Limited benefits: What investments did the BIS make to China during the coronavirus epidemic?

introduction

The coronavirus epidemic, now declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO, March 11), offers a lens through which to assess how China interacts with the rest of the world in a time of crisis that was initially confined to China's borders, but has since become a global emergency . Some comments on the link between the COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) have portrayed Xi Jinpings' foreign policy agenda as a dangerous vector for the pandemic even if China was engaged international trade and transport before the start of the BIS in 2013 (Foreign police, January 24).

Meanwhile, state media in the People's Republic of China (PRC) linked BIS relations to support for China at the start of the crisis, citing positive examples of media support in South Africa, Russia and Pakistan (Peoples Daily, February 20). More recently, as the spread of the disease has decreased in China and increased elsewhere, Chinese authorities have sought to illustrate their support, via the heat of the Belt and the Road, for current hot spots such as the & rsquo; Italy and Iran while also criticizing the American response to the crisis (Zhejiang News, 12th of March). Such developments in China's external relations amid the coronavirus epidemic provide a window to assess the effectiveness of the BIS in one of its main objectives: namely, to increase the soft power available for the PRC.

Apply an understanding of soft power as the capacity of a state to incite other states to take action that is favorable to its own interests, evidence available in all areas related to the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the issuance of evacuation orders and restrictions on public transport that BIS investments have had only modest success in building Chinese soft power. International support for China has been fragmentary and rhetorical, leaving China economically and politically isolated. Demonstrating the lack of soft power available to the Chinese authorities, the state tabloid Global Times demanded on February 12 that countries that have cut communications with China completely reconsider and revoke these practices (Global Times, 12 February).

Passenger transportation decisions

In the context of the shutdown of international air services to China in January and February, a significant proportion of the suspensions were due to airlines from countries not receiving Belt and Road funding, including British Airways, Air Canada and the main American carriers offering flights to China (Delta Airlines, American Airlines and United Airlines). However, airlines from countries that have received large loans from Chinese political banks or other forms of investment or development assistance have also suspended their connections to China. A partial list of these airlines includes Egyptair, Kenya Airways and Rwandair (all of which are wholly or partly state-owned) despite the fact that the governments of these countries receive funding from the Bank of & # 39; import-export from China and the China Development Bank for infrastructure projects. This decision indicates that the granting of subsidized loans by China is far from a guarantee that it will exert an asymmetrical political influence in the beneficiary countries.

Despite these suspensions, the influence exerted by the Belt and Road Initiative may have had an impact on the decision-making of other airlines. On January 31, Pakistan International Airways initially chose to suspend service after local authorities ordered the cancellation of all flights to and from China (Anadolu agency, January 31). Only three days later, on February 2, the Pakistani aviation authorities lifted all restrictions before re-imposing them on February 24 (The news). Similarly, despite public criticism, Ethiopian Airlines also continued to operate scheduled service to China, with airline chief Tewolde GebreMariam pointing out that it would not be morally acceptable to stop flying to China today (South China Morning Post, February 11th). As of March 5, the airline still operated services to China (CGTN, March 5). It is no coincidence that the two countries appear in a Center for Global Development ranking of the countries with the highest sums in their BRI loan portfolio (Center for Global Development, March 4, 2018).

The acceptance of large sums of Chinese development funding has not prevented other countries from imposing heavy restrictions on transportation links with China. At first, however, Russia announced the closure of its borders with China to passenger traffic, and the grounding of all bilateral air travel other than services to Moscows Sheremetyevo International Airport. These restrictions were then reinforced, with the announcement of a temporary ban on entry into Russian territory for nationals of the PRC from 20 February, with the exception of passengers in transit (Moscow Times, February 18). These measures were taken despite the fact that Chinese funding plays a major role in many projects for the economic revitalization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, including the development of gas production plants in the Russian Arctic. While decisions made by the Pakistani and Ethiopian aviation authorities can be attributed to the soft power developed by China through the Belt and Road Initiative, Russia's decision to stop border crossings shows that economic influence Beijing cannot reliably prevail over the self-interest of recipient states (China Brief, February 28).

Evacuation orders

While many BIS partner countries have suspended bilateral air travel and repatriated their citizens from Wuhan, these governments have also sought to maintain close relations with Beijing in a way that does not harm their own citizens. Countries such as Liberia, Sierra Leone and South Korea have issued statements of support (CGTN, February 7). In addition, according to Chinese governments Belt and road portal, countries like Bangladesh, Japan, Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia, India, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, ; Italy, Hungary, Belarus, Turkey, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt, Australia, New New Zealand and Trinidad- and Tobago have all provided some form of material aid to China in response to the epidemic (Yidaiyilu.gov.cn, February 13). While it is unclear how these countries would have reacted without the Belt and Road initiative, there is a logical link between the large sums that China has provided for projects in these countries and their decisions provide aid to Beijing in its difficult times.

However, the provision of material help is only part of the story. According to statistics released by the PRC National Immigration Administration (NIA) on February 10, as many as 128 countries have imposed some form of restriction on immigration (ranging from entry bans to temperature controls) to travelers from China since the start of the epidemic (NIA.gov.cn, February 10). Of the 115 countries listed by the Chinese authorities as international cooperation partners of the Belt and Road Initiative, at least 91 rank among those revealed by the NIA as having applied entry restrictions against nationals Chinese. The choice made by a large number of BIS-affiliated countries to impose border controls on Chinese nationals is an indication of the seriousness with which they consider the threat to public health posed by the coronavirus epidemic . Some countries have made this choice due to a lack of confidence in their own public health systems: to cite this factor, let us quote Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta (National public radio, February 10). Deliveries of material aid to China represent an effort to compensate for the damage to their relations with Beijing, but the perception by countries affiliated to the BIS of this as an acceptable approach (as opposed to maintaining free access for Chinese nationals) suggests that the soft power and influence accumulated in the Chinese authorities by the Belt and Road initiative may not be as important as is generally assumed.

China to the rescue?

The announcement of new cases in China having slowed down, the Chinese authorities decided to show that the BRI was the least terra firma project implementation can quickly get back on track (Xinhua, March 6). However, Beijing has also attempted to involve the Belt and Road countries as a provider of public health knowledge: for example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs organized a videoconference with relevant officials from the countries of the 17 + 1 group from central and eastern European countries (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC, March 13).

In a potential sign of PRC governments' future plans for the Belt and Road Initiative, there have been rumors that academics connected to the government have sought to build second-track support for a alternative led by Beijing to the World Health Organization affiliated to the UN (WHO)); however, on March 9, the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced a $ 20 million donation to WHO to support efforts to fight coronaviruses (Xinhua, March 9). In a phone call with United Nations Secretary General Antnio Guterres, President Xi said that Chinese authorities have shared their ideas on the experience of fighting COVID-19 with their counterparts in the United States. other countries that, together with China, form a community of humanity that suffers and succeeds together (Yidaiyilu.gov.cn, March 13).

Xi's remarks followed a statement by the PRC's foreign ministry, which said that China would send (among other things) medical teams to the poorest countries, would provide medicines to all countries that would need it and would strengthen technological cooperation with the international community (Yidaiyilu.gov.cn, 12th of March). Likewise, Deputy Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu said at a press conference that China has provided coronavirus-related support to South Korea, Iraq, Cambodia, Myanmar and Sri Lanka (Xinhua, March 6). The effort to position Beijing as a magnanimous supplier of global public goods is not limited to public health: China's e-commerce markets have been cited by government-linked sources as a route that international companies can use to alleviate the economic downturn associated with the virus (Yidaiyilu.gov.cn, March 11).

In addition to highlighting the assistance provided by Beijing, the Chinese authorities have also sought to contrast what they describe as efforts by some in the United States (which) are trying to reverse the blame and to politicize the common challenge of humanity by stoking pernicious anti-Chinese Sentiments (Xinhua, March 9). However, it remains to be seen whether Beijing's assistance will have a substantial impact on international opinion.

Conclusion

In a fiery commentary from February 12, Global Times accused that it is completely irrational to implement isolation between countries to prevent the spread of the disease. It is not scientific and also violates the interests of all countries. Although the contagiousness of the coronavirus casts doubt on the scientific foundations of the claim of state tabloids, it is nevertheless useful as a glimpse of the reaction of the authorities of the PRC to the generalized imposition of restrictions on international travel of Chinese nationals. The disappointment in Zhongnanhai is likely to be exacerbated by the considerable sums spent in recent years on the Belt and Road initiative, aimed at increasing China's international influence and soft power.

In the context of the coronavirus epidemic, the gains of the BIS have been extremely limited: while the Ethiopian authorities continue to authorize flights to China, up to 91 of the 115 countries listed by Chinese authorities as Belt and Road's international cooperation partners have imposed border restrictions on Chinese nationals. In the context of this crisis, this suggests that the soft power and influence accumulated by the BIS is not as widespread as others have advanced. In this sense, the coronavirus epidemic is much more than what the Global Times called an occasional bump on the road for the Belt and Road initiative (Global Times, February 19). Nevertheless, messages from Beijing following the reduction of new cases in the PRC suggest that it will seek to use its response to epidemics abroad to strengthen its international reputation.

Johan van de Ven is a senior analyst at the RWR Advisory Group, a Washington, DC-based consulting firm, which advises governments and private sector clients on the geopolitical risks associated with China's international economic activity and Russia. He directs research and analysis of RWRs on the Belt and Road Initiative, the centerpiece of foreign policy under Xi Jinping, and also publishes the Belt and Road Monitor, the bi-weekly RWR newsletter.