Big move! The West should “defeat China in the game of China”!

Spread the love

Author: Rong ping source: official account: Rong Ping (id:rongping898) has been authorized to reprint

At the G7 summit two days ago, Biden led the G7 to launch a grand plan called “global infrastructure partnership” (PGII).

In short, it means raising 600billion US dollars in five years to help developing countries build infrastructure.

Although the plan is not explicitly aimed at China, Biden’s words “to let the world see the benefits of cooperation with democratic countries” and von delaine’s words “to tell developing countries that they have choices” make it clear that he is coming for the “the Belt and Road”.

Of course, there is nothing strange about G7 targeting China. We have seen it many times in recent years. The most telling thing about this matter is that it has the same plot. Biden played it with these people last year——

In June 2021, also in Europe and at the G7 summit, Biden led the G7 leaders to announce the launch of a “high standard and transparent infrastructure partnership led by major democracies”. The tone also implied the “the Belt and Road”, which was the same as the current 600billion plan.

Of course, there are differences.

One is that the name of the plan last year is “rebuilding a better world” (b3w), which is more slogans.

Another is that Biden was not beaten by reality at that time in June last year, and he was obviously more ambitious and courageous than now. Only 600billion yuan was invested in PGII this year. Last year’s b3w claimed to provide funds for the $40trillion infrastructure needs of developing countries!

40 trillion dollars, friends, this is a typical hamburger with garlic – what a breath!

Well, how is Biden going to proceed with such a huge plan?

In order to answer this question, at that time, the deputy national security adviser of the United States, Singh, led a delegation around Africa, China and the United States, and Asia, especially in West Africa, Senegal and Ghana, where China has obvious advantages, made a key report, saying that the local area is a welcome lane, and praised the difference between the United States and China, such as not requiring the signing of a confidentiality agreement or mortgaging its ports or airports.

So such a good project should naturally be a global response?

Therefore, in the plan announced by the White House, a large number of projects entered the process, saying that it is expected that by the beginning of 2022, a large number of projects, such as the solar power plant project in India, the water treatment facility project in El Salvador, the covid-19 drug and vaccine research and manufacturing project in South Africa, the rural digital connection project in Kenya, and the female entrepreneur investment project in Brazil, will be launched one after another!

The White House was also proud to say that through these projects, the United States hoped to prove the feasibility of the b3w concept.


However, a year passed, and after a wave of noisy publicity, Biden seemed to forget this stubble!

By the first half of 2022, the whole b3w plan had done less than $6million, and was also used to fund the United States’ own Internet and clean energy projects.

To make matters worse, b3w (“build back better world”) is a campaign slogan from Biden. Biden originally intended to use this slogan to kill both at home and abroad. As a result, because he couldn’t get the Democrats, b3w failed and died prematurely in the U.S. Congress.

In other words, b3w is no longer feasible, and going on is to hit Biden in the face.

Therefore, the “global infrastructure partnership” (PGII) proposed by G7 this time is actually the old bottle of new wine, repackaging the failed project b3w, and restarting it under a different name.


Within a year, he pushed b3w and PGII. Why does Biden have such a big obsession with global infrastructure?

In fact, Biden is not the only one. New global infrastructure plans of western countries have been emerging in endlessly in recent years: the “blue dot network plan” in the king of understanding period, the “global portal plan” and the “global connect Europe plan” in the European Union, the “clean green initiative” in the United Kingdom and the “partnership to expand high-quality infrastructure” in Japan, Even the “quadripartite security dialogue” between the United States, Japan, India and Australia has a “infrastructure Partnership Plan”, which claims to help developing countries make infrastructure investment.

But the paradox of this matter is that only a few years ago, the G7 disdained to help developing countries invest in infrastructure.

According to the G7 commitment, 0.7% of GDP should be allocated to provide development assistance to developing countries every year, but the actual implementation in these years is only 0.32% per year, less than half.

Why? Because the work of infrastructure construction has high risks and low returns, neither G7 countries nor private enterprises can find the impetus for large-scale investment.

It is China’s “the Belt and Road” that really gives them motivation and pushes their plans one after another!


In the eyes of Westerners, the “the Belt and Road” has not been a simple infrastructure Cooperation Initiative since its birth.

The reason is very simple. Many countries along the “the Belt and Road” have unstable political and security situations, and there is a great risk of unrest. From the perspective of investment alone, it lacks economic rationality and feasibility, but China has made great efforts to build it, such as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor Project of Pakistan railway.

This shows that the “the Belt and Road” is not an economic plan to pursue return on investment at all, and it must also take other considerations.

What considerations? The general logic of the west is like this——

The countries along the “the Belt and Road” have backward infrastructure and can’t develop at all, so China has brought capital and technology, built bridges and roads, and made trade convenient, so the space for cooperation between the two sides has opened up, right?

Then, China will transfer the low-end manufacturing industry to these countries to build a global supply chain network centered on China. In fact, this process is also China reshaping and dominating the economic development model of these countries. Will these countries inevitably increase their economic dependence on China?

This is somewhat similar to the “Marshall Plan” of the United States at that time. The final result is that the circle of economic integration created by China is becoming larger and larger, becoming a decisive existence that affects the livelihood of all countries, and the global economic pattern is increasingly inclined to China.

With the “binding” of economic interests, China can export Chinese values in the mode of “common economic development”, promote the construction of “community of development and responsibility” and “community of shared future”, and create a community of interests centered on China.

What is more terrifying is that with the in-depth development of the “the Belt and Road”, especially the continuous extension of the “maritime Silk Road”, when China has established endogenous economic ties with other countries, with sufficient strategic footholds, the Chinese navy can deploy overseas and maintain China’s military and strategic presence in the world.

At this stage, in fact, economic intentions and political intentions have overlapped. China has established its own sphere of influence. From the land and sea routes, it runs through Asia and Europe and the Indian Ocean, redrawing the geographical map of Asia and Europe!

This process is also the process of China’s overall subversion of the Western led international order.

Therefore, in the eyes of Westerners, the “the Belt and Road” is not a simple economic initiative, but a geopolitical strategy that allows China’s economic development model to “rule the world”. It is a foreign policy with “China’s ambition”, which embodies a high degree of integrity, unity and strong execution. It is so clever that people are afraid!


Therefore, when b3w was launched last year, a U.S. official said, “so far, we have not provided a positive alternative that reflects our values, standards and business methods.”

Behind this is the weakness and anxiety about the systematic strategy of the “the Belt and Road”.

American think tanks are even more one-sided on this issue, and they all advocate that infrastructure is a strategic issue “more important than ever before”.

This is also the reason why Biden failed in b3w and insisted on packaging a PGII – because the United States cannot be absent, and an absence is equivalent to giving influence to China.

The simplest example is the South Pacific region, which the United States regards as an inland lake, and the Latin American region, which the United States regards as its backyard. How did it lose these years?


Therefore, the G7 has built infrastructure in the past two years to hedge the growing influence of the “the Belt and Road” around the world.

Will this newly launched PGII really pose a threat to the “the Belt and Road”?

I can say for sure: no!

Because there are several unsolvable problems in these large-scale infrastructure projects launched by the West.

The first is the mode.

As mentioned above, the G7 is not about infrastructure at all, and it has nothing to do with helping developing countries. It has only one goal from beginning to end: to fight China.

Whether b3w or PGII, the premise of its existence is to assume that there is a “low standard, undemocratic and opaque”, as well as a “dark version of the the Belt and Road” with debt traps and serving China’s strategic self-interest, while G7 is replacing it with a “high standard, democratic and transparent” plan.

However, this assumption is imagined under the western ideology. It is really put in developing countries. Only those who are full will agree with your ideology.

What developing countries need is the “the Belt and Road” plan that only talks about economic cooperation and simplifies the cooperation process, without being pointed at and scolded by people in human rights, climate change, integrity and domestic laws, and without “choosing sides”.

Correspondingly, the western plan of holding high the banner of ideology and mixing a lot of additional conditions and political preaching will inevitably become acclimatized in the end.

Therefore, the infrastructure plan of G7 is inherently insufficient. How can it compete with the “the Belt and Road”?


Second, funding.

Infrastructure construction is a traditional advantageous project in China. The cost of infrastructure construction in western countries is usually 2-3 times that of Chinese enterprises. In addition, the United States and other countries do not have the support of manufacturing industry, many infrastructure projects can only be outsourced, which costs more.

Therefore, to win the “the Belt and Road”, the G7 must raise more investment than the “the Belt and Road”.

In particular, the infrastructure of “high transparency, sustainability and environmental friendliness” advocated by the G7 has no endless money. What can be used to support it?

So the key to the problem lies in the word “money”.

In the G7’s vision, the source of money is mainly divided into two parts, some of which are invested by the government, and then most of them look for private investment.

Is this reliable?

Take the United States as an example.

The channels for the U.S. government to raise funds include two aspects, one is the financial sector. For example, last year’s b3w mainly planned to provide funds through the American International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), but the total budget of DFC is 60billion at the top, and the budget authorization expires in 2025. What can you take to participate in Biden’s five-year plan?

Not to mention another congressional appropriation, what kind of infrastructure bill Biden desperately pushed after taking office has been cut down in Congress? Domestic investment is cut, and foreign investment can make you pass?

Similarly, other G7 countries are no better. Since the COVID-19, which developed economy has not had the problem of high debt? Whose family’s finances are not tight? The debt of France and Germany has increased, which has brought the whole euro zone into danger. Europe itself is in urgent need of investment. At this time, can it be the God of wealth for developing countries?


Government investment is not feasible. Of course, the governments of the G7 countries know it best, so this part only plays a leverage role, and the focus is also on attracting private investment.

However, private capital is to make money. Investing in infrastructure in developing countries has a long return cycle and low income. It is also prone to many risks, such as political instability, complex security environment, insufficient solvency, imperfect rule of law and business environment. Who would be willing to go private?

According to the calculation of the center for strategic and international studies, the private sector investment in overseas infrastructure projects in G7 countries from 2015 to 2019 was only $22.1 billion, with an average annual investment of only $4.4 billion

But if this job is really so attractive, will western capitalists invest only 4.4 billion a year?


Third, cooperation.

As we said earlier, in addition to the b3w and PGII led by the United States, the European Union has the “global portal plan” and the “global connect Europe plan”, the United Kingdom has the “clean green initiative”, Japan has the “expansion of high-quality infrastructure partnership”, and the “quadripartite security dialogue” also has the “infrastructure Partnership Plan”.

These plans are not consistent in terms of member coverage, financing methods and key directions, which leads to the problem of interest coordination.

For example, Europe mainly focuses on the Balkans, Japan has been active in Southeast Asia for many years, and the United States is more inclined to invest in “Indo Pacific”.

With limited resources, all parties can only focus on their own small plans rather than the G7 collaboration framework, which makes PGII vulnerable to overhead and marginalization.

This is also a common problem faced by the United States. There are too many small circles, but they cannot form an optimal and single alliance strategy. Especially in the face of China, a unified country with distinct political system advantages, no matter how many allies you have, together in such a scattered way, can you match the organizational capacity and efficiency of China?


Fourth, the problem of the United States.

In terms of global infrastructure investment, the United States faces many problems, mainly two.

One is that the US government is not capable enough.

Biden’s government was originally weak. Now its support rate has repeatedly hit new lows, and its ruling foundation is even weaker. In this case, Biden can also coordinate multiple units and widely call on public and private departments to promote a big plan? Anyway, I don’t believe it.

And Americans are now struggling because of high inflation and the mess of domestic infrastructure in the United States. At this time, if you push hundreds of billions of dollars of overseas infrastructure investment, can you carry the banner of “American priority”? Is the Democratic Party going to vote in the year-end election?

Therefore, the biggest uncertainty of this plan may be “Biden can’t”.

“Biden can’t do it” can also lead to another problem – what if Trump’s old baby returns in 2024?

The current PGII infrastructure plan is led by Biden, which is undoubtedly not in line with the appetite of the Republicans.

For example, Biden regards climate change as an absolute “priority”. Once the Republican Party takes office, can you? Trump tore up the Paris Agreement, but it went smoothly!

Now G7 is following Biden. When it’s time for Wang to come on stage, the harder he works, the more “guilty” he is.

Who dares to follow Biden to charge?


So, despite the fact that the most developed group of seven countries in the world jointly besieged the “the Belt and Road”, it seems that there are enough gimmicks. In fact, to put it bluntly, it means copying our homework and drawing a paper tiger.

At the end of the article, the author has something to say

The success of the “the Belt and Road” lies on the one hand in the steadfast construction of the “infrastructure maniac”, and on the other hand, it is because we have a highly unified top-level strategy and patience to layout slowly in ten years.

The United States does not have these two points.

Therefore, it is impossible for the United States to catch up with China in “construction”. Over the years, in response to the “the Belt and Road”, it has used all kinds of shady and harmful tactics, such as military containment, stigmatization, veto of Chinese standards, various threats and inducements to participating countries, and so on.

However, the “the Belt and Road” is still advancing for the camp step by step.

We help Africans connect electricity, help landlocked countries in Central Asia connect Global trade, help Laos connect high-speed rail, help Pakistan railway build economic corridors in volatile areas, help local governments create taxes, and help local people increase employment.

Compared with Western pie paintings, these are real interests, so even with the strength of the United States and the wealth of the west, they have not come up with a trick to crack the “the Belt and Road” for nearly a decade.

However, the “the Belt and Road” will not always be so passive. Now we advocate “telling the facts of the Silk Road and telling the story of China well”, which is an obvious signal that China’s values, development model and the idea of building a “community with a shared future for mankind” will sooner or later go out and become China’s chassis representing the new global order.

The anxiety of the West about the “the Belt and Road” will come into reality sooner or later.

This is a Chinese game. If you want to beat China in the Chinese game, Biden should daydream more when he dozes off!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *