The Geopolitical Impacts of The Belt and Road Initiative

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a foreign policy strategy aimed at connecting Asia

with Europe and Africa through a network of infrastructure projects, including roads, railways,

ports, and energy pipelines. This is achieved by either updating previous infrastructure, building

completely new infrastructure, or giving loans to other countries to build their infrastructure

(Mobley, 53). The BRI has been a major transformative force in global geopolitics and

economics. Its profound impact on trade and world economics makes it imperative for us to

understand its history, implications, and effects on the world at large.

The Belt and Road Initiative is a very regional issue. The geographical scope is wide,

affecting over 60 countries across Europe, Asia, and Africa. (Cai, 14). This project highlights

many regional differences due to its goal of bringing together many regions/counties with diverse

characteristics, histories, and levels of economic development. We can take the China-Pakistan

Economic Corridor (CPEC) as an example. This subproject is meant to connect the Xinjiang

region of China with the port of Gwadar in Pakistan, creating a regional corridor that goes

through many varied landscapes and crosses national borders (Mobley, 63). This is a huge

collaborative effort between the two countries, which are very different regarding social,

political, and social background.

The Belt and Road Initiative was started in 2013 and was originally known as the One

Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR/1B1R). It is considered the centerpiece of Xi Jinping's foreign

policy. It’s also one of, if not the most, expensive infrastructure/foreign policy plans in history.

The plan is inspired by the historical Silk Road, which connected China to Europe for the trade

of goods such as silk. This road consists of rail cars and boats instead of horses and camels. As

of today (December 2023), 155 countries have agreed to the BRI plan which accounts for 75% of
the world's population and over half of the world's GDP (Sahakyan, 86). In 2017 the policy was

incorporated into the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party and is projected to be

completed in 2049.

The Implications of this policy are very complex, and therefore it can be spun many

different ways depending on who is talking about it. Geopolitically it allows China to greatly

expand its area of influence, by establishing footholds and making partners with known

countries. The building of infrastructure in foreign countries creates direct political relationships

between the ruling bodies of said country and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It also forces

these countries' Geopolitical alignments, especially in the last several years, when countries are

forced to pick sides in the “Trade Wars” between either the West (mainly the United States) and

the East (Mainly China) (Dorsey, 4). Therefore their decision to participate in the BRI affects not

only their relationship with China, but also their relationship to the rest of the world.

Economically it can boost the economy of both China and the countries it connects. It

fosters connectivity, trade, and investment, reshaping regional economic landscapes. It also

heavily affects the spatial interrelationships between these counties. The best example of how is

the China-Europe Railway Express, a key BRI component, facilitates the movement of goods

between Chinese cities and European markets, influencing the economic dynamics of the regions

it traverses (Casarini, 3).

Furthermore, spatial interrelationships within the Belt and Road Initiative extend beyond

physical infrastructure. Economic developments in one region or country can have a domino

effect, not only relating to China and said region, but the whole world. . For example, the

construction of a new port facility in Sri Lanka under the BRI has implications not only for Sri

Lanka's trade but also for the broader maritime dynamics in the Indian Ocean (Mobley, 64). One
can also consider the development of energy corridors. These infrastructure projects impact

regional energy security and geopolitical stability.

There has been much opposition to the BRI. The largest argument against the BRI is that

the loans given to less economically advanced countries will result in a debt trap. This means

that countries participating in the BRI are financed by China’s loans and investments, wherein

the borrowing nations won't be able to pay the substantial debts incurred by the infrastructure

projects (Were, 1). This implies that China is strategically extending loans to developing

countries for infrastructure development, knowing that they may struggle with repayment, which

allows China to gain leverage over the borrowing countries. This standpoint vastly

oversimplifies the BRI’s loan projects. China, therefore, has taken steps to show how these

projects are mutually agreed upon by both countries involved. Thus placing responsibility on

both the lender and the borrower to ensure mutually beneficial outcomes. Furthermore, they are

much more transparent about the terms of the agreements at the urging/demand of Western

countries (Were, 19). The debate surrounding the debt trap myth highlights the importance of

careful examination and nuanced understanding of the economic and geopolitical dimensions of

China's Belt and Road Initiative.

While much of the opposition surrounding the Belt and Road Initiative stems from

legitimate concerns. It is essential to acknowledge that a portion of the criticism directed at the

initiative is influenced by anti-communist rhetoric and pre-existing prejudices against the

Chinese government. Some Critics, particularly those from Western countries, view the BRI and

other Chinese foreign diplomatic projects through a geopolitical lens drenched in Cold War

ideology. The idea that the BRI serves as a vehicle for China's expansion of influence is, largely,

shaped by a broader narrative that casts Chinese economic initiatives as a threat to democratic
values. Anti-communist sentiments and further suspicions about the Chinese government's

actions and motives contribute to skepticism and apprehension about the BRI.

The Belt and Road Initiative is one of the largest infrastructure plans ever. It is

unmatched in terms of scale and global reach. Starting in 2013 and projected to finish in 2049,

it’s also one of the longest government projects only possible of a government like the CCP. The

scope of the initiative affects not only China but also the rest of the world.In conclusion, the Belt

and Road Initiative exemplifies the intricate interplay of economic, political, and geographical

factors in shaping regional dynamics. The historical context, geographical significance, and

spatial interrelationships highlight the complexity of this initiative. As regional actors grapple

with the consequences, it becomes imperative to consider the diverse perspectives and interests

at play. Moving forward, a balanced approach that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders

while promoting sustainable development could pave the way for a more inclusive and mutually

beneficial regional environment. The Belt and Road Initiative, with its far-reaching impact,

serves as a paradigmatic case for understanding the intricate relationships between regions in our

interconnected world.
 Bibliography

Casarini, N. (2015). Is Europe to Benefit from China’s Belt and Road Initiative? Istituto

Affari Internazionali (IAI). http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep09729

Dorsey, J. M. (2019). Trump’s Trade Wars: A New World Order? Begin-Sadat Center for

Strategic Studies. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24339

Sahakyan, M. (2023). China and Eurasian powers in a multipolar world order 2.0:

Security, diplomacy, economy and cyberspace. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Mobley, T. (2019). The Belt and Road Initiative: Insights from China’s Backyard.

Strategic Studies Quarterly, 13(3), 52–72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26760128

Cai, P. (2017). Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Lowy Institute for

International Policy. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10136