This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), highlighting a number of major projects across over 100 participating countries. The initiative has played a crucial role in promoting trade, enhancing people-to-people exchanges, and fostering the interchange of ideas on a global scale. Despite criticisms and alternative proposals from the West, the BRI continues to receive overwhelming positive recognition from the international community.

In this video, Liu Yangsheng, senior fellow of Taihe Institute and founder of HAO Capital, discusses the impact of the BRI over the past decade, including its milestones, Western criticism, and the broader implications for global collaboration and economic growth.

The following is a transcript of the interview.

Diplomacy Talk: This year marks the 10th anniversary of the BRI. Over the past 10 years, have there been any changes in your perception of the initiative?

Liu Yangsheng: At first, I saw it as more of a slogan than a practical initiative. The notion of connecting neighboring countries, perhaps dozens or even hundreds of countries, seemed far-fetched. However, the "BRI 1.0" has yielded a number of major projects. With over 100 countries participating, it has genuinely fostered connectivity. What has been connected? The BRI has facilitated the connectivity of goods, people, and ideas. The vision has truly become a reality.

Diplomacy Talk: Did your perception change or waver during the period?

Liu Yangsheng: No wavering; however, uncomfortable feelings often arise. Some Western media and governments constantly try to create disruptions and tarnish the initiative. For instance, they talk about "economic coercion."

My African friends told me that the more "coercion," the better, if it results in more high-speed railways, buildings, seaports, and airports. So, more "coercion" is welcome because it's beneficial. But certain Western media have kept smearing the BRI.

Regardless of the negative voices, using Africa as an example, a senior official from the African Union told me they experienced rapid development in the past decade, and they owed much of it to Shenzhen. He mentioned that Huawei and ZTE helped build base stations, ensuring network coverage across the entire region. Only Shenzhen's supply chain could produce smartphones for as little as $45, allowing nearly every African household to afford them. He said this has had an incredibly positive impact on education, banking transactions, social media, and the flow of information. 

He said this was one of the significant reasons behind Africa's rapid development over the past decade. He emphasized that only China has such a vast, comprehensive supply chain and highly efficient infrastructure capable of producing smartphones for $45. No other place in the world can achieve this. 

Diplomacy Talk: As founder of HAO Capital, you are expert in capital investment. Over the past 10 years, how has China's investment in the BRI fared in terms of return on investment (ROI)? How much has China invested? And what are the economic and social benefits?

Liu Yangsheng: Various factors come into play when considering ROI. These include the ROI for a specific company, for the company's shareholders, for society at large, and even for an entire nation. When you combine all these factors, the ROI seems to be quite substantial for China.

What has the BRI accomplished? It has aided many developing countries in constructing extensive infrastructure, facilitated the flow of goods, and boosted our exports. This has provided robust support to China's society and its economy. Additionally, these countries have become China's good neighbors, with our economies interconnected, resulting in increased exchanges and mutual understanding. These are all positive developments that cannot be measured solely in monetary terms.

Diplomacy Talk: In your opinion, what is the biggest misconception or misinterpretation by the international community regarding the BRI?

Liu Yangsheng: There's a misperception that China aims to replicate what Western colonial rulers did. This narrative is persistent. However, over thousands of years, China has never ventured beyond its borders to conquer others. Many don't even recognize that there's no historical precedent for such actions in China's history.

Diplomacy Talk: Does "no historical precedent" mean it won't happen in the future?

Liu Yangsheng: It won't. There are still many developing countries that need assistance with their development. China believes it can help these countries progress while creating new markets for its manufacturing industry. Exploiting their resources won't benefit China's own industry. However, if these countries become prosperous, it will significantly boost China's manufacturing sector.

Diplomacy Talk: For China, one of the challenges is proving the absence of certain intentions. For example, it's relatively easy to prove that you've taken action, but it's much harder to demonstrate that you don't have a specific agenda.

Liu Yangsheng: Western countries have a well-documented history of colonial rule. When they ventured to these developing countries, their primary purpose was to exploit resources. Take Niger as an example: There's been a coup, and the new government asked how a country, which is rich in uranium, coal, and gold, could be so poor. However, when China assists with development in these regions, it not only enhances their infrastructure and transportation, but also offers various employment opportunities, enabling them to develop independently rather than exploiting them.

Diplomacy Talk: What you're saying is that the BRI has expanded China's circle of friends.

Liu Yangsheng: At least for now, Europe still follows the United States, but internal conflicts within Europe are intensifying. The Ukraine crisis led to economic decline in Europe, making them recognize that cooperation with China offers more benefits than drawbacks. Thus, the previous talk of "decoupling" softened, and the narrative shifted to "de-risking." Now, the sentiment is that cooperation with China is inevitable.

Diplomacy Talk: We've seen that the U.S. and the European Union have also put forward some infrastructure development plans or initiatives. Recently, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor was proposed at the G20 summit. How do you view these initiatives and plans? Are they challenging the China-proposed BRI? 

Liu Yangsheng: Several Middle Eastern countries have also participated in that initiative. However, the ambassador of a Middle Eastern country described it to me as pie in the sky. I asked why, and he said, "Look at the state of the U.S. infrastructure now, and they're talking about helping us with infrastructure. When was the last time the U.S. built a new railway? 100 years ago. Can India build railways? Maybe 150 years ago, but not now."

Moreover, I believe they simply lack the conditions, resources, capability, and technology to establish large-scale economic corridors. Hence, the ambassador was spot on— it's pie in the sky and fundamentally unrealistic.

Diplomacy Talk: Doesn't the U.S. recognize its own infrastructure capabilities? If it hadn't built a new railway in so many years, why would it still propose such a plan? 

Liu Yangsheng: The proposal of this plan is simply a political maneuver, an attempt to please India.

Diplomacy Talk: Can this be understood as a verbal commitment?

Liu Yangsheng: They've paid plenty of lip service. Take the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework proposed at the G20 last year, for instance. It's been over a year, and they haven't produced a single document.

Diplomacy Talk: By making so many verbal commitments and not following through, it's surely undermining its own influence and tarnishing its own image.

Liu Yangsheng: Certainly, more and more developing countries are coming to understand that the U.S. is not reliable.

Diplomacy Talk: It's challenging to fathom how the world's foremost superpower can repeatedly make commitments it can't honor.

Liu Yangsheng: They made promises they can't keep, and there were also promises later rescinded. Like during Trump's presidency, the U.S. exited the Paris Agreement. He said, "Sorry, we're out. I'm done." The Iran nuclear deal? "Sorry, we're out. We're not participating." The U.S. has done this multiple times, making more and more empty global promises. 

Given the U.S. economic situation, it seems they can only make empty promises. If they had a trillion dollars, would they really invest it overseas? Or would they prioritize fixing their own crumbling infrastructure? The U.S. infrastructure is in a deplorable condition. Their subways are relics from over 100 years ago. Have you seen the New York subway system recently? It's terrifyingly old and decrepit. That's why I said in a program that the U.S. should consider joining the BRI.

Diplomacy Talk: If the U.S. were to join the BRI, what impact would it have on both the U.S. itself and the world as a whole? 

Liu Yangsheng: At the very least, the U.S. would hope to allocate more funds to its own infrastructure rather than spending so much on defense. Of course, the U.S. feels reluctant to admit its infrastructure is very outdated. It has been talking about infrastructure development since the Obama administration, pledging $1 trillion or $2 trillion toward infrastructure. Has it been implemented? Not at all. 

I think that in the U.S., deindustrialization occurred too quickly and too severely to the point where the foundation for infrastructure development has been eroded. You need engineers and various manufacturing industries to support infrastructure, and the U.S. has essentially eliminated many of these. 

The U.S. should have responded to globalization by completely modernizing its economic foundation instead of merely relocating factories and neglecting unemployed workers. This negligence gave rise to the Rust Belt, leading to widespread job losses. However, these workers were not adequately trained to integrate into an evolving society and economy. The South and the Midwest have largely deteriorated, and deindustrialization has left many ordinary people jobless.

Diplomacy Talk: We now turn our attention to Europe. Italy was the first developed country to join the BRI. Now, there are rumors that Italy might consider exiting the BRI. What's your take on it? Do you think it might cause a domino effect? 

Liu Yangsheng: I think it's unlikely. Italy is a special case because it has a far-right government in power that, to some extent, listens to the U.S. and follows its lead. But other European countries involved in the BRI, like Greece and Portugal, haven't expressed any willingness to exit; in fact, they are active participants. Most of BRI participants are developing countries from the Global South, hoping for better and faster development. 

No matter what Italy did, the possibility of a domino effect is essentially non-existent. Most countries, or almost all countries participating in the BRI, have benefited from it. China isn't forcing anyone. It's a matter of mutual consultation and collaboration.

Diplomacy Talk: As you mentioned, the BRI has seen significant participation from developing countries. However, as we also discussed, the U.S. infrastructure is in dire need of upgrading. In fact, developed countries also need infrastructure development.

Liu Yangsheng: Exactly. Much of Europe's infrastructure is aging and outdated, but Europe, considering its long cultural history, finds it hard to admit. As for the U.S., it's absolutely impossible. "We are a superpower; why would we need help from China?"

Diplomacy Talk: Perhaps their policies are not pragmatic enough.

Liu Yangsheng: Exactly.

Diplomacy Talk: In the current international situation, what do you think is the biggest obstacle to advancing the BRI?

Liu Yangsheng: I don't really see a single major obstacle. Projects are studied, analyzed, assessed, and promoted on a case-by-case basis. Italy may consider exiting, but developing countries are very enthusiastic and actively participating. For developing countries, they've seen what China has achieved. To get rich, you need to build roads first. After building roads, you can engage in manufacturing, modernization, and industrialization. They've seen all of this. China is already a successful example. It's about learning from China and trying to follow the path China has taken. 

Regardless of what the U.S. and some European countries say, developing countries participating in the BRI have clearly recognized the benefits they have gained. So, I don't think we need to concern ourselves too much with what certain Western media are saying. Let them say what they want. Do they have alternative solutions? Yes, but it's all pie in the sky.

Diplomacy Talk: When we discuss the BRI, we naturally think of infrastructure development. Looking ahead to the next decade and the "BRI 2.0," do you think there might be some adjustments to the direction of the initiative? 

Liu Yangsheng: There will definitely be adjustments. Infrastructure is fundamental, and we need it as a foundation. Roads, railways, electricity, communication facilities, all these things are essential. The next step is industrialization, manufacturing, and modernization, including the digital economy. I think the "BRI 2.0" will focus more on this aspect. For example, ministers from the Middle East, whether from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Kuwait, all hope for deeper cooperation with China in manufacturing and industrialization. They've already felt that the infrastructure is in place, and now it's about the next phase: the modernization of society.

Diplomacy Talk: Looking further into the future, say 20 or 30 years from now, what kind of landscape do you envision for the BRI?

Liu Yangsheng: When it comes to expectations, China is a large country with a vast population, a significant market, and well-developed infrastructure. However, many small and medium-sized countries don't have these advantages. So, in the next phase, there will be more economic integration within particular regions, such as Central Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and so on. This approach can create larger markets within each region. Also, supply chains can be enhanced instead of each country duplicating efforts, and efficiency will be increased. Thus, I believe that in the next 10 years, besides industrialization, there will be a focus on regionalization.

Presenter: Wang Xiaohui

Producer: Li Xiaohua

Production supervisor: Zhang Liying

Editors: Zhang Ruomeng, Qi Yibin, Lyu Yiyi, Zhang Heling

Produced by "China's Diplomacy in the New Era" Website

chinadiplomacy.org.cn