputes in the sea, which stem from rival claims to various features and the maritime entitlements they generate, but recent incidents involving Beijing and Manila have triggered the greatest concern. The Philippines controls nine outposts in the Spratlys, a contested group of land and maritime features at the heart of the South China Sea. A submerged reef known as Second Thomas Shoal has become a dangerous flashpoint, with Chinese boats continually trying to block Manila’s efforts to resupply the BRP Sierra Madre, a rusting ship housing a handful of soldiers that a former Philippine government purposely grounded in 1999 in a bid to assert sovereignty over the atoll. China, which also claims the shoal, first started interfering with these missions in 2014, but relations between the two countries in the maritime domain have never been as volatile as during the last seven months. Chinese boats have regularly rammed the Philippine supply vessels or doused them with water cannons, occasionally wounding the sailors on board. Manila has a Mutual Defence Treaty with Washington, making this burgeoning maritime dispute part of the geopolitical competition between the U.S and China. In effect, the South China Sea has become a zone where conflict risks are rife – and where Washington and Beijing could be drawn into direct confrontation. Considering these developments, the EU and its member states should: • Seek greater diplomatic engagement with both Beijing and Manila to keep tensions in check. They should also expand their diplomatic presence across South East Asia and, where relevant, establish reliable channels through which they could communicate with high-level authorities in China and other claimant states should disputes at sea escalate; • Work to promote respect for international law, particularly the law of the sea, as a source of neutral rules for dispute resolution and conflict prevention, for example by organising public events, roundtables and dialogues in Manila and elsewhere. While this measure may not bridge the divides between Manila and Beijing, it could at least help establish a level of mutual support and understanding among the other South China Sea claimant states; and • Strengthen coast guard cooperation with the Philippines, focusing on building capacity in areas such as environmental protection, safety and search-and-rescue procedures. Troubled Waters The sovereignty disputes that underpin the tensions between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea go back decades. But it was Beijing’s manoeuvres to take control of Mischief Reef (in the east of the Spratlys) from Manila in 1995 that altered the perceived balance of power between the two states and in the region, setting off the territorial dispute that has now taken a turn for the worse. China’s assertiveness in the sea has grown in the past few years, along with its military capabilities. The brewing territorial dispute made headlines in 2012 when Beijing in effect took control of Scarborough Shoal, an atoll 220km west of the Philippine mainland but within Manila’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), after a maritime altercation. The incident prompted then-President Benigno Aquino to file a case challenging China’s territorial claims under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On 12 July 2016, the presiding arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of Manila, dismissing China’s claim to all the waters within its “nine-dash line”, which constitute almost the entire South China Sea. But it was a Pyrrhic victory. Beijing not only rejected the adjudication and the subsequent ruling, but it had also already undercut efforts to settle the dispute through legal channels by building and fortifying seven artificial islands in the Spratlys while the case was winding its way through the system. This move fundamentally changed the status quo, enabling Beijing to post permanent garrisons in the area for the first time. By many accounts, China has thus ensured itself control of the sea in any situation below the threshold of armed conflict. A short lull in the maritime dispute appeared to follow. After coming to power in 2016, Aquino’s successor, Rodrigo Duterte, pursued a pragmatic policy toward Beijing. Duterte downplayed the tribunal’s decision and cast sovereignty issues aside, hoping to benefit from Beijing’s economic largesse in exchange. Yet his ambitious gambit did not pay off. Tensions at sea continued in the form of regular standoffs between the country’s coast guard and Chinese vessels. Filipino fisherfolk struggled to reach their traditional fishing grounds, and Manila could not exploit the precious oil and gas reserves within its EEZ to which it is entitled under international law. In March 2021, Chinese ships massed around Whitsun Reef, an unoccupied feature in the sea, ringing alarm bells in Manila, where senior officials voiced public criticism of China’s behaviour for the first time in years. By the end of the Duterte administration, the Philippines had revived its ties with the U.S. and become more assertive still, filing several diplomatic protests with the Chinese government. Elected in 2022, President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Duterte’s successor, was initially disposed toward friendly relations with Beijing, but the relationship soured only a few months into his presidency. Although China remains the Philippines’ top trading partner, Marcos, Jr.’s meetings with President Xi Jinping did not achieve the desired results: Beijing neither agreed to make major new investments nor curtailed its “grey zone” tactics in the South China Sea, understood as coercive actions that remain below the threshold of armed conflict. These rebuffs have helped push Marcos, Jr. toward strengthening ties with Washington, and the Biden administration has, on several occasions, publicly committed that the countries’ Mutual Defence Treaty would be deemed triggered in the event of an armed attack on Philippine warships, aircraft or public vessels. In perhaps the most significant recent development, after a series of high-level visits by U.S. officials to Manila, the two countries agreed to scale up implementation of their Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which gives U.S. troops rotational expanded access to Philippine military bases, and which China perceives as a provocation, especially given these bases’ proximity not just to the South China Sea but also to Taiwan. Manila has also received defence and diplomatic support from a host of other countries, particularly Japan and Australia. Despite the dispute it has with Vietnam over parts of the South China Sea, it has engaged, more quietly, with Hanoi, and acquired maritime defence equipment from India, thus expanding its circle of partners. Joint naval exercises with various countries have included large-scale ones with the U.S. in April, which involved the deployment of missiles that can reach targets almost 1,600km away – something that was sure to draw Beijing’s attention – and took place just after Manila wound up its first-ever trilateral presidential summit with Washington and Tokyo. In the meantime, the Marcos, Jr. administration has pursued what it calls a “transparency initiative”, publicising information about maritime incidents by inviting journalists to join its coast guard ships or posting video recordings of events almost as they are happening. Dramatic footage of Chinese vessels blocking, ramming or attacking its resupply missions to Second Thomas Shoal with water cannons has generated widespread condemnation in the Philippines and abroad. Many consider these tactics to be bullying. For its part, and despite the 2016 ruling, Beijing asserts that Manila is intruding into its waters and maintains that it is demonstrating maximum restraint. China has also recently referred to a so-called gentleman’s agreement under former President Duterte that it says foresaw preserving a status quo in the South China Sea, with Manila ostensibly agreeing to supply only humanitarian goods and no construction materials to the BRP Sierra Madre; Manila denies that there was any such arrangement. Given the Philippines’ determination to continue resupplying its troops on the BRP Sierra Madre, Second Thomas Shoal will likely remain a flashpoint. Due to the constraints imposed at sea by the Chinese maritime militia and coast guard, Manila is starting to look into other means of provisioning its outpost, some of which are likely to irk Beijing even more, such as airdrops or closer U.S. naval escorts. In September 2023, a U.S. plane was in the shoal’s vicinity during a resupply mission, while a U.S. warship passed through waters nearby in December. But the shoal is not the only possible source of tension. Chinese vessels, both official and non-official, sail through many areas where Philippine fisherfolk traditionally work, while other features, such as Scarborough Shoal, are also points of friction. A large-scale encounter or accident at sea could be especially dangerous. Should a Filipino or Chinese national die during such a confrontation, it could stir nationalist sentiments in Manila and Beijing and heighten threat perceptions on both sides. In case of loss of life on the Philippine side, Manila would expect its U.S. ally to assist under the Mutual Defence Treaty, especially given the recent exchanges with Washington on that topic, although the U.S. has not said precisely how it would come to the Philippines’ aid. How such a dangerous situation would evolve depends in large part on Manila’s political decision to invoke the treaty and the choices Washington makes about how to fulfill its commitments. In principle, Beijing and Manila remain open to negotiations. But the bilateral consultative mechanism, a confidence-building measure designed in 2017 to manage maritime issues between the two countries, among other things, has generated no results of note. Meanwhile, efforts to create a Code of Conduct, which aims to reduce tensions at sea by setting up norms and rules between claimants and has been under discussion between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) for over two decades, have stagnated. Why the Sea Matters The South China Sea is a vital waterway through which around one third of global shipping passes. Peace and stability in the sea are a prerequisite for safe trade and are demonstrably in the interest of the EU and its member states. At over 40 per cent, the share of the EU’s trade with the rest of the world transiting the sea is even higher than the global average. Instability in the area would deal a major blow to the European economy; even a slight disturbance of shipping routes could result in higher transport costs, shipping delays and acute product shortages. Should there be an escalation that pits China against the U.S. in a direct conflict, the consequences could be catastrophic and global. European positions toward South China Sea disputes have traditionally highlighted the importance of all parties respecting international law and the need for peaceful resolution, while being careful not to take sides. But over the last few years, China’s assertiveness and expanding military capabilities have driven a greater sense of urgency and something of a shift in European thinking. First, the EU and several of its member states have developed “Indo-Pacific” strategies, designed to guide and promote cooperation with countries throughout the region. Secondly, Brussels has increased its diplomatic support for the Philippine position following maritime altercations, offering supportive statements in December 2023 and March 2024. Brussels and several European capitals now back Manila in regularly underlining the importance of UNCLOS and maritime law in the South China Sea context. Meanwhile, Europe’s presence in the region is growing, if slowly and in part symbolically. In 2021, the EU appointed a special envoy for the Indo-Pacific for the first time, while European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen visited Manila in July 2023, the first trip to the Philippines by someone holding that office and an opportunity to express, at the highest level, the EU’s readiness to strengthen cooperation with the government in maritime security, among other areas. A German frigate entered the South China Sea in 2021, and French and Italian ships made port calls in Manila in 2023. In March 2024, the EU and the Philippines agreed to resume negotiations over a free trade agreement, while a month later France announced talks regarding a Visiting Forces Agreement with the Philippines. While EU interest in the region is rising, European stances on the South China Sea are complex, with member states harbouring different views on maritime disputes in the region and, more broadly, on big-power competition. Some, such as France – which is the only EU member state to have overseas territories in the region (and which has significant EEZ interests there) – see themselves as having stakes higher than others and are keen to participate in the region’s discussions on security. Others, such as Greece and Hungary, are less concerned with maritime flare-ups so far away and tend to ascribe greater importance to maintaining good relations with Beijing. What the EU and Its Member States Can Do As the EU and its most powerful member states are drawn deeper into the South China Sea, they should raise their diplomatic game in the region – both to ensure awareness of mounting tensions and to look for ways to manage corresponding risks. As a practical matter, Brussels could leverage its status as an ASEAN Strategic Partner to seek more participation in that bloc’s security mechanisms and regional forums; the EU and member states could seek higher levels of engagement with regional powers such as Japan, Australia, and South Korea on matters concerning the South China Sea; and Europe could post more diplomats to the region, including permanent defence attachés who speak the language of naval diplomacy. Of particular importance will be maintaining strong lines of communication with Beijing, where Europe is seen as still having some distance from the U.S.-China strategic rivalry, which works to its diplomatic advantage. While to some extent this communication will be traditional bilateral statecraft, it may also mean looking for new opportunities and new channels for dialogue. For example, some member states could also seek to follow the precedent set by France and China in establishing a coordination and deconfliction mechanism between their militaries. Brussels should also continue raising the South China Sea in its engagement with Beijing as it did during the EU-China summit in 2023. Maintaining these channels will become both more difficult and more important if and when the EU and member states expand their operational presence in the region – for example, if they decide to establish a calibrated maritime presence in the South China Sea, as proposed by the EU envoy to the Indo-Pacific. Such a move is still deemed unlikely for now. As for public diplomacy, Brussels and EU member states should consider practical ways to promote principles of the law of the sea in the region, making the case that broader regional support for and adherence to these principles would provide neutral ground for peacefully avoiding and resolving disputes. While it is hard to see this approach appealing to Beijing, which has rebuffed the UNCLOS tribunal’s decision, there could still be benefits in forging closer cooperation among other claimant states. Convenings in Manila and other regional capitals could cover topics related to the continuing disputes but also to cross-cutting themes of regional interest such as fisheries. With negotiations over a regional Code of Conduct stuck, like-minded countries in the region could use these occasions to at least develop common positions on discrete issues that might be addressed by the Code or that could foster regional confidence-building in the South China Sea. Finally, in the realm of capacity building, European governments should continue to strengthen coast guard cooperation with South China Sea claimant states, helping them develop tools and protocols that might be used where appropriate to avoid confrontation and conflict. Since Aquino’s administration, Manila has tried to boost its coast guard capabilities. Given that many of the other claimant states’ vessels in the South China Sea are coast guard ships, and find themselves embroiled in maritime confrontations, a common approach on rules of engagement could help avoid misunderstandings at sea. Building on the EU’s integrated coast guard system, the EU could host or sponsor joint workshops to develop operating principles for the region’s law enforcement vessels and exchange best practices with Philippine authorities. Brussels could also fund agencies such as the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to strengthen coast guard expertise on issues such as environmental protection, safety and search-and-rescue procedures. European member states could also participate in joint activities with the Philippine and other ASEAN coast guards to strengthen fisheries control and maritime border protection and deter piracy or smuggling.