question_answer

The idea of One Belt One Road (OBOR) is based on the old idea of the silk route with a difference.

Earlier it grew out of the exigencies of trade, now, as part of China’s peripheral diplomacy and Theory of Boundless National Interest’, it is China'’s game plan for getting fifty-seven or more nations on board for the OBOR.

There is both fear and excitement connected to this. China’'s rising supremacy and tenacious strategic planning instigates a sense of caution and vigilance on the part of India while it still needs and wants to be integrated with OBOR. Other nations too feel the same.

One Belt One Road was good until it turned into a colossal foreign policy initiative of China, one where it reminded nations of China’s throwback to an “"Empire status”".

OBOR triggered anti-China sentiments from Australia to Europe. There was a growing fear that Beijing would adopt colonial like ambitions over most countries around it. In fact, Australia is setting up "“joint regional infrastructural scheme”" to come up with an alternative to China’s OBOR initiative.

Australia seemed concerned and wanted to inhibit China’s further influence. Australia'’s plan involves India, USA and Japan. It is much too nascent right now to consider it.

Eleven countries in the "“16+1"” are EU members and there is rising apprehension that the attempt to have bilateral relations in this framework could affect the internal cohesion and risk divisions among members that compete for Chinese attention.

Germany too is preparing a legislation to check the drain of technoLEGAL know-how which Chinese items are bringing in as substitutes. Ironically, there are trains which have already begun transferring goods from China to Germany.

Germany flagged a substantive problematic and rejected OBOR. In its view, China was against democracy and freedom. Further, it emphasized that it would promote a new value system different from the West.

The opposite viewpoint is that OBOR is a feasible project, a geo-functionalist one, a futuristic one which may yield results. China truly organizes itself as an agenda entrepreneur whether in an institutional or functional strategic way. China’s institutionalization attempt might be isomorphic with the existing Western dominated system.

In terms of hegemonic structure due to the cognitive limitations in finding alternatives, China might ruin its own feasibility initiative. Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the OBOR initiative as promoting global connectivity as well as infrastructure construction. This was in 2013.

The project aims to connect China to Europe via Eurasia in the ongoing 21st century and linking Asia with Africa and Europe. One has to wonder that even with the ongoing Chinese led industrialization process, OBOR initiative is feasible but fragile.

It is almost a dream framework of cooperation among nation states being possible via interdependence as an outcome of international institutions without the need for a hegemon almost decrying the hegemonic stability theory, and therefore the point is made in supporting China’'s initiative.

Yet China is trying to achieve parallel insularization in the establishment of Asia Infrastructural Investment Bank (AIIB) which is in essence a hierarchic structure. This would place China at the center of geo-economic and geo-political landscape in the region and beyond.

Moreover, China also created the Silk Road Fund with capital of US 40 billion as a long-term medium development investment fund. All this of course, generates the fear of Sino centrism as part of OBOR concept. China is a deliberative actor in the investment dominated international system. This is truly a case of Keohanian interdependence between international politics and economics. Taking it further, it will definitely impact India’'s strategic mapping with China.

The frightening aspect is that the US taking a dig at China’'s OBOR emphasized that connectivity projects in India-Pacific could compromise nations security. This, though a bit exaggerated is a matter of deep concern to India’s strategic perception too.

Which institutions create the fear of Sino centrism?

A) Asia Infrastructural Investment Bank (AIIB)

B) Silk Road Fund

C) Both (a) and (b)

D) Neither (a) nor (b)

Correct Answer: C

Solution :

(c) China is trying to achieve parallel insularization in the establishment of Asia Infrastructural Investment Bank (AIIB) which is in essence a hierarchic structure. This would place China at the center of geo-economic and geo-political landscape in the region and beyond. Moreover, China also created the Silk Road Fund with capital of US 40 billion as a long-term medium development investment fund. All this of course, generates the fear of Sino centrism as part of OBOR concept.