16 July 2019
A tale of two China’s in the news
My attention these last few weeks has been focused on the public demonstrations in Hong Kong where I twice served prior to the handover of the former British Colony to China, firstly in the British military and secondly in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force.
In a wider sense I have also been thinking about China and its ongoing push for wider global trade and international development.
Perhaps, I might share with your readers some reports I have come across concerning both of the competing ‘Chinese Dragons.’
First, writing today, in the ‘Asia Times.’ Gary Sands, a well know journalist and political any list penned a story which he titled, ‘In Taiwan today, sovereignty trumps the economy.’
I will quote a few extracts from his article.
“The last six weeks have seen record crowds take to the streets in Hong Kong, first to protest a proposed extradition bill which rights activists argue could allow for both Hong kongers and visitors critical of China to be deported to mainland China for trial.”
“The massive size of some of the protests (nearly two million protesters out of a population of seven million) and the international media attention they drew eventually led to an apology from Beijing-appointed Chief Executive Carrie Lam, who declared the legislation “dead,” and reportedly offering her resignation. However, protesters fear the bill may be resurrected. Student leaders are now calling for an independent inquiry into excessive police violence, full amnesty for those arrested, and the removal of Lam from office. And as the demonstrations in Hong Kong continue their relentless pace, the protesters’ message is taking on a wider resonance.”
“Thanks to social media, photos and videos of the Hong Kong protests have been widely circulated and are proving especially troubling to many Taiwanese, who can foresee facing similar threats to their judicial system and liberties. Meanwhile, Taiwanese who depended solely on “red media,” outlets that are perceived to be influenced by China, were left in the dark for days, as news of the protests was slow to be released.”
“Years of slow economic growth and stagnant wages have led many Taiwanese to place concerns over the economy above those of national sovereignty. But as the military threat from China grows, concerns over sovereignty appear to be putting economic concerns in the shade. According to an annual poll conducted in March by Taipei research institute Academia Sinica, a majority of respondents now value Taiwan’s sovereignty over economic gains.”
“The survey asked respondents, “When it comes to cross-Strait exchanges, some people believe that Taiwan’s economic benefits are important, while others believe that Taiwan’s national sovereignty is important. Which one do you think is more important?”
“Taiwanese voters in 2020 may be further compelled to choose a president who prioritizes sovereignty over wealth.”
In Xining in China this week (from 19 to 22 July) the Chinese Government will be holding another of its regular ‘Belt and Road Summits.
What is the ‘Belt and Road’ policy all about?
Well, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is the most ambitious infrastructure investment effort in history. But is it also a plan to remake the global balance of power?
Two well known writers, Andrew Chatzky and James McBride have said this, as recently as May this year, on the Belt and Road initiative
“In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the launch of both the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, infrastructure development and investment initiatives that would stretch from East Asia to Europe. The project, eventually termed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) but sometimes known as the New Silk Road, is one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever conceived. It harkens back to the original Silk Road, which connected Europe to Asia centuries ago, enriching traders from the Atlantic to the Pacific.”
“Some analysts see the project as an unsettling extension of China’s rising power, and as the costs of many of the proposed projects have skyrocketed, opposition has grown in some participant countries. Meanwhile, the United States shares the concern of some in Asia that the BRI could be a Trojan horse for China-led regional development, military expansion, and Beijing-controlled institutions.”
“The Silk Road came into being during the westward expansion of China’s Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE), which forged trade networks throughout what are today the Central Asian countries of Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, as well as modern-day India and Pakistan to the south. Those routes extended more than four thousand miles to Europe.”
“Central Asia was thus the epicenter of one of the first waves of globalization, connecting eastern and western markets, spurring immensewealth, and intermixing cultural and religious traditions. Valuable Chinese silk, spices, jade, and other goods moved west while China received gold and other precious metals, ivory, and glass products. Use of the route peaked during the first millennium, under the leadership of first the Roman and then Byzantine Empires, and the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE) in China.”
“President Xi announced the initiative during official visits to Kazakhstan and Indonesia in 2013. The plan was two-pronged: the overland Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road. The two were collectively referredto first as the One Belt, One Road initiative but eventually became the Belt and Road Initiative.
“Xi’s vision included creating a vast network of railways, energy pipelines, highways, and streamlined border crossings, both westward—through the mountainous former Soviet republics—and southward, to Pakistan, India, and the rest of Southeast Asia. Such a network would expand the use of Chinese currency, the renminbi, while new infrastructure could “break the bottleneck in Asian connectivity,” according to Xi. (The Asian Development Bank estimates that the region faces a yearly infrastructure financing shortfall of nearly $800 billion.) In addition to physical infrastructure, China plans to build fifty special economic zones, modeled after the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone, which China launched in 1980 during its economic reforms under leader Deng Xiaoping.”
“Xi subsequently announced plans for the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road at the 2013 summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Indonesia. To accommodate expanding maritime trade traffic, China would invest in port development along the Indian Ocean, from Southeast Asia all the way to East Africa.”
“China’s overall ambition for the BRI is staggering. To date, more than sixty countries—accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population—have signed on to projects or indicated an interest in doing so. Analysts estimate the largest so far to be the $68 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a collection of projects connecting China to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea. In total, China has already spent an estimated $200 billion on such efforts. Morgan Stanley has predicted China’s overall expenses over the life of the BRI could reach $1.2–1.3 trillion by 2027, though estimates on total investments vary.”
“China has both geopolitical and economic motivations behind the initiative. Xi has promoted a vision of a more assertive China, while the new normal of slowing growth has put pressure on the country’s leadership to open new markets for its consumer goods and excess industrial capacity.”
To date, more than sixty countries—accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population—have signed on to projects or indicated an interest in doing so, including several in the Western Pacific, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, Vanuatu and New Zealand to my knowledge.
“While several developing countries in need of new roads, railways, ports, and other infrastructure have welcomed BRI investments, the initiative has also stoked opposition. For some countries that take on large amounts of debt to fund the necessary infrastructure, BRI money is seen as a potential poisoned chalice. BRI projects are built with low-interest loans as opposed to aid grants; explain CFR’s Alyssa Ayres and Elizabeth C. Economy and Johns Hopkins’s Daniel Markey. Some BRI investments have required the use of Chinese firms and their bidding processes have lacked transparency. As a result, contractors have inflated costs, leading to canceled projects and political pushback.”
The Belt and Road initiative follows upon China’s huge internal developments over the past three decades with new cities, gleaming skyscrapers, super-highways, high speed rail networks, shopping malls and the mass movement of more than 200 million rural labourers to the new cities where they work in factories.
The migrating labourers have wanted to build a better way of life for themselves and their families and to escape the poverty, austerity and rigidity of life in the Chinese countryside where no developments have taken place.
Because of laws preventing the children moving to the cities with their parents there are already an estimated 58 million children left in the countryside where they stay alone or with elderly grandparents.
To be fair, during the last ten years or so the Chinesegovernment has introduced a raft of policies, laws and regulations to provide better care for children left behind in the countryside, and to make education, healthcare and social services more accessible to migrant children in cities. However, the government’s rural policies have lacked the human and financial resources needed to effectively implement them.
From a personal perspective, I find it hard to fully understand why China’s push for global trade and development in terms of its Belt and Road initiative tops the agenda when it comes to developments at home to alleviate the abandonment, distress and pain of so many its abandoned children.
Yours sincerely
Frank Short
