Papers (Part 1)

• BRI and the Use(s) of History Marina Kaneti National University of Singapore

  Ever since it was officially announced in 2013, the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) has been framed in the image of the ancient Silk Road, particularly what the initiative’s architects call the Silk Road Spirit of “peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning and mutual benefit.’’ In emulating a centuries-old history of global interconnectivity, the BRI is envisioned as means to “strengthen exchanges and mutual learning between different civilizations, and promote world peace and development. Given the explicit emphasis on ancient connectivities, how can we think about the role of history in legitimizing progress and visions for the future? How does the construction and representation of memory inform geopolitical ambitions and foreign relations?

  While the majority of scholars and analysts of the BRI have largely focused on the role of investments and infrastructure as part of the initiative, this paper discusses how an approach combining political theory, history, memory and visual studies sheds light on the BRI in the context of emerging geopolitical alliances and visions for future interactions. Starting with the premise that the history associated with the ancient Silk Road is not exclusively or only Chinese, I argue that the conceptualizations and representations of past interactions, especially in South Asia and along the Maritime Silk Road, can also be seen as sites for the (de)construction of memory, (re)appropriation of meanings, localization of narratives, and resistance to tendencies for universalization and exceptionalism. While many such aspects can only be explored by simultaneously engaging tools from different disciplines, the paper also discusses the challenges and opportunities presented by the use of interdisciplinary methodology.

• Spaces of Capital: Uneven Geographical Development and the Belt and Road Initiative in Laos Samantha Webb University of Sydney

  While the dominant rhetoric around China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) posits it as a geopolitical masterplan, I argue this is an abstraction that ignores the fundamental capitalist logic to which China is bound. It is therefore necessary to situate the BRI within the global capitalist system, both historically and conjuncturally, to better understand the BRI as spatial-temporal fix for China’s crisis of overaccumulation. Historically, China’s present situation of overaccumulation of capital and limited opportunities for profitable investment can be traced to its own integration into the world capitalist system from the late 1970s onwards, and the role that China played in absorbing the surplus capital of wealthy, western countries including the US, Europe and also Japan, as well as the way the global recession of 2008 drove China to implement huge fiscal stimulus. Conjuncturally, it must also be acknowledged that the BRI is only possible due to the ongoing existence of underdevelopment within countries across the world who are the recipients of Chinese surplus capital. Far from the underdevelopment of these countries being due to a lack of integration into the global capitalist system, these countries are systemically underdeveloped as a result of their integration into the capitalist system. In exploring these concepts of uneven and combined development in relation to the BRI, this article undertakes an incorporated comparison of the People’s Democratic Republic of Laos (Laos PDR), a small, landlocked nation and former French colony in Southeast Asia that is currently the recipient of a $6 billion Chinese BRI infrastructure project. The China-Laos railway is an integral segment of a high-speed railway that will eventually connect China to Singapore, via Laos, Thailand and Malaysia, with varied social, economic and environmental consequences for those countries and their people. The BRI is therefore both a product of historical uneven and combined development, while also contributing to new patterns of uneven and combined development in the contemporary global capitalist system.

• The Chinese Belt-And-Road Initiative (BRI) and Its Impact on Democratization and De-Democratization Processes in Southeast Asia Wolfram Schaffar University of Passau

  Since the launch of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, academics and analysts debate about the character and impact of Chinese economic activities on the political situation of the recipient countries. The debate centers around the question in how far China - apart from an economic agenda - exports its authoritarian development model as an alternative, non-liberal, state-centered development paradigm and thus contributes to processes of de-democratization. Xi Jinping and other political leaders have remained ambiguous about the question, whether China is actively exporting the its political system. Yet, in the EU's most recent strategy paper, the European Commission acknowledged China not only as a strategic partner, but also as a systemic rival.

  As a matter of fact, the implementation of the BRI coincides with a global wave of authoritarianism and the majority of countries which are committed to the project, are authoritarian regimes. But even worse: in some countries, the shift from a liberal democratic towards an authoritarian regime seems to be directly connected with the re-orientation towards China and its BRI activities. Prominent examples are Thailand, Myanmar and the Philippines.

  In my paper I will discuss the examples of Thailand, the Philippines and Myanmar and explore, in how far the process of de-democratization and the establishment of authoritarian regimes can be linked to Chinese influence. I will map the different modes of Chinese influence and show that it varies greatly from country to country – from restrained commercial presence to more or less direct intervention in internal security affairs. Drawing on Neo-Gramscian theories of International Relations, however, I will argue that the variety of political conflicts and processes cannot be fully explained by the external impact of Chinese foreign policy. Rather, the data supports analyses which highlight the interplay between external and internal factors, arguably with a primacy of internal factors.

Papers (Part 2)

• China’s Grand Strategy and the Possible Geopolitical Consequences of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road for the Philippines Peter Klemensits Pallas Athene Geopolitical Research Institute

  The 21st Century Maritime Silk Road was launched by China in 2013 as part of its ambitious Belt and Road (BRI) mega project. Southeast Asian countries have shown great enthusiasm for the Chinese plans, because they hope to benefit enormously in economic terms from the success of the BRI. At the same time, the Maritime Silk Road has great significance in a geopolitical sense, because it has become the decisive element of Chinese grand strategy. Especially in the case of ASEAN countries, it has a greater strategic goal: reinforcing China’s economic and political influence in the region. In the case of the Philippines, after the election of President Rodrigo Duterte in June 2016, the country became one of the main supporters of the Maritime Silk Road, as the new president realized that the improvement of economic relations with China was of strategic importance. His “turn to China” policy has become an important pillar of his foreign and economic policies, since Chinese investments could help to achieve the hoped-for development of the Philippines, while redefining its relations with the major powers.

  Based on an interdisciplinary approach, the paper will provide a summary of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road and especially the Philippines’ place in the Chinese plans. It will then discuss in detail the aims of the Duterte administration, in political and economic terms alike. The results and the anticipated consequences of the new prosperous partnership between the Philippines and China – namely the agreements and the initiated projects – will also be assessed. According to the paper’s conclusion, Chinese investments can make a great contribution to the development of the Philippines in the long run, but the successful realization of Duterte’s plans will depend on the skills of his government in managing serious foreign and internal political challenges.

• Issues in Dealing with the Maritime Silk Road Padraig Lysaght University of Vienna

  When working on the themes of the Maritime Silk Road, the South China
  Sea and Insular Studies, there are a number of methodological and theory based challenges, which are worth to be considered. Starting from a Global History viewpoint and examining various sources, this paper addresses a number of these challenges that should not be ignored when diving deeper into the theme. While today more often than not Chinese sources on the South China Sea are regarded very critically, up to a certain point in time they are the only existing and accessible ones. The paper provides a brief overview as to why that is so, which developments have to be taken into account and what the potential impact and pitfalls linked to the source materials are. Maps and cartographic traditions, diverse cultural impacts and the philosophies behind them are taken into account. The three most relevant systems for the region will be compared, i.e. the Chinese Tributary System, the South and SouthEast Asian Mandala System and the European Westphalian system. The 'sea' as a space is also a major source of uncertainty, especially when it comes to theoretical frameworks concerning space. The sea as space is also not as monolithic as it might seem, a complex ecosystem on the one hand, a network of sea lanes and unexplored reaches on the other are just two aspects of a highly important and everchanging space. Therefore it is important to reexamine the routes of theoretical concepts for the
  space of the sea and to give some thought on when and what ends these concepts were created. These are just some questions affecting multiple disciplines dealing with the Maritime Silk Road.

• Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam in the Belt and Road Initiative: A Critical Appraisal of the Concept of Hedging Alfred Gerstl Palacký University Olomouc

  Hedging has become a highly popular concept in the analysis of state behavior in Southeast Asia. Many International Relations scholars agree that the Southeast Asian nations neither bandwagon with China or the United States nor balance against one of these two great powers. It seems to be almost a strategic – and analytical – dogma that the Southeast Asian governments deliberately refuse to choose sides. This strategy allows the small and middle powers to secure economic and security benefits both from Beijing and Washington. Hedging also helps the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to expand its strategic leeway: ASEAN aims to engage as many great powers as possible in the regional architecture, thus reducing the threat that one actor becomes dominant. All in all, hedging can be described as a realistic, pragmatic, but sometimes also opportunistic foreign policy strategy to deal with power imbalances and insecurities.

  This presentation will critically question the underlying theoretical assumptions of various hedging approaches and discuss conceptual and methodological challenges for making hedging operationalizable. It will thereby stress the importance of combining economic and security criteria, but also of including the perceptions of a great power by the political elites and the broad public to gain a comprehensive view of the relations of a state with its key partners and opponents. Insights drawn from the relations of Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam with China in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) demonstrate that economically China’s importance increases significantly. However, the case studies also illustrate that Beijing is not a hegemonic economic power; Japan, the European Union, South Korea and the United States are important players, too. In regard to security cooperation, the US and, albeit to a much lesser extent, Japan remain the key partners. In the conclusion, the example of the territorial dispute in the South China Sea will be used to discuss how sustainable a hedging strategy can be in a long-term perspective.

• Theorizing Belt and Road Initiative as Economic Statecraft: The Case of Sino-Vietnamese Relations Mária Strašáková Palacký University Olomouc

  The fact that states have often deployed economic and financial tools to achieve their foreign policy goals is nothing new and China has been no exception. Indeed, as China´s economic power has risen, its leaders have started reassessing ways to transform China´s wealth into diplomatic influence. Hence, this paper argues that Belt and Road Initiative, launched in 2013, can be theorised as the use of economic statecraft by China to shape the attitudes and policies of other countries. Grounding the analysis in Armijo´s and Katada´s analytical framework of three dimensions of economic statecraft of offensive and defensive dichotomy, bilateral and systemic level, and last but not least financial and monetary tools, the objective of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to analyze China´s use of economic statecraft to pursue its foreign policy interests in general (on the systemic level) and more concretely on the case of Vietnam (bilateral level). Secondly, this article sheds light on the challenges of the implementation of Belt and Road Intitiative in Vietnam. Extant literature suggests that it is easier for China to influence smaller economies in Southeast Asia through economic statecraft than that of larger countries. However, our research shows that China’s economic statecraft could be counter-productive in diplomacy in weaker states as China’s coercion, positive or negative, could exacerbate anxiety, generate backlashes, and trigger balancing/ hedging responses both domestically and internationally. This is even more prominent in relations where countries share strained historical relations and are burdened by collective memories and anti-Chinese sentiments.

Abstract

Keywords

• China
• Geopolitics
• Infrastructure