Competing Global Economic Initiatives: A Tale of Two Routes

In recent years, two major economic initiatives have emerged in Asia, particularly in West Asia: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). These initiatives represent a strategic contest between global powers vying for influence and economic dominance in a rapidly changing world.

The Belt and Road Initiative, conceived by Chinese President Xi Jinping, is a modern resurrection of the ancient Silk Road. This initiative aims to connect China to the rest of the world through extensive infrastructure investments, including ports, roads, railways, and industrial zones. The historical Silk Road, dating back to the 2nd century BCE, was a network of trade routes linking China with Europe, passing through Central Asia and the Middle East. BRI is poised to be the largest infrastructure project in human history, with China investing billions of dollars to facilitate global trade and economic integration.

In contrast, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, announced by the United States at last year’s G20 Summit, appears as a hastily assembled response to counter China’s growing influence. Unlike the meticulously planned and geographically stable BRI, the US initiative lacks a coherent geographic and strategic foundation. The announcement was made abruptly, without thorough consultations with the countries and regions it intends to involve. This contrasts sharply with the inclusive approach of the BRI, which has seen active participation from 150 countries, as demonstrated at the 2019 Belt and Road Forum in Beijing.

The BRI is anchored in principles of economic cooperation, peaceful coexistence, and conflict resolution. China’s role in facilitating the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement highlights its commitment to removing political obstacles that could hinder the initiative’s progress. By fostering dialogue and prioritizing economic development, China seeks to create a win-win scenario for all participating nations.

On the other hand, the IMEC seems more focused on geopolitical confrontation than economic cooperation. The United States has revived the Quad (QUAD) dialogue, involving the US, India, Japan, and Australia, as a strategic counterweight to China’s influence. Additionally, the US has fostered a new alliance termed “2I 2U,” comprising India, Israel, the UAE, and the United States. This alliance underscores the geopolitical maneuvering inherent in the India-Haifa Route, aiming to balance China’s rising power in the region.

However, the practicalities of the IMEC raise significant concerns. The route begins in India, traversing the Arabian Sea to Dubai, then overland to Saudi Arabia and Jordan, culminating at the port of Haifa in Israel. This path bypasses Pakistan and China to appease India, and avoids Iran and Turkey to placate Israel. Such geopolitical considerations undermine the route’s viability and stability. The unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian tensions, coupled with ongoing hostilities in Gaza and Israeli strikes on Syria, render Haifa a precarious endpoint for any significant economic corridor.

Moreover, the security situation in the Gulf, marked by US-Iranian tensions, further jeopardizes the stability of the proposed route. The recent Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus has heightened regional volatility, casting doubt on the feasibility of the IMEC amidst such geopolitical turbulence.

In stark contrast, the BRI’s success lies in its focus on economic integration and development, devoid of political and military entanglements. The initiative’s comprehensive and inclusive framework seeks to establish peaceful and mutually beneficial relations among the nations along the Silk Road. By prioritizing infrastructure development and economic cooperation, the BRI promotes long-term stability and prosperity.

The US initiative, however, appears reactionary and strategically shortsighted. Its hurried announcement at the G20 Summit, aimed at undermining the BRI, reflects a lack of coherent vision and planning. The geopolitical underpinnings of the IMEC overshadow its economic objectives, reducing it to a tool of political maneuvering rather than a genuine development initiative.

The contrasting approaches of China’s BRI and the IMEC highlight the fundamental differences in their strategic visions. While the BRI represents a comprehensive and inclusive effort to foster global economic integration and cooperation, the IMEC emerges as a politically charged response, fraught with strategic miscalculations and geopolitical instability. As the world navigates this era of strategic competition, the long-term success of these initiatives will depend on their ability to promote genuine economic development and peaceful coexistence, rather than geopolitical confrontation and dominance.

[Photo by Fletcher6, via Wikimedia Commons]

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

NATO’s Uncertain Future: Navigating the Challenges in a Changing Global Landscape

As The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) observes its 75th anniversary in Washington, The General Secretary of NATO writes that the outcome of the...

Struggling for OECD membership, Indonesia Needs to Re-understand the Contestation in Global Tax Politics

In the summer of 2023, Indonesia initiated the intention to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Following a year, in the...

Is India Moving in the Direction to Have A Strategic Culture as Understood in the West?

Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948), known for his contribution to turning mass mobilization against British imperial rule into non-violent movements for Indian independence, also used...