The Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) published its latest report about the BRI and shared a record year of Chinese BRI engagement with USD 70.7 billion in construction contracts and about USD 51 billion in investments vividly reflecting its sustainable growth despite external shocks (US trade & tariff war, decoupling, delinking, overcapacity, global economic constraints and rise to conflicting geo-politics) and internal adjustments (deepening of economic structural reforms and shifting of traditional productive channels to qualitative industrialization).
Remarkably, Chinese BRI engagement has reached USD 1.175 trillion since 2013.
Preliminary data for 2024 show about 340 deals worth USD 121.8 billion across 150 BRI countries, a 31 percent increase compared to USD 92.3 billion in 2023.
Indonesia remained the largest recipient with USD 9.3 billion, followed by Saudi Arabia (USD 5.8 billion) and Kazakhstan (USD 4.6 billion), reflecting a diversification of investments spanning ASEAN, the Middle East, and Central Asia.
On the other hand, the successive US governments have increasingly and aggressively accused China’s BRI of being an influence campaign that ensnares developing countries through so-called ‘debt-trap diplomacy.
’ Evidently, two US Government Acts namely the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (ARIA) of 2018 and the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act of 2018 are at the heart of America’s pushback against BRI.
These acts have led to the creation of the U.S International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and the Blue Dot Network.
Many in the US accuse BRI of being a pretense for China’s “debt-trap diplomacy” and desire to establish a military foothold in the Indo-Pacific and beyond, also known as the “String of Pearls” theory.
In addition, the U.S.
also argues that China’s lending and investment practices have remained opaque despite its rapid growth.
These Western narratives are untrue, false and fake and have political hypes.
Similarly, the G7 “Build Back Better World (B3W)” was launched on June 12, 2021, pledging to provide an alternative to China’s BRI for infrastructure development of low and middle-income countries.
However, due to many complex economic, financial and geopolitical reasons the B3W could not be matured and materialized.
Conversely, the EU’s Global Gateway Initiative (GGI), launched in 2021, is a response to China’s BRI and aims to provide an alternative source of infrastructure investment, particularly in the digital, energy and transport sectors, with a focus on sustainability.
However, it has not yet been fully operational.
It seems that the BRI is a bête noire of Washington, which has long been apparent.
Most recently, while appearing before two congressional hearings, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio again expressed his loathing of the BRI, maintaining that “China does not do humanitarian aid, rather it does predatory lending in the shape of the BRI.
” Critically speaking, this is a political statement full of smearing, exposing the US’s inherent enmity against China and its economy.
Comparative studies reveal that cosmetic concerns about debt sustainability, transparency, environmental and social impacts, strategic motivations, and lack of reciprocity in China’s approach to infrastructure development and economic cooperation have become part and parcel of Washington’s smearing of China.
Nevertheless, the BRI has become the biggest development project of the 21st century, attaining the status of a global public good, enhancing connectivity and promoting economic cooperation across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America.
The US slashing of aid to the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) has done nothing but reveal calculated geopolitical maneuvering against the Chinese BRI.
Unfortunately, US foreign policy has been an extension of its Military Complex Theory, engaging in numerous international wars and misadventures by creating false, fake, and fabricated propaganda.
On the other hand, China has championed global shared prosperity, further consolidated through Xi’s global development, security, and civilizational initiatives.
The emergence of the Global South, SCO, BRICS, RCEP, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) demonstrate open, transparent, just, and fair Chinese economic cooperation without geopolitical sugar-coating or hidden geo-strategic schemes.
Hence, China has become a real champion of trans-regional connectivity and socio-economic integration worldwide.
Obviously, China’s neighborhood diplomacy, aiming to revive ancient trade routes with nearby countries, has steadily grown in scope and ambition.
Gracefully, it has developed into the largest global cooperation platform, with more than 150 countries and 30 international organizations participating, and institutional frameworks established for debt sustainability and green development transition.
Consequently, it has become an iconic platform for global green transformation.
Unluckily, US policymakers have preferred trade over aid in Africa and elsewhere, gradually slashing all foreign aid.
The current US administration has discarded all USAID programs, showing politically oriented intentions that worsen suffering for humanity and struggling populations.
Therefore, sub-Saharan Africa has become the most affected region, losing billions in funding previously supporting health, humanitarian, and development programs.
Ultimately, mass famine in Sudan, the collapse of HIV treatment programs in South Africa, and millions of additional malaria and polio cases are direct consequences of the USAID ban.
Conversely, China and the BRI have become the biggest trading and development partners of the African continent.
In summary, China’s trade volume with BRI member countries has surpassed US$19.1 trillion.
Moreover, its support for the BRI family has been holistic, comprehensive, and diversified, aligned with the principle of “planning together, building together and benefiting together.
” BRI has become a global infrastructure development engine, with a comparative advantage over the Western donor-recipient model that entangles national economies.
It has engaged in genuine capacity-building partnerships through grants and interest-free loans for schools, hospitals, disaster relief, and training programs in agriculture, public health, and governance.
Over 500,000 officials and technicians have been trained in China since 2013.
Unfortunately, the US administration continues to peddle misunderstandings and mistrust about China’s valuable contributions to global development.
The most recent International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) highlights China’s role in peaceful coexistence, conflict resolution, good governance, and a rule-based international trading and economic system through democratic means of collective consultation, fair play, dialogue, diplomacy, and development—pushing back against whims and wishes of modern-day power players.
Thus, the “America First” doctrine is fading.
Hopefully, China will continue to contribute its ancient wisdom and solutions toward building a more just and fairer world order, where all countries have equal opportunities for development and success.
Constructive competition, cooperation, multiculturalism, ending the Cold War mentality, and resolving the US trade and tariff war would be the way forward.
