The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has caused quite a controversy in the USA. China haters despise it. Most of them seem to reside within the government of the USA, since most nations at least tentatively embrace the concept. Before discussing the port dispute in Sri Lanka, it is useful to go back to the origins of the Belt and Road, then known as One Belt One Road. 

Brookings ran an op-ed back in Summer of 2015 in which the author points out that China had overcapacity problems. It was necessary for the nation to improve consumption at home and investment abroad. China wanted the World Bank, which is really the development bank of the western world, to invest in infrastructure. China was frustrated at the failure of this bank to do so. 

In response to the West's fossilized ways, China formed the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the AIIB. The Chinese had a surplus of infrastructure materials. After all, one can only build so many empty cities. According to Brookings, the United States was immediately against the bank, and its pet project, One Belt One Road. Makes one wonder what is going on in our nation. We can't even fix the infrastructure in our own nation and China is fixing up almost 50 ports and is building highways in foreign lands! 

As you read on, keep in mind that India has over 7 percent investment in the AIIB. And China has close to 30 percent. India may not want the infrastructure of Belt and Road to be built on its soil, but that nation has a strong interest in the success of the venture. China is willing to put infrastructure out into the world. It is hard for the USA to make the case that this is political, as much as it is economic necessity. 

According to the World Bank, China has brought more people out of poverty (at least 500 million) than currently reside in the entire USA. A nation of communists has shown more compassion for poor people than the leading nation on earth that supposedly retains some Judeo/Christian values. 

According to NPR:

What China — its government and its people — have achieved is unprecedented in human history: Around 700 million Chinese have worked their way above the poverty line since 1980, accounting for three-quarters of global poverty reduction during that period. 

There was lots of what now could be called propaganda (I leave it to the reader to judge), regarding the Hambantota port in the news. This port was built prior to the China Belt and Road Initiative, but was incorporated into that plan. Analysis is made regarding the Belt and Road, and some it may have merit but clearly, much of it is just bah humbug.

The port, also known as the Magampura Mahinda Rajapaksa Port, incurred losses, and China made a deal with Sri Lanka to forgive debt in exchange for a 99 year lease for the port. The now fairly famous New York Times article, How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port, put the deal in the worst light. Other examples of negative articles were China's Belt and Road, to Nowhere| National Interest and One Belt One Road One Big Mistake| Foreign Policy.

The concept of debt trap diplomacy, of which China is accused, must be like the western nations extending liar loans to citizens of many nations in the housing crisis. And it must be like German banks extending massive easy, toxic credit to the nations formerly known as PIIGS that they would not extend to their own citizens.

But Sri Lanka still owns the port property, while people like Steve Mnuchin mercilessly foreclosed on properties right and left.  The housing bubble was the ultimate "debt trap diplomacy", only you didn't need diplomats. And as far as Germany is concerned, there was no debt forgiveness for Greece. Look what happened to poor Greece. These are just more examples of lack of compassion in the western world.

The new year has rolled around and we find that reports are 300 ships visited the Sri Lanka port in 2018 and a rise in activity was noted for the first week of 2019. While these reports are not yet conclusive, it appears that the Chinese involvement through China Merchants Port Holdings will continue to grow port activity in 2019. It is this sort of factual story that makes western stories opposing the BRI look very weak. As time goes on, there appears to be a tempered approach by the media.

Foreign Affairs has a new and different take on the BRI and writes:

Reports of Belt and Road's Death Are Greatly Exaggerated 

And the Council on Foreign Relations displays a title that  is also balanced:

China's Massive Belt and Road Initiative

It isn't like the USA couldn't do this with the wealth that we have. We had years to develop nations in our sphere. Why hasn't the USA built a BRI in Latin America? Or why didn't the USA partner with India and its friends to build a BRI? India is a nation that would benefit from BRI as the infrastructure is meager.

India has decided to avoid the 2019 Belt and Road forum, because, as you can see from the map above, the Pakistan/India Corridor runs through Kashmir, which is a disputed territory that sets back Pakistan/India progress. It happens that the road goes through a Pakistan controlled part of the disputed territory.

India has opposed some aspects of the Belt and Road on other grounds. As Asia as a whole grows closer, India sometimes is the out outlier. The problem with that is that India desperately needs infrastructure and China could bring India massive prestige in the world. The Indian government is not responsive to economic progress through the Chinese initiative. 

But remember, as said above, India has a very big stake in the AIIB. There are many nations listed as stakeholders in the AIIB. Nations like Israel, Canada, Germany, and the UK are members invested in the bank. Most of Europe is invested, not just Italy, which was recently in the news regarding Belt and Road. Funny that the title of the article was Italy Rattles US and EU with likely support for China's Belt and Road. That is very laughable since most Euro nations are already invested in the infrastructure bank. How 'bout limiting the rattled ones to the USA paranoid government. 

The Indian government is listening to the USA, and not the needs of its people, in my view. Modhi has not completely severed ties with China, as I wrote here, and certainly opportunities for cooperation in the future remain. 

Ultimately, only time will tell if the BRI brings prosperity to the region. Not doing the BRI will certainly not bring prosperity to the region. According to Brookings, the BRI is a response to the failed TPP. Perhaps Trump's pullout from the TPP will continue to help Asia bonding, and that fusion will ultimately leave the USA out, which is as it should be. Since the Marshall Plan, the US has always put power over prosperity. We deserve to be excluded, even though many nations were ready to embrace the BRI and the TPP.

As Brookings concludes:

Trump’s TPP pullout has significant economic and strategic consequences for the United States, none of which are good.  It is an own goal that is more consistent with “US last” than Trump’s “US first” claims. The decision by the administration to recognize the BRI in the US-China trade agreement would, in the presence of TPP, have been a pragmatic move to make space for a personal initiative of Xi, recognizing the win-win nature of the trade liberalization brought about by TPP and BRI’s goals of investing in needed infrastructure. With TPP on shaky ground at best, this recognition of BRI compounds the uncertainty in Asia caused by the US withdrawal and raises further questions about US economic and strategic goals for the region.

An article was published that astonished me from a China hater. It was entitled, China's Blueprint for Global Dominance. In the article, Jonathan Ward, founder of Atlas Organization and featured on the website, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), is interviewed by Dave Lawler. 

Ward's analysis is paranoid and flawed. For example, Ward says the Belt and Road exists to impose the coercive force of the Chinese economy for empire building. How about the truth of the matter, that China has too much damn cement and wants to keep cement makers working and infrastructure built to transport goods and services. Seriously, the efforts to see a dark side of a very simple economic issue, over capacity, boggles the mind. There is a real problem when people ignorant of economics decide to watch out for the security of the world. 

Ward wants us to shift supply chains away from China to friendly countries. Ok, so, who is friendly when our closest ally, the United Kingdom is, like most nations that matter, invested in the AIIB? Trump has made almost every nation angry. Ward is fighting a losing battle. Even Israel thinks we are crazy for these paranoid views.   

But it is people like Ward who have Trump's ears, Peter Navarro specifically. And that is a bad thing for American prosperity. It is amazing that the nation of the free and the brave has such a hate for a nation that freed suffering people from poverty. I just don't understand it. 

For further reading:

"Who's Afraid of the AIIB? Why the United States Should Support China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank"