By José Ramón Cabañas Rodríguez on October 24, 2023 from Havana
Between the 17th and 18th of this October, the 3rd Conference on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) took place in Beijing, People’s Republic of China. Emerging in 2013, from a proposal by President Xi Jinping, the BRI currently shows important results on a global scale, since 152 countries participate in it, it has achieved the signing of more than 3000 cooperation projects, for one million US dollars, it has meant the creation of 420, 000 jobs and has lifted 40 million people out of poverty. But these figures are aging every day at an accelerating rate.
From its inception, the BRI began to fill the gaps left by the repeated failures of neoliberal globalization, especially in those countries where opening their economies wide open did not mean achieving the development goals they had set themselves.
As part of the 10th anniversary celebrations, the organizers invited a group of so-called think tanks (also research centers) to take a tour of five cities in the South of the country, with the aim of appreciating the changes that have occurred within China, which have allowed its projection into the world on a massive scale, with a proposal for cooperation and a shared future.
The Center for International Policy Research (CIPI) is so far the only official representative of Cuba in this group.
China is a country that has been greatly transformed since the so-called reform process began in 1992. Macroeconomic figures, construction levels, budget, exports or investments are usually cited to support the above idea. But the reality of recent years goes far beyond statistics, as it is a nation of enormous proportions, which has managed to bring spiritual and material well-being to its entire population, in a process of constant innovation.
With the multidimensional development of its society, new actors have emerged in all geographical directions, from regional administrations to companies, scientific centers, universities and others, which, although they continue to have a central direction and coordination from Beijing, each of them projects their future not only with national but also international initiatives. In other words, the Chinese system is much more complex than before and knowing it in depth requires more time and expertise.
In each of the five cities visited, the attachment to local culture and history, specialization in specific types of production and services, territorial development and a population with an intense local life, as a result of an enormous effort of past and present generations, were appreciated. The computerization of the main processes is present everywhere, whether for the purchase of a product or for admission to a museum.
At least four times during the program, representatives of the so-called think tanks from a variety of countries had the opportunity to put forward criteria and proposals on the best ways to ensure that the IFR’s future actions originate to a greater extent from research results and not just from purely commercial or political proposals. The Chinese management thus invited a collective reflection on the positive and negative aspects of the experiences of the last 10 years, with the proposal to imagine a future together.
At the same time, official representatives of the BRI member countries, as well as business executives and other sectors that contribute to the BRI’s development, also took part in their own programs.
The highlight of the Conference took place on the morning of the 18th, when President Jinping addressed the hundreds of participants in the presence of several heads of state and government and the Secretary General of the United Nations. The Asian leader took stock of what has been achieved so far, but above all proposed what will be the eight priorities of the Initiative in the coming years:
The scholars gathered there agreed that this is a speech that should be read and analyzed on several occasions, because of what it says, how it says it, how the issues are interrelated, because it constitutes a new phase of a project that has already proven its validity, and because of what it means at a time of transition to a new international order.
It is also necessary to review it on the basis of the issues it does not explicitly address and find the explanation why it does not do so.
In that sense, President Jinping did not address any of the problems that could be of first priority for Chinese foreign policy, such as the warlike actions around the province of Taiwan, or the great power confrontation strategy that has been launched from Washington.
His speech had a higher value against the backdrop of the US President’s visit to Tel Aviv to support the Israeli government in its scorched earth policy against Palestine, even in the midst of a political crisis in Washington DC, where different political factions in the Federal Congress are not even able to elect the leader of one of its two chambers, nor to pass transcendent legislation.
The second president to speak at the high-level segment of the conference was Vladimir Putin, who referred to the value of the BRI as a new form of articulating international relations, to Russia’s future participation in it with large-scale logistical commitments within and beyond the geography of his country. In an ethical manifesto towards the hosts and attendees, Putin did not refer to the military actions in Ukraine, nor to the permanent anti-Russian campaign from the so-called West. Dignitaries from nations large and small felt they were attending a meeting of equals to imagine a future in which there would be room for all, despite their differences.
Rarely in recent years have the different faces of the two worlds in which we live been shown within the same 24 hours of one day. On the one hand, the old multilateral space of imposition, terror and inequality; on the other, that of solidarity, equality and possible peace.
After the experiences of these days, from the simplest observation of the immediate reality, to the intense debate with experts from different latitudes, we can draw widely shared conclusions. The first of these is that the BRI will cease to be just another foreign policy project of the PR of China, to become a reference point and a unique instrument of multilateralism to which most of the international community aspires.
There is also no doubt that the leadership of the Asian giant, in proposing the eight points mentioned above, has already elaborated a detailed theoretical underpinning for them, has made projections using data engineering and has imagined a future nourished by the experiences of its millenary culture. The results of the last 10 years are the best evidence that this projection will come true.
The invitation has been extended to all of us in the most courteous way possible and the possibilities of each country to benefit from its budgets and contributions will depend on the readings we make of the meaning of this fact and to what extent we are able to innovate and take on challenges at the speed imposed by a new era.
We all know that a country’s external projection depends on its internal policy and, in this sense, the PR of China is showing us that it has managed to articulate an internal social economic model in which collective interests prevail, in which human solidarity is manifested and in which the hate industry and military expenditures are not the driving force. It is because of this simple reality that it is in a position to go ahead and propose, together with other actors, a common development alternative of shared interests.
It is understandable that U.S. strategists are worried these days and are shaking the argument of the alleged Chinese threat to the four winds, because it is a challenge they will not be able to overcome. To do so, they would have to change their internal “rules of the game”, see others as equals and understand that the world is a common good, something that already seems far beyond their reach.
José Ramón Cabañas Rodríguez is Director of the International Policy Research Center (CIPI) in Havana, Cuba and former Cuban Ambassador to the US
Source: Resumen Latinoamericano – English