Chinese President Xi Jinping is gathering 29 heads of state and officials from more than 110 countries in Beijing starting May 14 for the first summit of his high-stakes Belt and Road Initiative. The $4 trillion plan offers the promise of economic growth, stability and increased connectivity for countries around the world. But it also faces—and creates—a host of complications for China and the other countries involved.  

Power lines near an industrial park in Eskisehir, Turkey, Nov. 27, 2015. In the summer, a Chinese company abruptly backed out of a deal to buy a stake in the electrical grid for Eskisehir and nearby provinces. Beijing’s effort to revive ancient trade routes, known as the Belt and Road Initiative, is causing geopolitical strains, with countries worried about becoming too dependent on China.
Power lines near an industrial park in a part of Turkey where China, in 2015, backed out of a plan to buy a stake in an electrical grid. Photo Courtesy of The New York Times/Byron Smith

The investment juggernaut would provide infrastructure, trade, financial, policy and cultural links to 65 countries in Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa over the next several decades. It has the potential to connect some of the world’s least developed countries for increased trade and spur their economic growth.

The effort also addresses some of China’s own domestic economic needs: access to natural resources and energy, a market for Chinese companies’ excess construction capacity, and more efficient and cost-effective ways for the country’s western and central provinces to get their goods to market.

Official statements emphasize that the initiative is rooted in the “Silk Road Spirit,”a reference to principles of “peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning and mutual benefit.” They consider it China’s “gift” to “benefit people around the world.”

Yet, a lack of transparency about how these projects are identified, designed, approved and implemented raises many questions. The overall levels of investment might give China significant political and economic leverage over participating countries.  And China’s investments in ports, rails and road connections could have major military benefits. At the same time, the recipient countries might end up with unsustainable levels of debt, while neglecting to adopt adequate environmental standards and social safeguards. 

The initiative is still in its early stages. Despite making it one of the country’s top foreign policy priorities, China has not provided an official map or explained how the different projects fit together, and many of the proposed projects have not broken ground.

Chinese experts insist that most projects are profit-driven, but they concede that some are also pursued with other policy and strategic goals in mind. They are quick to note that the cost-benefit calculations of state-owned enterprises or companies receiving state-backed funding may differ from those of private companies in the West, because the Chinese companies can look for profits in aggregate, balanced over a collection of projects and a longer period of time.

Still, the risks for China are significant. Because the initiative involves some of the world’s most unstable regions, the projects could exacerbate existing tensions or even create new conflicts that overshadow the economic benefits. Without functioning institutions, reliable oversight, adequate regulations and good governance, some recipients may have difficulty absorbing the infusion of development and security assistance.

As more Chinese investments, citizens and companies establish a presence their own borders, instability abroad may make it difficult for Chinese leaders to maintain their principle of non-interference in another country’s internal affairs. If conflict threatens China’s national interests, including physical investments by its companies or the safety of Chinese nationals working abroad, officials in Beijing may feel compelled to respond, thus increasing the risk that China will become involved in conflicts around the globe.

Related Publications

Jacob Stokes on China and Sovereignty

Jacob Stokes on China and Sovereignty

Thursday, June 6, 2019

By: Jacob Stokes

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. has made protecting sovereignty a core principle of its foreign policy and U.S.-China relations. While Beijing prioritizes protecting sovereignty at home, “its actions abroad raise questions about whether it’s interested in protecting the sovereignty of other countries,” says USIP’s Jacob Stokes.

Global Policy

In Global Hotspots, China and Russia are Stepping Up Coordination

In Global Hotspots, China and Russia are Stepping Up Coordination

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

By: Jacob Stokes

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin are in the middle of a rapid-fire series of bilateral meetings. Beijing and Moscow’s relationship spans a number of areas including energy, defense, infrastructure, trade, and finance. A shared sense of geopolitical competition with the United States over issues ranging from nuclear weapons to sanctions to human rights propels bilateral ties as well.

Global Policy

China’s Role in North Korea Nuclear and Peace Negotiations

China’s Role in North Korea Nuclear and Peace Negotiations

Monday, May 6, 2019

By: USIP China-North Korea Senior Study Group

This is the second in the Senior Study Group (SSG) series of USIP reports examining China’s influence on conflicts around the world. A group of fifteen experts met from September to December 2018 to assess China’s interests and influence in bringing about a durable settlement of the North Korean nuclear crisis. This report provides recommendations for the United States to assume a more effective role in shaping the future of North Korea in light of China’s role and interests. Unless otherwise sourced, all observations and conclusions are those of SSG members.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Where Does China’s Belt and Road Initiative Stand Six Years Later?

Where Does China’s Belt and Road Initiative Stand Six Years Later?

Thursday, April 25, 2019

By: Jennifer Staats

Few projects illustrate the risks of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) better than the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. In 2017, unsustainable debt loads drove Colombo to give China a 99-year lease and controlling equity stake in the Hambantota port, while local communities protested the loss of sovereignty and international observers worried about China’s strategic intentions. The Hambantota case may be an outlier, but it has become a “canary in the coalmine,” and a warning sign to other BRI participants about what their future may hold. Increasingly, countries around the world are taking steps to reassert their influence over BRI projects—and Beijing has taken note.

Economics & Environment; Global Policy

View All Publications