前不久的二十国集团（G20）峰会间隙，由美国牵头的“印度-中东-欧洲经济走廊”（IMEC）计划公布。该计划旨在建设一条从印度经阿拉伯半岛、以色列再到地中海通往欧洲的商业路线。沿途横跨阿拉伯海，穿越沙漠，经过地缘政治复杂的区域，货物历经装船、卸货、再装火车、再卸货、再装船多次倒腾，最终到达欧洲。

目前，美国、印度、沙特、阿联酋、法国和德国等已就此签署谅解备忘录。不过，备忘录并未列出项目的资金来源，只表示一个工作组将在未来60天内讨论出具体细节与时间表。

毫不意外，这项计划又被西方媒体吹捧为“历史性的”。2021年以来，美欧已推出多个“历史性”的计划，诸如“全球门户”（Global Gateway）、“重建更美好世界”（B3W）、“全球基础设施与投资伙伴关系”（PGII）等等，为何都没有后续了？每次都难以推进，还年年推出新计划，到底图什么？IMEC有希望和“一带一路”比肩吗？

长安街知事（微信ID：Capitalnews）联合中国人民大学重阳金融研究院（微信公众号：人大重阳）推出“全球治理大家谈”栏目。瑞典“一带一路”研究院副院长侯赛因·阿斯卡(Hussein Askary)就“一带一路”倡议和IMEC计划等与记者进行了分享。

一步荒谬的地缘政治坏棋

知事：美国总统拜登在G20峰会上宣布了一个新项目——印度-中东-欧洲经济走廊（IMEC），计划建设一条大型铁路和航运走廊，由连接印度与阿拉伯湾的东部走廊，以及连接阿拉伯湾与欧洲的北部走廊组成。您如何看待这项计划，拜登政府为什么要推动建立IMEC？

侯赛因·阿斯卡：这其实是一场地缘政治游戏，用来拉拢印度，并吸引已经与中国建立了牢固伙伴关系的国家，比如沙特阿拉伯、阿联酋、以色列等。

但这个计划与现实完全脱节，政客们沉浸在自己的意识形态中，对经济学的理解有限，对地理也缺乏了解，显得非常荒谬。

IMEC规划路线图。图源：Silk Road Briefing

这条线路途经的西亚、欧洲部分，许多港口和铁路要么由中国公司经营，要么由中方持有大量股份。

比如以色列，其最现代化的港口海法新港和阿什杜德港，是由中国公司建造和管理的。在沙特和阿联酋的铁路建设中，中国中车等公司发挥了关键作用。沙特的吉赞港和阿联酋首都阿布扎比的哈利法港，也与中企合资经营。

沙特和阿联酋都明确表示，打算保持和加强与中国的伙伴关系。在去年12月召开的首届中国-海湾阿拉伯国家合作委员会峰会上，中阿合作项目范围之广，在国际关系中是前所未有的。

在IMEC项目中，拜登计划要把铁路从大西洋连到印度洋，连接起安哥拉、赞比亚和坦桑尼亚。但其实从安哥拉到坦桑尼亚已经有这样一条铁路了，是中资企业建造的本格拉铁路，拜登总统被为他写演讲稿的顾问误导了。

本格拉铁路为当地居民的生活带来了实惠。一名当地男孩在列车旁售卖食品。图源：人民日报

美方实际上指的是另一个项目，涉及刚果（金）-赞比亚-安哥拉一线，用来开采原材料，这才是他们真正的计划。这种能从非洲攫取财富的项目在欧美非常受欢迎。这是它们和中国的显著区别。

美国所提出的IMEC计划不仅与现实脱节，美国和欧洲实际上也无法为计划做出贡献。美欧自身就在融资和国内基建方面面临重大挑战，怎么能指望它们在世界其他地方资助和建设基础设施呢？

此外，如果拜登政府的目标是建立一条快速的贸易路线，那么中欧班列才是目前最有效的选择。从中国城市开始，经过哈萨克斯坦、俄罗斯和白俄罗斯，经波兰进入欧盟，它提供了无与伦比的速度和效率，即使是俄乌冲突也没有破坏这条线路。

更重要的是， “一带一路”倡议的着力点并非只是贸易，从根本上说，这是一个发展倡议。其核心目标是通过建设基础设施，增强共建国家的发展能力，并最终促进经济增长。

中国积极参与的沙特吉赞经济城商业港项目就是一个例证。除此之外，中国还计划在当地建设一个以石油化工为重点的大型工业区。这意味着，沙特阿拉伯将从与中国的合作中获益十倍，不仅得益于货物运输，还得益于这些工业设施的建立。包括埃塞俄比亚在内的许多“一带一路”合作伙伴也遵循同样的原则。

西方基建计划两大无法根除的痼疾

知事：美国媒体在报道IMEC时，总会提到中国的“一带一路”倡议，您认为美国提出IMEC是在针对“一带一路”吗？

侯赛因·阿斯卡：即使它们在该计划的声明中没有明确提到，但显然是针对“一带一路”的。它们想要与中国竞争，甚至取代“一带一路”，但这都是白费功夫，因为这些所谓的替代方案根本没有实质内容。

这让我想起了两个国际笑话。2018年，时任美国国务卿雷克斯·蒂勒森访问非洲时，他在非洲降落的机场、坐车驶过的公路都是中国建设的，最后，他在中国建造的大楼里发表演讲，警告非洲人不要与中国合作。

今年美国财长耶伦访问非洲时重演了这一幕笑话。耶伦前往赞比亚，警告赞比亚人如果从中国获得基建贷款，就会陷入所谓的“债务陷阱”。

耶伦抵达卢萨卡时降落在哪里？她降落在肯尼思·卡翁达国际机场的新航站楼，该航站楼是中企用中国进出口银行的贷款建造的。如果没有那个机场，耶伦的赞比亚之旅都不会开始。

这些政客往往看不到他们脚下的现实，他们生活在云端，沉浸在自己的意识形态和经济理论中，不为人民着想。这就是为什么我把这些西方倡议称为“政治项目”。

我们建议美欧都能加入中国的“一带一路”倡议，大家共同努力，必然会在更高效的运转中获得更大的利益。但这里面有一个意识形态的问题，即美西方并不真正相信中国的双赢理念，它们只相信零和游戏。

这种狭隘观念自有其历史渊源，可以追溯至殖民时代。特别是在托马斯·霍布斯的哲学中，认为人类、国家和社会能够和谐相处的想法是幼稚的。这种哲学认为一切都是以利己主义为基础的，每个人都会以牺牲他人为代价来争取自己的利益。这是美欧政治精英们根深蒂固的想法，也是他们理解“一带一路”倡议的一大障碍。

在西方的基建倡议声明中，他们声称私营部门将会在这些项目中发挥关键作用，这是一个注定失败的想法。中国有句老话，要想富，先修路，意思并不是靠收过路费致富，而是道路会促进一个地区的经济活动。私营部门对基建建设根本不感兴趣，企业不能快速从中赚钱，基建项目必须以国家为依靠。

即使在欧洲，私营部门也无法支持大型基础设施项目。欧洲主要的基础设施都是美国在二战后通过对欧援助建造的。这些基础设施项目是以国家财政为基础，这是可行之道，也是中国正在做的。

西方的基建计划的第二个问题是过分强调形式，比如所谓的透明度和财政可持续性。

西方认为，由于财政限制，贫困国家不可能承担重大的基础设施项目。换句话说，如果你的国家陷入严重的财政困境，就不应该建设基础设施。比如像赞比亚这样的国家，应该取消与中国签订的水电、电信、公路和铁路等基础设施建设合同，因为通过向中国借钱来开展这些基建项目在财政上是不可持续的。

但问题是，没有基础设施，这些国家怎么摆脱贫困？如果照着西方的提议，所有贫困国家都将陷入永久贫困。

那怎么办？直接放弃非洲？还是说，尽管存在安全风险、财政资源有限，依然要继续前进、发展经济呢？

这就是“一带一路”倡议不同于其他倡议的地方。“一带一路”倡议将贫困作为人民面临的首要敌人，这是问题的关键。解决了资金缺乏、基础设施不足和技能短缺问题，就打开了非洲通往工业化和繁荣的道路。

而美欧则认为，通过改革社会政治体系，事情就会神奇地改善。在这一点上，我们已经目睹了依靠政权更迭和社会政治改革的方法如何在伊拉克、利比亚、叙利亚和阿富汗“发挥作用”。

因此，发展起点必须是经济。中国的倡议体现了经济发展与安全之间的共生关系。没有经济发展，就没有安全，反之亦然。这两个方面是不能分开的。

不是所有发光的东西都是金子

知事：近年来，美欧政府已经提出了许多雄心勃勃的“大战略”，比如欧盟计划筹资3000亿欧元的“全球门户计划”倡议，还有拜登上台后不久提出的“重建更美好世界”倡议（B3W），以及拜登去年在巴厘岛G20峰会上提出的“全球基础设施与投资伙伴关系”倡议，这些倡议都声称关注发展中国家的基础设施建设，它们进展到哪一步了？

侯赛因·阿斯卡：这些倡议因为缺乏实质性的内容，没有取得任何进展。不是所有发光的东西都是金子，也不是所有看起来熠熠生辉的基础设施倡议都有务实的内核。

美国国会未能与拜登就国内基础设施的融资和建设达成协议，在国内都遭遇了失败，因此“B3W计划”不得不改名为“全球基础设施伙伴关系”。

中国则不同。中国拥有财政资源、技术专长、工程能力，最重要的是，中国有意愿为这些国家实现这些项目。“一带一路”倡议的与众不同之处在于包容性和实践性，它欢迎世界上每一个国家的参与，不结成排他性的联盟，也不以地缘政治或零和博弈为基础。

对于发展中国家来说，中国在过去四十年里，从一个贫穷的国家转变为世界上最先进的工业经济体之一，这一非凡历程为他们理解“一带一路”倡议提供了重要背景，中国的发展成就成为其他国家的榜样，表明克服发展障碍和挑战，取得科学技术进步是可能的，这是所有发展中国家国家热切期待的前景。

对于发展受制于地理位置的内陆国家，比如没有出海口的埃塞尔比亚和老挝，“一带一路”通过亚吉铁路，连接起埃塞俄比亚和沿海国家吉布提；又通过中老铁路，把老挝的地理劣势转变成发展优势，变成连接各国的陆上交通枢纽。

对于长期受能源危机困扰的国家，如巴基斯坦，曾因每年被迫向海外银行借款至少120亿美元购买能源而陷入债务陷阱。如今“一带一路”通过中巴经济走廊项目，优先建设电厂，巴基斯坦已经有能力自己发电了。

中国和欧洲之间也有大量的相关合作。比如，希腊的比雷埃夫斯港曾经位于欧元区外围，尤其是在2008年后希腊金融危机期间。中国中远集团收购了该项目，并进行了重大的转型和扩张。今天，它是地中海最大的港口之一。

中国在塞尔维亚-匈牙利铁路连接的建设中发挥了关键作用，该项目最初是欧盟计划的一部分。然而，欧盟无力完成该项目，中国已加入其中，为东欧提供了至关重要的互联互通。

也有一些合作虽然不在“一带一路”框架下，但也是中国的工作效率、成本规划和基建能力的证明。我所居住的瑞典斯德哥尔摩市中心有一座“金桥”，它连接着城市的南部和北部，包括历史悠久的老城区。这是一个非凡的工程壮举，中国在本土将其整体建造，然后用船一路运到瑞典，与城市的景观无缝融合。中国公司还在斯德哥尔摩地铁系统的隧道工程中发挥了关键作用，包括一条新线路的开发。中国的贡献超出了瑞典的边界，还参与建造了挪威北部的一座主要桥梁。

可以说，“一带一路”不仅仅是促进贸易的计划，它本质上是一项经济发展倡议，旨在为面临发展障碍的地区解决互联互通、能源、水资源或技术问题，贸易其实是互联互通加强的结果。

希腊比雷埃夫斯集装箱码头。图源：视觉中国

现在的问题是，单靠中国，很难解决亚非等广大地区的所有挑战。非洲的陆地面积是中国的三倍，拥有14亿人口。到2050年，以年轻人为主的非洲人口将增长近一倍。我们需要更多像“一带一路”这样的项目，而不是美欧那些肤浅的政治倡议。

现在，一些非洲国家已经意识到，与其简单地出口原料，不如产业升级，将这些原材料加工成电池等成品。津巴布韦最近禁止出口锂原料，并表示那些对锂感兴趣的人应该来建电池工厂，就像中国所做的那样。

知事：既然我们都能意识到美国和欧洲面临着难以为基建项目提供财政金融支持的问题，它们自己应该早就发现了，为什么还要年年提出新的大型基建倡议，又总是“雷声大，雨点小”？明里暗里想要对标甚至取代“一带一路”呢？

侯赛因·阿斯卡：这些项目本质上是政治宣传，旨在拖延和阻碍各国与中国合作。西方向这些国家提供了虚假的保证。

西方打着“援助非洲项目”的幌子实施这种腐败手段已经延续了六七十年，通过让指定的精英继续掌权，从而掠夺这些国家的自然和人力资源。这些“投资”不仅具有欺骗性，也是一种拖延战术，以阻碍这些国家与中国的合作。

其实，非洲各国也都有适合自己的发展战略，但它们被告知，只要放弃这些做法就可以得到一些财政补贴。比如，最近在肯尼亚举行的一次气候会议上，非洲国家被告知，如果不购买“碳排放证书”，就不能继续燃烧自己的化石燃料。这是一个糟糕的计划，将使非洲国家陷入永远的贫困。

非洲国家应该利用好自己的煤炭、石油、天然气、铀和他们土地上的一切来跨入高速工业化，而不是把发展权拱手让给西方。使用化石燃料是一个必然要经过的工业发展阶段，欧洲的工业革命也以煤炭为核心，德国等国至今仍在使用煤炭，这不是“犯罪”。

除了使用化石燃料，非洲国家也有巨大的水电开发潜力，比如刚果河的开发，产生的电力可以使数十个非洲国家受益。然而，美西方对在刚果融资和建造工厂兴趣不大。世界银行甚至撤回了对该水电站项目的支持，只有中国愿意承担这个建设项目。

这凸显了美国和欧洲所倡导的倡议的另一个黑暗面，它们被用来阻碍非洲国家和其他全球南方国家向中国的“一带一路”靠近。

2022年，刚果（金）布桑加水电站大坝全面封顶至885米高程。图源：中国水电一局

“一带一路”倡议、“金砖+”发展倡议、上海合作组织建设取得了实实在在的成果，各国都看到了。已经有越来越多的非洲国家表达了摒弃新殖民主义体系的愿望，尼日尔、马里和布基纳法索发生的动荡就是这种拒绝的表现。世界正在经历迅速的变化，但西方政客们还没有意识到。

欧洲迫切地需要反思

知事：今年6月，欧盟发布首份《经济安全战略》，核心内容包括限制尖端半导体等敏感技术向第三国出口等。在全球地缘政治竞争加剧的情况下，这份文件被广泛认为是欧盟经济“去风险”路线的政策化“草图”。这是否意味着欧洲的经济安全观念、认知与政策架构逐渐与美国趋同？在这种背景下，中欧关系应该何去何从？

侯赛因·阿斯卡：不幸的是，欧盟的政策确实越来越多地受到美国的支配，他们的目的是阻止欧洲制定自己的国际经济合作之路。欧洲，尤其是像德国、瑞典和法国这样的国家，没有兴趣保持旧有的体系。

德国作为工业强国的未来取决于与东方的合作。德国的繁荣很大一部分是建立在从俄罗斯获得廉价能源的基础上的。如果没有东欧，欧洲，尤其是德国，将面临重大挑战。

就“去风险”而言，根据我们对全球供应链，特别是半导体行业的研究，与中国脱钩是不可能的。在半导体行业，芯片的每个部件都是在不同的国家制造的。

从宏观上看，美国人擅长设计芯片，欧洲人擅长制造特定的部件，中国台湾、韩国和日本拥有巨大的芯片产能。

芯片生产出来了，然后呢？然后它们会被送往中国。因为我们使用的大部分机械、汽车和电器都是中国制造的。因此，这些芯片需要送到中国，才能被集成到我们需要的产品中。

我们的研究预计，如果西方试图将中国从这个市场中剔出，中国将会发展自己的能力。他们将启动一个“速成计划”，着眼于实现自给自足，在资金、人力和创新方面进行大规模投资，从而独立于外部供应商。

这正是我们在华为最新芯片的开发中所看到的，中国在这方面实现了一定程度的自给自足，在整个行业都引起了冲击波。这就是围堵中国的自然结果，如果你试图孤立中国，你会发现自己被孤立了。中国现在正带头创建一个不依赖欧美市场的“全球南方”。渐渐地，欧洲作为技术生产者和主要市场的重要性将会缩小，导致被边缘化，错失发展良机。

这不是一个理想的结果，因为中国将成为世界上最先进的技术中心，看看中国的太空计划就知道了。中国在太空探索方面处于全球领先地位。未来，欧洲和美国将需要中国，就像我们目前需要俄罗斯将宇航员送入外太空一样，我们将需要中国空间站进行科研。

欧洲的问题不在于人民、科学家或公司，而在于政客们往往缺乏对经济、地理和历史的真正理解，他们所持的观念充满了破坏性。欧洲迫切需要反思自己的思考方式。

以下为本次专访的英文原文：

The Hussein Askary Interview: U.S. Infrastructure Promises to Developing Nations: Pie in the Sky

On the sidelines of the recent Group of Twenty (G20) summit, a U.S.-led program entitled “India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor” (IMEC) was inaugurated. The program grandiosely aims to build a commercial route from India to Europe via the Arabian Peninsula, Israel and then the Mediterranean Sea. Along the way across the Arabian Sea, through deserts, through a region of geopolitical complexity, the goods have been manage to reach Europe by shipping and rail transport with 3 times of laborious  loading and unloading.

As of yet, the United States, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France and Germany have signed a memorandum of understanding in this regard. However, the MOU does not list the sources of funding for the project, but only states that a working group will discuss the specific details and timetable within the next 60 days.

The program has been unsurprisingly touted as a “historic” one by the Western media. And yet since 2021, the US and Europe have launched a number of “historic” programs, such as Global Gateway, Build Back Better World (B3W), Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), etc. Why is it that none of them have been followed up? What is the point of launching new programs year after year when it is difficult to move forward each time, and is there any hope that IMEC will ever rival the Belt and Road Initiative?

In collaboration with RDCY, Capital News has launched the “Global Governance Forum” section. Hussein Askary, vice chairman of the Belt and Road Research Institute in Sweden, shared with us on the Belt and Road Initiative, the IMEC plan and other issues.

The Inclusive and Practical Nature of the BRI

Capital News: What is your impression of the “Belt and Road Initiative”(BRI)?

Hussein Askary :My impression of the Belt and Road Initiative since the start was very positive. I had been working for many years prior to its launch on the concept of the New Silk Road and the integration of the world, Eurasia, and Africa. In my view, the Belt and Road Initiative represents one of the most significant development initiatives in history.

What sets it apart is its inclusivity. It welcomes every nation in the world to participate in it, without forming exclusive alliances or being based on geopolitical or zero-sum games. This inclusivity is a distinctive feature of the BRI. It has the potential to bring together nations from around the world, each with their unique strengths and weaknesses, to build community for a shared future for mankind.”

Additionally, the BRI is firmly grounded in practicality. It produces tangible results through the construction and production of various infrastructure projects.

However, it's important to acknowledge China's remarkable journey over the past 40 years, transforming from a poor nation into the world's most advanced industrial economy. This transformation provides crucial context for understanding the BRI. China's achievements in this regard are truly unprecedented. They also serve as a beacon for other nations, demonstrating that it is possible to surmount the obstacles and challenges of development. The monumental feat of lifting 800 million people out of extreme poverty in just 30 to 40 years is an incredible accomplishment, not only for China but for the global community. This is a prospect that all nations eagerly anticipate. This stands as an exemplary model for national development, illustrating how to overcome obstacles and achieve leaps in technology, science, and every facet of progress. China's achievements over an extended period of time serve as a testament to this.

While duplicating China's trajectory may be challenging, it demonstrates to other nations that escaping the cycle of poverty is indeed possible. It instills hope for a brighter future. This is one of the important achievements of the BRI.

The other concrete achievement is that it has set examples on how to overcome formidable challenges faced by landlocked nations.

One notable flagship project is the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railway, connecting Djibouti and Ethiopia. Ethiopia, with a population exceeding 100 million, historically grappled with the significant hurdle of being landlocked, impeding economic progress. Remarkably, this railway was constructed in record time, in just under four years, even amidst challenging terrain.

Another milestone is the construction of the railway linking Mombasa to Nairobi, extending further to Uganda and the African Great Lakes region. This region, marked by geographical challenges, has seen transformative impacts.

Furthermore, the BRI has successfully tackled perennial issues, such as the chronic lack of electricity. In the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, this initiative has prioritized the construction of power plants, effectively resolving Pakistan's enduring energy crisis, which had long hindered its development. Pakistan was previously trapped in a debt trap, compelled to borrow 12 to $14 billion annually from international banks, solely to purchase oil and gas from abroad.

Fortunately, with the implementation of the CPEC projects, Pakistan is now in a position to generate its own electricity. These are revolutionary achievements, accomplished in record time and with relative ease. Many of the United Nations' development goals for 2030 are embedded within the BRI itself. These accomplishments hold immense importance.

Don't forget Laos as well. China's initiative in constructing a railway has transformed Laos, a nation previously double-landlocked, into a connected hub. It now serves as a bridge linking China to Southeast Asia, a truly remarkable achievement. This railway doesn't just facilitate the movement of goods and passengers; it's a vital component of a larger development corridor.

What's crucial to understand about the BRI is that it's not solely focused on trade promotion. It's fundamentally about economic development, uplifting regions that have faced disadvantages. Whether it's due to a lack of connectivity, energy, water resources, or technology, the BRI aims to address these issues. This is particularly evident in the economic corridors, which stretch all the way from Europe to West Asia, the Mediterranean, and Africa. They will bring the necessary technology and resources to regions that have long sought to escape from their backwardness.

Capital News：Could you tell us about the benefits and opportunities that participating in the BRI has brought to Sweden and Europe? Can you share some examples of successful and high-quality Chinese involvement in infrastructure projects in Europe or Sweden?

Hussein Askary：There is substantial collaboration between China and Europe, even if it doesn't always fall under the label of the BRI.

For instance, consider the Piraeus Port in Greece, once on the periphery, especially during Greece's financial crisis post-2008. Chinese company COSCO took over the project, acquiring shares and developing a significant transformation and expansion. Today, it stands as one of the Mediterranean's largest ports.

Additionally, China plays a pivotal role in the construction of the Serbia-Hungary railway connection, a project that was initially part of EU plans. However, the EU faced challenges in realizing these endeavors, and China has stepped in to contribute, providing vital connectivity to Eastern Europe.

We've seen substantial Chinese involvement in a range of projects, even right here in Sweden. One notable endeavor is the “Golden Bridge” in the heart of Stockholm, where I reside. This bridge links the southern and northern parts of the city, including the historic Old Town. It's a remarkable engineering feat, constructed as a single piece in China and then transported by ship all the way to Sweden, where it was seamlessly integrated into the cityscape. Chinese companies have also played a pivotal role in tunneling projects for Stockholm's subway system, including the development of a new line.

Moreover, their contributions extend beyond Sweden's borders, with involvement in the construction of a major bridge in the northern reaches of Norway, situated in the Arctic region.

These projects serve as powerful demonstrations of Chinese efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and their capacity to achieve construction milestones.

There are abundant advantages for Europe to engage in collaborative efforts with China. We possess excellent construction and technology firms in Sweden and throughout Europe that, when partnered with counterparts in China and other BRI partner nations, can collectively tackle significant challenges. Africa, in particular, has an immense need for infrastructure development and technology transfer.

And China alone cannot address all the complex issues faced by Africa and Asia, it becomes increasingly imperative for nations to work together. This collaboration would not only be invaluable for the nations directly involved, but would also yield substantial benefits for Sweden, China, and the global community at large.

For example, there's an ongoing debate in Europe about immigration. Many African young people, in search of better opportunities, are taking enormous risks, often risking their lives, to cross the Mediterranean in hopes of making a living in Europe.

Many politicians, particularly in Italy, echo the sentiment of experts who assert that curtailing immigration from Africa isn't merely a matter of intercepting boats. Instead, the focus should be on enabling African nations to develop, to harness their resources, foster robust economies, and establish vital infrastructure, both in industry and agriculture.

Empowering young people to remain in their home countries, leading decent lives and contributing to their economies rather than risking their lives to come to Europe. The allure of Europe is often idealized, but the reality can be far more challenging. Initiatives of this nature are crucial to ensuring that people in Africa can thrive within their own border.

Achieving this, however, demands extensive effort, including technology transfer. The BRI presents a remarkable opportunity for European nations to collaborate with China in this endeavor, extending assistance to these countries and propelling them toward prosperity.

IMEC: A Geopolitical Endeavor

Capital News:At the recent G20 summit in New Delhi, U.S. President Biden announced a new project aiming to construct a large-scale railway and shipping corridor linking India with the Middle East and Europe. Forbes magazine referred to this project as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which will consist of the eastern corridor connecting India to the Arabian Gulf, and the northern corridor linking the Gulf to Europe. In simple terms, it involves loading goods onto ships, unloading, loading onto trains, unloading again, and repeating the cycle multiple times. Why is the Biden administration pushing for the establishment of IMEC?

Hussein Askary: This is a glaring example of politicians losing touch with the realities on the ground. They seem detached from economic, social, and practical realities, as you aptly pointed out. It's an absurdity.

Imagine that, you want to make things more efficient, the cheaper and the quicker, but you load the goods on ships, unload them on trains, and for many countries along your line are in unstable and conflict-ridden areas, and then load them again on a ship. And then further, they can just continue going on the sea through the Red Sea and Suez Canal.

What we're witnessing here is what I'd term a geopolitical game—an attempt to embroil India in a project that counters China's interests. There's also a move to draw nations that already have strong partnerships with China, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and even Israel.

However, this scenario of IMEC seems detached from reality. Consider the significant investments China has made in critical infrastructure, like ports and railways.

In Europe, for instance, many ports and railways either have Chinese companies at the helm or China holds substantial stakes in them. Even in Israel, where discussions about certain ports being part of this larger project circulate, it's worth noting that some of the most modern ports, like those in Haifa and Ashdod, were constructed and are managed by Chinese companies.

In Saudi Arabia and the UAE, China is involved in building railways, with companies like CRRC playing a pivotal role. Additionally, China is also involved in other infrastructure projects, including Jizan ports in Saudi Arabia, and the Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi. China will benefit. Why not? China always welcomes others to participate with these projects.

Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have made it unequivocally clear that they intend to maintain and strengthen their partnerships with China.

For a deeper understanding of the scale of joint efforts between China and Arab countries, one needs look no further than the China-Arab Countries Summits, especially the China-Gulf Cooperation Council summit in December of last year. The range of the projects presented at the summit is unprecedented in international relations.

They believe it primarily pertains to trade, but in reality, it encompasses much more. For instance, if the aim is to establish a swift trade route, the China-EU railway stands as the most efficient option available today. Stretching from China’s city, through Kazakhstan, Russia, and Belarus, and into the EU via Poland, it offers unparalleled speed and efficiency. However, it's important to note that this railway carries a relatively small volume of goods compared to sea routes.

The key point is that China has been actively cultivating such connections with partner nations. Notably, even the conflict in Ukraine did not derail these efforts. It's crucial to understand that the BRI isn't primarily a trade operation; it's fundamentally a development initiative. Its core objective is to construct infrastructure that empowers the partner nations, enhancing their resources and ultimately fostering economic growth.

When examining the railway systems in Saudi Arabia, it's evident that their purpose extends beyond mere container transshipment between countries. These railways are designed to connect mines, facilitating the efficient transport of raw materials like phosphate to industrial zones. It's in these zones where value addition occurs, as these raw materials are transformed into products with much higher value, which are then exported as industrial materials.

The Jizan port Special Economic Zone project in Saudi Arabia, where China is actively involved, exemplifies this approach. In addition to the port, there are plans for a substantial industrial zone focused on petrochemicals. This means that Saudi Arabia stands to benefit ten-fold from working with China, not only from the transit of shipments between India and Europe but also from the establishment of these industrial facilities. A similar principle applies in Ethiopia and numerous other partner countries of the BRI.

It's crucial for people to differentiate between trade, which is an outcome of enhanced connectivity, and development projects.

So, this IMEC represents a substantial political endeavor, which the United States and Europe will not be able to contribute anything to, because in the United States and Europe itself, they are facing significant challenges in financing and undertaking comparable infrastructure projects within their own borders, let alone contributing to endeavors of this magnitude elsewhere. How can we expect them to finance and build infrastructure in other parts of the world? So, it's not likely to work.

Take for instance the initiative “Build Back Better World(B3W),” which had to be rebranded as the “Global Infrastructure Partnership.” This was prompted by the failure of B3W within the United States. The US Congress could not reach an agreement with President Biden on financing and building infrastructure domestically. Consequently, it would have been embarrassing to pursue an international project after an unsuccessful attempt at home. Hence, the name was changed. These are political tactics that are unlikely to lead to actual projects.

Capital News：Whenever American media reports on IMEC, they always mention BRI. Do you think the U.S. proposal of IMEC is targeting the BRI?

Hussein Askary：Yeah, but definitely, even if they don't mention it explicitly in the declaration, it is clearly targeting the BRI. It was the same with the other initiatives. They want to compete with China and even replace the BRI. But it won’t work because there is no substance in these so-called alternatives.

We propose that the United States and Europe join China’s BRI and work together in these nations, because it would be beneficial for everyone. But there is an ideological problem, such cooperation is not allowed in the United States. And now they used to understand why this is important. In a deeper sense, it's also a philosophical problem, because they don't really believe in the Chinese idea of win-win. The harmony between nations and peoples is a real thing, and it's beneficial for everyone. They otherwise believe in the zero-sum game, which has its historical roots in the colonial era, especially in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes that it's naive to think that human beings and nations and societies can work together. Such philosophy is to believe that everything is based on egoism, and everybody should fight for their own better in battlefield of interests at the expense of others.

This is deeply-rooted thinking of the political elites in the United States and Europe. That's one of the big obstacles to understanding the BRI. It was one of the reasons that these so-called alternatives to the BRI will not work. Because in their declarations, they claim that the private sector will be the key element in these projects. This is a recipe for failure because the private sector is not interested in building infrastructure like railways, ports, airports, highways, which is practically not profitable in monetary terms. Companies cannot make money from infrastructure. Infrastructure should be supported by states, because they serve to facilitate and enhance the economic activity and productivity of society. That's where you get the so-called money from the agricultural industry and innovation. It will grow around the prospect.

As the Chinese saying goes, if you want to get rich, build a road first. You don't get rich from the building of road such as making people pay a toll for the road, but the road will facilitate economic activities. This is the first element leading to failure of these alternatives. And therefore, even in Europe, the private sector is unable to support big infrastructure projects. All the major infrastructure there was built by the United States after World War II, through the great deal of reconstruction of Europe. These infrastructure projects were based on state finances and were state-centered projects, which is the correct one. This is what China's doing.

Therefore, the notion that you have to rely on the private sector for support is the first factor contributing to failure. The second issue is that these Western proposals place excessive emphasis on formalities, such as so-called transparency and financial sustainability.

For example, there's a new trend where the United States is pressuring all nations facing financial difficulties through the International Monetary Fund. They argue that it's not viable for impoverished nations to undertake significant infrastructure projects due to financial constraints. In other words, if your country is in dire financial straits, it should never build infrastructure.

But the question remains: how do you escape poverty, even at considerable costs, without infrastructure? This is the game they play.

These countries had to cancel contracts with China for building infrastructure such as hydropower, telecommunications, roads, and railways, because they argue it's financially unsustainable for nations like Zambia to embark on these projects by borrowing money from China.

How would nations be able to come out of poverty if they don't build infrastructure, especially when they lack the resources for it? This is the second point that renders these American and European alternatives unworkable. Under such proposals, all nations would be condemned to perpetual poverty.

Furthermore, they argue for concerns about transparency, democracy, and various formalities, which would render financing and executing infrastructure projects in Africa, for example, almost impossible. Because there is no flawless society that possesses democracy, freedom, security, unlimited resources, and no corruption, as the Europeans demand. Such a society simply does not exist in Africa. So, what is the alternative? To abandon Africa, or to press on despite the challenges of limited security, financial resources, corruption, and what is referred to as non-democratic governance?

That's how the BRI differs from these other proposals. The BRI regards poverty as the primary adversary facing people. That's the crux of the matter.

In 2015, at the Africa-China Summit in Johannesburg, President Xi Jinping outlined three critical barriers to Africa's development that need to be surmounted in order to break free from poverty and transition into an industrialized era. These hurdles are the lack of capital, inadequate infrastructure, and a shortage of skills. By addressing these three issues, a pathway to industrialization and prosperity opens up.

This stands in stark contrast to the European and American perspective on how to tackle these challenges. They think that by implementing formal changes in the socio-political system, things will magically improve. We've witnessed how this approach played out in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, where attempts at regime change and social-political reforms led to disaster. Thus, the starting point must be economic development.

This is precisely why China's initiatives are so distinctive and well-received. They embody a symbiotic relationship between economic development and security. Without economic development, security cannot be achieved, and vice versa. These two facets cannot be separated.

Capital News：In recent years, both the U.S. and Europe have thrown out quite a few ambitious "grand strategies." There's the EU's "Global Gateway" plan, aiming to raise a whopping 300 billion euros, then we've got Biden's "Build Back Better World" initiative (B3W),You just mentioned，not to mention his "Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership" proposal from the G20 summit in Bali last year. All of these initiatives claim to focus on infrastructure development in developing countries. B3W has failed, how far have they actually come in progress?

Hussein Askary：There has been zero progress in these areas for the reasons I mentioned. The proposals lack substance because the possibility of financing these projects doesn't exist in Europe. Neither the United States nor Europe were able to secure the financing for the necessary infrastructure projects here.

China, on the other hand, is different. China possesses the financial resources, technical expertise, engineering capacity, and, most importantly, the intention and willingness to execute these projects for these nations. And it has happened.

The problem is that we don't have enough of these projects to tackle all the challenges in such vast regions, like in Africa and Asia. For example, Africa's landmass is three times larger than that of China, and it is home to 1.4 billion people. Africa’s population, predominantly composed of young people, is set to almost double by 2050.

We need more projects like the ones offered by the BRI rather than these superficial political initiatives presented by the United States and Europe. Europe needs to comprehend how the BRI operates, particularly its methodology, and they can choose to follow suit. The challenge lies in the fact that politicians in Europe and the United States seem detached from the realities of people and the economy.

To illustrate this, consider a straightforward example: when former U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Africa during the Trump administration, there was a common joke that went around. It was said that Rex Tillerson landed at an airport in Africa that was built by China. Then he took a road in the capital of that country, which was also constructed by China. Finally, he attended a conference in a building built by China, and he just warned Africans not to work with China. It's not merely a joke, because this happened earlier this year, when the US treasury secretary, Janet Yellen went to Zambia to convince the Zambians not to take loans from China for infrastructure development, warning of a so-called “debt trap”.

Now, where did Janet Yellen land when she arrived in Lusaka? She arrived at the new terminal of the Kenneth Kaunda International Airport, which was constructed by a Chinese company with a loan from the Chinese Export-Import Bank. Without that airport, Janet wouldn't have had a comfortable journey into Zambia.

These politicians often fail to see the reality right under their feet. They live in the clouds, wrapped up in their ideologies and economic theories, without considering the people. That's why I refer to these initiatives as political projects, because in reality, they lack substance. Initiatives like “Global Gateway”, “Build Back Better World”, “Partnership for Global Infrastructure”, and so on, lack substance because the politicians who present them have limited understanding of economics and often lack a grasp of geography.

During the G20 summit, U.S. President Biden spoke about another project, stating that it would connect Africa from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, linking Angola to Zambia and Tanzania with a railway.

By the way, there already exists such a railway from Angola to Tanzania, which was built by China. President Biden was misinformed by his advisors who drafted the speech for him. What they are actually referring to is another project, which involves extracting raw materials from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia to Angola. That's the true plan. These types of projects are quite popular in Europe and the United States because they enable the extraction of wealth from Africa and its exportation. This is a significant difference between them and China. China's interests encompass the development of local industries for the benefit of the local societies.

Now, some countries in Africa are realizing that instead of simply exporting raw copper, cobalt, and lithium, they should establish industries to process these raw materials into finished goods, like batteries. Zimbabwe, for instance, recently prohibited the export of raw lithium. They've stated that those interested in their lithium should come to Zimbabwe and establish battery factories, similar to what China has done. This marks a significant departure from the practice of merely extracting resources by Western countries. It represents a move towards a win-win situation.

However, to establish these industries and work with metals, you need essential resources like electricity, necessary infrastructure such as transportation, and a skilled workforce—precisely what Chinese President Xi emphasized in 2015. Without providing these elements to Africa, what you would be doing is akin to the old colonialist practice of plundering wealth from Africa and transporting it elsewhere. This is a big difference. Nations in Africa and other developing regions are increasingly waking up to this reality.

Capital News：Since we've noticed this issue like they are unable to get financing, the United States and Europe should have discovered it long ago. Why is it that every year, the U.S. and the West come up with these big infrastructure proposals, but they always make a big fuss without following through?

Hussein Askary：These projects are essentially political propaganda aimed at delaying and obstructing nations from collaborating with China. When they propose these initiatives, they provide false assurances to those nations, particularly to certain elites within them who may be corrupt and susceptible to bribery from the EU or the United States.

By doing so, these elites can fill their pockets or allow their political parties to maintain their hold on power. This has been an enduring form of corruption persisting for 60-70 years under the guise of so-called aid programs for Africa. These programs serve to keep specific elites in power while their countries’ natural and human resources are being looted. This is what these proposals entail. They are not just deceptive, but they also serve as a dilatory tactic to make sure that nations don't accelerate their cooperation with China, such as with the BRI, and enhance their own development programs. Africa has its own apt development strategy.

Nations have their own development strategies, but they are being told that if they abandon these fantasies, they might get some money. For example, there’s a typical attempt at a recent climate conference in Kenya, where African nations were informed that instead of developing and building industries by using their coal, oil, and gas, they should keep these resources in the ground and get some money from Europe and the United States through so-called CO2 certificates. These countries are being induced to sell their right to development to Europeans. In exchange for not developing their own resources and their economy, these countries might receive some money. This is indeed a satanic plan that would condemn African nations to eternal poverty.

African nations should leverage their coal, oil, gas, uranium, and everything within their lands to leapfrog into high-speed industrialization, rather than surrendering their development right to Europeans. The European proposal implies that these countries cannot continue to burn coal, oil and gas without purchasing carbon certificates. Essentially, Europeans would have the privilege to burn more fossil fuels while Africans are denied the same opportunity.

These countries are currently being restrained from using fossil fuels indefinitely, but this is an important stage of development. This is how China's economy developed, which is based on coal. The industrial revolution in Europe also had coal at its core, and countries like Germany continue to use coal to this day. This is not a crime, and naturally, nations in Africa can utilize their coal, oil, and gas resources. Yet, they also have the opportunity to utilize the enormous hydropower potential, such as that found in the Congo River, the Grand Inga Dam. This could generate a great deal of electricity, benefiting many of African nations and fulfilling their needs of electricity.

However, Europe and the United States show little interest in financing and building plants in the Congo. The World Bank even withdrew its support for that project. Only China has come forward to undertake that construction project, but Democratic Republic of Congo is being prevented by these promises from working with China to build these plants.

This underscores the other side of the proposals advocated by the United States and Europe. They are utilized to hinder African nations and other Global South nations from moving towards the BRI of China. However, it may be a bit too late now because every country is witnessing that the tangible results delivered by the BRI, the BRICS-plus development expansion, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

More nations are expressing the desire to abandon this neo-colonial system. What we witness the upheavals in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, though it’s a challenging part of Africa, is a manifestation of the rejection of the old, Neo-colonial system. These nations now deserve to utilize their natural resources for the benefit of their people.

The world is undergoing rapid change, but the European politicians attending these conferences have not yet realized it.

Europe's Dilemma with China and Economic De-risking

Capital News: I remember you once said something really classic. Not all that glitters is gold, and not all shiny infrastructure initiatives have substance. This’s enough to conclude their proposals. And the last question is about the China and Europe relations. We know that In June this year, the EU rolled out its first-ever "Economic Security Strategy," with a key focus on restricting sensitive technologies like cutting-edge semiconductors from being exported to third countries. Given the intensifying global geopolitical competition, this document is widely seen as a policy blueprint for the EU's economic de-risking path. Does this mean that Europe's ideas about economic security are getting more in line with the United States? Given all this, where do you think China-Europe relations are headed?

Hussein Askary: Unfortunately, it's true that the European policy within the EU is increasingly dictated by American and British elites who aim to prevent Europe from charting their own path towards international economic cooperation. Europe, especially countries like Germany, Sweden, and France, have no interest in keeping the old system. France still maintains a post-colonial presence.

For example, Germany has no interest in maintaining the old system. Germany's future as an industrial powerhouse lies in cooperation with the East, including Russia. A significant portion of Germany's prosperity has been founded on getting cheap gas from Russia. Without the East, Europe, especially Germany, would face significant challenges. Unfortunately, politicians are aligning with the United States, putting their nation, people, and economy in jeopardy. This is a big problem.

Now, in terms of the question of de-risking, we did research on global supply chains, with a special focus on the international chips production of the semiconductor industry. It’s quite an interesting and funny story, because our research actually shows that it's physically impossible to decouple from China. In the semiconductor industry, every component of a chip is manufactured in a different country.

In the grand scheme of things, the Americans excel in designing these semiconductors, as well as the machinery used in their production. Europeans are adept at producing specific components and using them. Then there’s Taiwan province of China, South Korea and Japan, which possess enormous capacity of production.

But what happens once all these chips are produced? They are sent to China. Why? Because a substantial portion of machinery, cars, and appliances we use are manufactured in China. Consequently, you need to send these chips back to China and integrate them into the products that we require.

However, we also issued a warning in our research. If you try to isolate China from this market, the likely course of action for the Chinese would be to develop their own capabilities. They would initiate a crash program, marked by massive investments in terms of money, manpower, intellectual resources, and innovation. This crash program would be geared towards achieving self-sufficiency, thereby becoming independent from external suppliers.

This is precisely what we’ve witnessed with Huawei’s development of their latest chips, achieving self-sufficiency in this area, which has sent shock waves throughout the industry. This is the natural course of events. If you try to isolate China, you’ll find yourself isolated instead. China is now spearheading the creation of a Global South where it won’t rely on European and American markets. Gradually, Europe’s significance as a technology producer and a major market will shrink, leading to Europe’s marginalization and a missed opportunity.

This isn’t a desirable outcome. Our advice in the study was clear: in high technology, including scientific fields, there’s mounting pressure on scientific and cultural institutions in Europe and the United States to sever ties with Chinese universities. This included initiatives like Confucius Institute, but also extends to crucial domains such as medicine and space technology, among others. Institutions are being threatened to abandon cooperation with China. In doing so, we will lose, as China is poised to become the epicenter of the most advanced technologies in the world. Just take a look at China’s space program. China is a global leader in space exploration. In the future, Europe and the United States will need China. Similar to how we currently need Russia to send astronauts into outer space, we will need the Chinese space station for research. We will look to China for collaborations in lunar exploration.

So, it's a bit absurd to assume that if we cut China off, we won’t end up being the big losers. This goes for the entire international community, especially nations like India. I sincerely hope that India and China will resolve their differences. Their cooperation is of paramount importance. India’s achievement in putting a rover on the moon is fantastic, particularly for a developing nation. Similarly, countries like Brazil, Argentina and others are on the trajectory of development and have the potential to replace Europe and the United States.

Here in Europe, we fear the potential disaster of being left behind and not joining this enormous progress that’s taking place. Our problem doesn’t lie with the people, the scientists, or the companies. Our problem lies in the politicians who often lack a true understanding of economics, geography, and history. Their philosophy can be quite destructive. Hence, there’s a pressing need for a reflection on our way of thinking it.

来源：长安街知事微信公众号 | 记者 刘晓琰实习生 张信云