＂The United States should not copy China’s＂ Belt and Road ＂＂

[Compiler/Observer Network Tong Li] The sword refers to China, and US officials are warming up the Global Infrastructure Initiative that they plan to announce at the Group of Seven (G7) summit. It is worth noting that at the G7 Summit in June last year, Biden’s government also pointed its finger at China and launched an initiative to "rebuild a better world", but after that, it made little progress, far from the billions of dollars it promised.

"The United States should not copy China’s Belt and Road Initiative and should not try to beat China in China’s game." On June 22, on the eve of the launch of the new initiative, I saw the US media "throwing cold water". The article points out that there is a huge gap between the infrastructure capacity of the United States and that of China. The United States can’t do well in investing and maintaining its own physical infrastructure, let alone building infrastructure overseas.

Screenshot of the report "The United States should not copy China’s Belt and Road Initiative"

This Western alternative to the "Belt and Road" has even scrapped its name.

According to the website of Foreign Affairs magazine on June 22nd, American policy makers have been at a loss for the Belt and Road Initiative for nearly a decade. This is a large-scale infrastructure investment plan, through which China funds and builds bridges, ports, power plants, railways, tunnels and 5G wireless networks all over the world.

The US media said that this initiative not only expanded China’s footprint, but also benefited global leaders in a literal sense: banks in China provided funds for these infrastructures. This model benefits China enterprises by linking loans to contracts.

In June 2021, at the G7 meeting held in Britain, US President Biden launched a "Build Back Better World" (B3W) initiative, which was regarded as a response to the Belt and Road Initiative.

Biden promised that this will help "meet the huge demand for infrastructure in low-and middle-income countries" and pay special attention to tackling climate, digital infrastructure, gender equality and health issues. He gave few details about the B3W plan, but it was clearly positioned as a western alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative.

The article points out, however, since then, B3W has made no progress. With a domestic legislative proposal called "Build Back Better" in the United States frustrated, the name B3W (Build Back Better) was also scrapped. The Biden administration is now busy promoting the Global Infrastructure Partnership.

Meanwhile, B3W announced some projects in the spring of 2022. The "Digital Connection and Cyber Security Partnership" will provide the US government with $3.45 million this year to fund digital finance and Internet service providers; Small solar suppliers can already get a subsidy of $2.3 million; If Congress agrees, Biden’s government will provide $50 million to the World Bank Trust Fund within five years to develop child care services.

These expenses are certainly worthwhile, but they also reflect that,About a year after Biden announced the B3W plan, his government’s commitment to global infrastructure renovation added up to a paltry $6 million. Even if Congress allocates another $50 million, it is far from the billions of dollars that Biden promised in his initial statement.

"Among the top 20 construction contractors in the world, there are 14 in China and none in the United States."

Foreign Affairs sarcastically pointed out that B3W’s poor performance was not a great loss, because it was wrong for the United States to use it to compete with China in the developing world.

As we all know, the United States is very poor in investing and maintaining its own physical infrastructure, so its project to build infrastructure overseas doesn’t make sense from the beginning.

It is not just the scale of the project that puts the United States at a relative disadvantage in infrastructure construction.

On the one hand, China is better at construction, not only at home, but also around the world. In the procurement competition of major infrastructure lending institutions such as the World Bank, China enterprises are in a dominant position. In 2020, they won a $2.3 billion World Bank-funded infrastructure contract abroad, compared with $27 million in the United States. Among the 20 largest construction contractors in the world, there are 14 in China, 6 in Europe and none in the United States.

On the other hand, when the Biden administration launched B3W, officials carefully avoided describing it as "a head-on contest with China". There is no doubt that they are worried that this global initiative will be seen only as a defensive action. Moreover, when an official announced B3W last year, he claimed, "So far, we have not provided a positive alternative that reflects our values, standards and business methods."

Under the condition that the United States has been speculating for a long time that "China provides government subsidies to gain a competitive advantage", Foreign Affairs claims that the most serious defect of B3W is that it seems to be based on the model that the US government has been "condemning" China. USAID spends most of its resources buying goods and services from American companies. The Bipartisan Innovation Act also provides billions of dollars in industry subsidies to increase semiconductor production in the United States.

Moreover, the United States’ ally Britain is following suit, and perhaps other G7 members will follow suit. The EU is already trying to find ways to provide billions of dollars in subsidies to European enterprises planning to invest in developing countries.

"This is a devastating mistake."

"The United States should not try to beat China in China’s game." After pointing out the infrastructure gap between China and the United States, Foreign Affairs tried to give the Biden administration advice.

It said that it is obviously not the White House that should play a leading role in bringing sustainable infrastructure to developing countries on a large scale, but the World Bank, which is only three blocks away from the White House. These activities are best left to multilateral economic institutions with the leading role played by the United States, including the World Bank and the African Development Bank. The Biden administration should not pursue one bilateral infrastructure agreement after another with developing countries, but should focus on providing more aid funds through these multilateral institutions.

The article holds that in terms of human capital, the United States can and should play a leading role and open its doors to students and scholars again. The American higher education system is admired by the whole world, and it has trained business and political leaders in almost every country. If the government really wants to compete with China for bilateral global development, the United States should give full play to its advantages in higher education system. It should train the next generation of global leaders, not catch up with China construction companies; Not by the National Railway Passenger Transport Company of the United States, but by the University Town of ann arbor.

However, in recent years, the US government has neglected the public research budget and reduced the number of foreign students entering American schools. This trend began during the Trump administration, but President Biden did not do enough to change the status quo. "This is a devastating mistake." The us media commented.

On 17th, in response to the plan of the United States to announce a new infrastructure initiative at the upcoming G7 Summit, which seems to be aimed at balancing the Belt and Road Initiative proposed by China, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin said that global infrastructure construction needs all countries to work together, support and complement each other instead of confronting and replacing each other. The relevant initiatives of the United States ignore the universal desire of all countries for common development, win-win cooperation, engage in a zero-sum game and provoke separatist confrontation, which is unpopular.

China believes that there is a vast space for cooperation in the field of global infrastructure, and there is no problem that various related initiatives compete with each other or replace each other. What the world needs is to build bridges instead of tearing them down, to build walls through interconnection instead of decoupling, and to achieve mutual benefit rather than exclusion. China welcomes all initiatives that are conducive to pooling efforts and promoting global infrastructure construction. Any calculation that promotes geopolitics under the banner of infrastructure construction is unpopular and will not succeed.

This article is an exclusive manuscript of Observer. It cannot be reproduced without authorization.