As global politics and order undergo rapid changes and increased competition, the emergence and development of any group, bloc, or initiative inevitably disrupts the status quo for certain nations. In 2023, marking the 10th anniversary of China’s ambitious infrastructure endeavor, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also known as the New Silk Road, warrants a fresh examination to gain a comprehensive understanding of its underlying theme and implications. Over the years, the BRI has extended its scope and appeal, providing China with significant opportunities to enhance its global influence and presence. This, in turn, has prompted the United States to align itself with like-minded nations. China contends that the BRI is a mutually beneficial arrangement for all participating countries, fostering a sense of fulfillment among its partner nations.
With the principle of a ‘Win-Win’ formula at its core, the BRI has consistently presented itself as a means to engage with other nations without imposing its policies on them. While the Western world and numerous political analysts dispute this portrayal of the BRI, they have attempted to counter it by forming the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in 2018, the I2U2 group in 2021, the European Union’s Global Gateway in 2021, and the G7’s PGII in 2022. However, due to a lack of connectivity between these groups, initiatives, and partnerships, coupled with limited financial assistance and support, these endeavors have failed to significantly impact the strength, reach, and popularity of the BRI. Under this initiative, China has invested over US$ 1 trillion, with a focus on large-scale, strategic, and critical projects that have expanded and assisted numerous nations and BRI partner countries during times of economic challenges.
To illustrate this point, China’s trade in food products with nations involved in the BRI has surged by an impressive 162% since its inception. This increase underscores China’s role as a global platform for countries seeking solutions to their domestic economic challenges and concerns. As of June 2023, China has inked over 200 cooperation agreements with 152 nations and 32 international organizations through the BRI platform, underscoring the initiative’s continued dominance. While the expansion of the BRI has raised concerns about disruption and economic unease, the Western world and the United States have struggled to present a compelling alternative, despite growing opposition in several BRI-partnered nations.
A momentous outcome of the recent G20 Summit 2023 was the “Memorandum of Understanding on the Principles of an India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor” (IMEC), involving India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, the entire European Union, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. This envisioned rail route will also include parallel digital, electricity, and hydrogen corridors, with Jordan and Israel participating as well.
Just consider the comparison of BRI and IMEC. These are two ambitious infrastructure and economic development projects that have garnered global attention. While the BRI, initiated by China in 2013, is already underway, IMEC is currently in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) stage.
BRI boasts extensive geographical coverage, involving around 150 countries, primarily comprising developing and emerging economies. This makes the BRI a genuinely global initiative. In contrast, IMEC is designed to encompass approximately 20 countries, primarily in the Middle East and Europe, which tend to be more economically developed compared to the nations participating in the BRI. Therefore, the BRI’s reach is significantly broader than that of the IMEC.
One of the most significant distinctions between the BRI and the IMEC lies in the scale of investment. BRI is an extensive project with an estimated value of approximately US$8 trillion. This substantial financial commitment encompasses a wide spectrum of infrastructure and development projects across numerous countries. In contrast, IMEC is expected to involve notably smaller investments, potentially amounting to just a few billion dollars. This substantial disparity in scale underscores BRI’s potential to have a more profound impact on the global economy.
Another notable difference between BRI and IMEC relates to their primary modes of transportation. BRI boasts a diverse transportation network, with roughly 70% of its focus on land-based routes, including roads and railways. IMEC, conversely, places greater emphasis on sea transportation, envisioning the development of shipping lanes alongside rail and road connections. This contrast mirrors the geographic and logistical variances between the two initiatives.
BRI is a multidirectional initiative with global reach, aiming to connect China with various regions spanning Asia, Europe, Africa, and even the Americas. This multifaceted approach fosters enhanced connectivity and trade opportunities. In contrast, IMEC is designed to be unidirectional, primarily linking India to Europe. While this targeted approach offers advantages, it may limit the diversity of trade routes and opportunities compared to BRI’s extensive network.
BRI is renowned for its multifaceted package, encompassing a broad array of projects, including infrastructure development (such as roads, railways, and ports), energy initiatives, fiber optics, agriculture, and industrial zones. It is a comprehensive initiative intended to address diverse development needs in participating countries. In contrast, IMEC’s scope appears more limited, with a primary emphasis on shipping lanes and rail and road infrastructure. This suggests that IMEC may not encompass the same breadth of development opportunities as BRI.
IMEC has been launched to stimulate economic development through enhanced connectivity, as evidenced by the Memoranda of Understanding signed by partner nations to supplement existing maritime, road, and rail networks and encourage new investments in the region. The project promises various benefits, including facilitating the development and export of clean energy, strengthening food supply chains, enhancing energy grids, and connecting Asia and Europe through a commercial hub. While IMEC is hailed as a promising option for countries seeking to reap its benefits and join this journey, questions have arisen about its potential competition or comparison with China’s BRI.
While both mega transnational projects share similarities, the BRI surpasses the India-Middle East-Europe IMEC in terms of scale. Notably, several IMEC member countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Italy, are also part of the BRI. In the BRI vs. IMEC debate, IMEC’s policy document does not explicitly mention China, the BRI, or positioning itself as an alternative global project. Financing the IMEC project is expected to be robust, with each member allocating US$20 billion towards its development, as outlined in preliminary reports. Given that the BRI has a ten-year head start over IMEC, the latter’s finalization will occur when partner nations convene again in two months to fine-tune its details, shedding light on how it intends to compete with China’s BRI in the backdrop of a growing US-China geopolitical rivalry.
IMEC, while aiming to counter the BRI and reduce Chinese presence and influence, does not openly declare such intentions. The inclusion of projects like the Piraeus port and the Etihad rail project within IMEC’s connectivity plan underscores the continued Chinese presence in Europe and the Middle East. The Piraeus port, controlled by China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, a Chinese state-owned entity, and the involvement of Chinese firms like PowerChina and China State Construction Engineering Corporation in the rail project are noted by IMEC partner countries. Unlike the BRI, which led to debt issues in partner countries and China’s non-membership in the Paris Club (a group of creditor countries), hindering coordinated and sustainable solutions, IMEC does not address these aspects.
Nevertheless, despite the advantages, challenges, and concerns associated with the BRI, coupled with China’s economic recovery slowdown, the road ahead for the initiative may not be smooth in the coming years, given the escalating US-China geopolitical rivalry. While the US remains intertwined with China’s supply chains initiatives and the strengthening of strategic partnerships with like-minded countries signal a shift away from dependence on China, whether direct or indirect. IMEC has positioned the US as an alternative partner and investor for developing nations while countering China’s BRI. China argues that the US’s IMEC is akin to previous US rail plans with internal infrastructure issues, primarily serving as a political tool rather than a substantial infrastructure project to collaborate with other nations and limit China’s growing global influence.
Despite criticism, unlike the BRI, which is China-centric with investment primarily originating from China and leading to debt-related concerns, IMEC is a project built on cooperation, fostering a broader alignment of shared interests among its members. This opens doors for collaboration in numerous other projects, including the development of clean hydrogen pipelines in the near future. IMEC’s success hinges on adept diplomacy, aligned interests among participating countries, and careful consideration of lessons learned from China’s BRI.
