Regional Dimensions of the Belt and Road Initiative

Regional Dimensions of the Belt and Road Initiative

Asian and African Relations Department | Foreign and Security Policy

The conference entitled ‘Regional Dimensions of the Belt and Road Initiative’ was held in Brussels as the third instalment of the Antall József Knowledge Centre’s ‘New Geoeconomic Prospects between Asia and Europe’ conference series launched in 2017. The high-level international conference, organised by the Antall József Knowledge Centre (AJKC) in partnership with China-CEE Institute aimed primarily to examine how the Chinese initiative will bring about the development of East Asian and European economic and trade processes and how the affected regions can become involved in wider global trade processes. The conference intended to provide space for scientific discussion with the involvement of international experts regarding the impact of this trans-continental initiative on East Asian countries and its perception in the European Union and the East Asian region. The two panels of the conference gave an opportunity to examine the different perceptions of the Belt and Road Initiative in the East Asian and European regions.

The event was held on 26 September 2019 in Brussels, opening remarks were delivered by Veronika Antall-Horváth, Deputy Director of AJKC, as well as by Xin Chen, Director of China-CEE Institute and Deputy Director of Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Veronika Antall-Horváth, Deputy Director of the Antall József Knowledge Centre highlighted in her operning remarks the key features of the Belt and Road Initiative.

Xin Chen, Deputy Director of Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Furthermore, co-organiser of the conference and Director of the Budapest-based China-CEE Institute.

The first panel discussion, which was moderated by Emese Schwarcz, International Relations Manager at AJKC, focused on the perceptions of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in East Asia and on the role the region plays in the initiative. Zuokui Liu, Senior Research Fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences emphasized that the ASEAN+3 cooperation platform has been an important experience for China in promoting the Belt and Road Initiative in East Asia, however, in his opinion the competing and inclusive regionalism of the neighbouring countries still remains a challenge. Liu added that the United States and other major powers do not see a closer East Asian cooperation platform favourably, therefore China needs to take a gradual approach in this regard. Bruno Hellendorff, Joint Research Fellow at the Egmont Royal Institute for International Relations highlighted that the comprehensive concept of connectivity, as defined by ASEAN, has three branches: physical, institutional and people-to-people. This definition ought to be accepted by those countries which wish to negotiate regionalism and international cooperation with the countries of South East Asia. As for ASEAN member states, it is still a question how to fit their own initiatives into other connectivity plans such as the BRI. Hellendorff argued, through the example of Indonesia, that the BRI means economic opportunity, political risk and at the same time it is strategically a complex issue. The largest country of South East Asia is in need of (mainly infrastructural) investment, while – due to historical reasons – the Chinese source is problematic. That is precisely why the fact that China waived the state guarantee in case of the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway was of high importance, which could be realised on a completely commercial basis – signalling the pragmatic approach of the Beijing leadership. From a political and strategic point of view, cooperation with China is a highly complex issue for Indonesia, given domestic politics, its bilateral relations with the United States and the central role of ASEAN in the country’s foreign policy. Hellendorff added that connectivity is a consensual topic that the developed and developing countries of the region are all happy to discuss and he sees it as the ‘positive side’ of geoeconomics since the areas that can concern connectivity projects have become a field for great power rivalry. Erik Famaey, Senior Associate at the European Institute for Asian Studies said that Japan has been the most important investor in South East Asia since the 1990s, which focuses on quality infrastructure. Referring to the latest status report of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, Famaey highlighted that the excitement surrounding BRI is exaggerated and depends much on the future economic success of China, but said that the initiative will continue regardless the scale of financing by the Chinese state. Famaey argued that the main structural challenges for Chinese economy are the ageing of society, predominance of debt-fuelled investments and the decreasing growth of Chinese export. Currently the Japanese investments are of higher value in South East Asia than the projects under the BRI of China, however there are no accurate information about this as it is not clear what exactly considered a BRI project.

The first panel discussion focused on the perceptions of the Belt and Road Initiative in East Asia and on the role the region plays in the initiative.

With regard to the impact of the trade conflict between South Korea and Japan on the region, Liu said that Chinese-South Korean people-to-people exchanges and cultural ties are successful, South Korea became an important investor in China after the start of the reform and opening-up policy and continues to be a significant trade partner for the country. Famaey underlined that due to the historical roots of the conflict between South Korea and Japan, it seems never-ending, therefore the coexisting cooperation and antagonism – that specific to the region – will remain to prevail in their bilateral relations. Famaey and Hellendorff agreed that the trade conflict will not force neither Japan nor South Korea to closer relations with China, nevertheless deteriorating economic relations with China is not in their interest. In this context, it is not in China’s interest to act antagonistically with its two neighbours either.

Answering to the question concerning the main differences between European and East Asian projects, Liu said that compared to European companies Japanese and South Korean corporations have many decades of experiences with investing in China as well as with providing official development assistance. Among the latest developments regarding the Belt and Road Initiative Hellendorff mentioned that China currently renegotiates a few contracts, and President Xi Jinping started to emphasize the importance of quality in connection with executing projects, which hopefully will lead to more sustainable connectivity projects in the future. The expert added that the Chinese initiative needs more “success stories.” Famaey pointed out that financially speaking, the return period of infrastructural investments is quite long and there is also a currency mismatch as the BRI projects are financed in US dollar, which are not advantageous for the BRI. The speaker added, though, that there have been successful BRI projects so far but those were less publicised by the international media. Famaey stressed that while the BRI is a bilateral arrangement, the EU-Asia Connectivity Strategy released by the EU basically is a multilateral one, even though the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a multilateral institution, which puts a lot of emphasis on conditionality and sustainability. Liu agreed with the latter and said that China tries to make the financing of BRI projects more diverse and include other countries as well, for instance through the aforementioned bank. Hellendorff added that in this regard it would be important to make these channels truly multilateral and transparent in order to allow the European party to join as well.

The second panel of the conference, moderated by Tamás Kozma, Head of Asian and African Relations Department at AJKC, focused on the European perceptions of the Belt and Road Initiative. Tianping Kong, Professor of the Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Lin Goethals, Programme Director for Asia at the European Institute for Asian Studies both highlighted the increasing visibility of the Chinese initiative as a tangible result so far. Joanna Ciesielska-Klikowska, Assistant Professor, Faculty of International and Political Studies, University of Łódz added that the Belt and Road Initiative put China on some European leaders’ map; and there has been some visible results when it comes to infrastructural projects in Europe, for example the train line between Chengdu and Łódź. Ciesielska-Klikowska said that for Europe the BRI put China into a new perspective and it defines how it relates to the East Asian country. In her point of view, the political, economic and social dimensions opened up new avenues for relations between China and the European Union. Goethals noted that China has emerged as a competitor of the EU in the international order, but it is not clear whether the EU can formulate a long-term China strategy and reply with “one voice” to this challenge. The latter is quite interesting especially in the light of the new EU leadership. According to Kong, China does not intend to become a “European power” and it rather wants to be a partner of the EU and operate in the current international order. There have been positive responses from the EU with regards the BRI, however Kong thinks that there is still a misunderstanding about it among European leaders.

The second panel of the conference focused on the European perceptions of the Belt and Road Initiative.


Goethals and Ciesielska-Klikowska agreed that the trust from the European side towards China is very limited as the content of the Belt and Road Initiative is still not clear for European societies. Therefore, it would be important to make information about the BRI available or more visible for the public, outside of the circles of political decision makers and experts.

Furthermore, Goethals said that since Xi Jinping came to power China and the EU have become systemic rivals that compete and cooperate with each other at the same time. In her opinion, the distrust mainly stems from the vagueness of the BRI’s aim that the EU could not handle. In his reply to the question concerning trade reciprocity between China and the EU, Kong said that China is in the process of liberalising its economy and continuously opens up new opportunities for foreign investors, while the United States introduces protectionist measures. While, in Goethals’ view there is no reciprocity in terms of investments since European and Chinese companies still cannot operate on each other’s markets under the same conditions. Ciesielska-Klikowska stated that the EU-Asia Connectivity Strategy signals a positive step towards cooperation with China and provides a more concrete framework for BRI in Europe. In connection with the EU’s strategy, Goethals added that it is interpreted as the EU’s reply to the BRI, which essentially focuses on connecting Eurasia in the fields of trade, investments, besides transportation, energy, and digitalisation. Also, Central Asia plays an important role in both initiatives, which was not the case a few decades ago.

With regard to the 17+1 Cooperation, Ciesielska-Klikowska said that the initial expectations of the V4 countries have not been met and that currently the focus of the cooperation is shifting to Balkan countries. Goethals also agreed that Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) was disappointed in the EU’s response to the 2008-2009 world economic crisis, therefore the region welcomed the Chinese initiative with (too) high expectations. Now, it is a question for the EU whether it will allow China to continue with its policy of divide et impera in the region. In Kong’s point of view, the 17+1 Cooperation gave the CEE countries position in China’s foreign policy and the consequently launched political dialogue can surely be considered a success.

Closing remarks were delivered by Balázs Hamar, Head of Brussels Office of AJKC, who talked about the importance of the Belt and Road Initiative as a complex issue which should be discussed in order to contribute to the better understanding of the entire cooperation process and increase its visibility

The conference was closed by the speech of Balázs Hamar, Head of the Antall József Knowledge Centre's Brussels Office.

Asian and African Relations Department