context: Cautious re-evaluation of BRI’s international positioning continues following escalation of China-US trade-and-tech war. This article breaks new ground in suggesting BRI build local legitimacy through participation of civilian entities.
BRI reflects China’s awareness of the importance of Eurasia and the Maritime Silk Road, says Zan Tao 昝涛 Peking University School of History associate professor. It is part of China’s efforts to join the global order and reshape the world order; it emerges following a set of China-US and China-East Asia issues.
BRI is just a framework without a completed blueprint, says Zan. As a learning process, it requires participation of domestic and international players to adapt to, shape and construct it. It resembles the ‘muddling through’ process of the reform and opening policy; the culture of policy practice and debate during the 1970s should be adopted for BRI, says Yin Zhiguang 殷之光 Exeter University College of Humanities associate professor.
BRI is different from globalisation as the latter is based on capitalist wealth distribution and a capitalist economic order, says Zan. Yin contends that capitalist distribution causes inequality and hegemony, and BRI must avoid it and consider how to
- go beyond capitalist wealth distribution
- achieve equality of development opportunities and rights
BRI is a new concept connecting China and the world, says Yin. China must reflect on the way it achieved domestic political equality and use it as the basis to develop a new narrative of global order. To guide the development of BRI, the Bandung Spirit should be advocated, he says. (note: referring to the April 1955 Bandung Conference)
BRI must avoid forcing states to trade sovereignty for financial support in the manner of the IMF, suggests Yin. Chinese enterprises and investors should contribute to the local economy to truly achieve mutual benefit.
BRI can learn from Turkey’s practice in Africa to achieve this, suggests Zan. Participation of civilian entities in BRI will be extremely beneficial, and China should 'release the vigour of the people', Zan says. Yin agrees and says that BR is a top-down proposal, but must be practiced from the bottom up.
Zan concludes by agreeing that China should not aim to replace the existing hegemon. It may do so, but this would not inherently make it more legitimate than the previous one.