Initiative is about innovation and tests

In his keynote speech at the Belt and Road Forum for InternationalCooperationon May14,PresidentXiJinping said“weshouldbuildtheBeltand Roadintoaroadofinnovation”.Xi mentioned“innovation”15timesin hisspeech,whichclearlyshowed the difference between the Belt and Road Initiative and other similar initiatives.

First, the initiative doesn’t focus only on trade area construction, it also aims to improve infrastructure for better connectivity, policy coordination, and exchange of goods and services. In this regard, the initiative transcends the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

TPP negotiations were once strongly opposed by the Japanese people, and caused panic in the Vietnamese footwear industry, which saw it as a harbinger of destruction. In contrast, China’s initiative seeks coordination and cooperation among not only economies but also cultures.

Second, innovation reflects inclusiveness. The Barack Obama-led US administration imposed strict conditions on TPP negotiators, and kept China out of the negotiation. Despite that, China said on many occasions that it was open to the idea of TPP and any other regional cooperation initiatives provided they were inclusive.

On the other hand, the United States has not been included in the RCEP negotiations because it does not have free trade relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. However, China welcomes all interested economies to join the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. The Philippines attended the opening ceremony of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in Beijing in January 2016, and played the role of an intention creator.

Third, innovation also reflects China’s role as the architect of a mutually beneficial and inclusive economic initiative. But instead of setting the agenda for the initiative, China acts more like an organizer, bringing all the partners together on a platform, where they can list the topics of discussion and share their ideas, and thus jointly decide the agenda on the basis of equality.

And fourth, the initiative’s negotiations are outcome-oriented, while consultations emphasize process-oriented choice. The failure of one round of negotiations may signify a waste of time, effort and money. Consultations, however, put less pressure on the participants, and introduce them to a network where dialogues act as stimulants and lead to innovation.

But innovation is difficult to achieve, especially since ASEAN has already drawn up a “Master Plan for Connectivity”, that is, physical, institutional and peopleto-people connectivity. To improve connectivity between China and ASEAN member states, Beijing should not only help ASEAN to implement its master plan, but also go beyond the plan to strengthen interconnectivity.

Neither China’s economic power nor its political importance is reflected in the small say it enjoys in international organizations. So it should also focus on institution building as part of the Belt and Road Initiative to have greater say in global institutions.

How to explain its ideas to the rest of the world and remove the misunderstandings some countries have about its initiative and other programs remain a challenge for China. But since highlevel institutions, to a large extent, are founded on the basis of concrete rules rather than absolutist ideas, China has enough reasons to believe a bright future awaits the Belt and Road Initiative, provided its problems are timely identified and solved. The author is a research fellow at the Hainan Provincial Party School.

The explosive topic, together with other heavy agenda items on bilateral and international affairs, meant the meeting between Li and European leaders lasted for three more hours on Friday. At the press conference, Tusk labelled it the most “promising, fruitful” meeting since 1998 when the first was held.

Checking the results announced by both sides, Tusk’s conclusion made sense, although a lot of obvious differences between China and the EU remain. Both sides have shown tremendous determination to deepen and explore cooperation, ranging from anti-terrorism, education, investment, 5G technology to tourism.

Though there wasn’t a joint declaration, China and the EU strongly pledged to honor their climate commitment in spite of Trump’s backtracking from Barack Obama’s pledges to cope with global warming.

Politicians, opinion leaders and businesses within the European Union have strongly condemned Trump’s decision to quit the widely-accepted global consensus on climate.

Many had even said such consensus achieved in 2015 showed timely global solidarity, indicating the global players still have courage to compromise over a collective deal.

So it is understandable if the rest of the world decried Trump’s short-sighted wrong decision.

Of course, this is not the first time the United States has done this. It did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the first milestone climate agreement signed within a United Nations framework.

Apart from climate agreements, the United States has not yet honored its commitment made when China joined the World Trade Organization more than 15 years ago.

During his visit to Germany, Belgium and the European Union headquarters from Wednesday to Friday, Li repeatedly requested the European politicians to keep their promises over WTO protocols instead of the EU calculating the anti-dumping tariffs of China’s exports to the EU, the cost standards in China should be considered.

That was the due commitment the European Union made when China joined the World Trade Organization in the beginning of this century. Sadly, most of the Western powers had not lived up to it though up to 100 countries worldwide had already delivered.

The EU has a very close economic and trade interdependency with China, and it has long advocated rule-based free trade. China wants the EU to set an example by meaning what it said.

Certainly, China is defending its own interests. But China’s insistence has gone far beyond its own interests. This is because if the EU delivers its commitment, the message is clear: in a fragile world, the EU is firmly on course to obey the global rules.

This would be concrete evidence of fighting against the reverse of globalization, which will show that the EU differs from the US.

... innovation also reflects China’s role as the architect of a mutually beneficial and inclusive economic initiative.