Is China Promoting Autocracy through OBOR Initiative

This article examines the question of whether China is promoting autocracy through the OBOR initiative. It analyzes the motivations behind the initiative, explores the perspectives of realist and liberal theories in international relations, and discusses the benefits and implications of the OBOR project. The article concludes that there is no solid evidence to support the allegation of China promoting autocracy and argues that the initiative serves to promote the common good and integration among nations.

Is China Promoting Autocracy through OBOR Initiative
Students Name:
Institution:

2
Introduction
In the globally competitive world, countries are seeking bilateral relationship for the
purpose of investment opportunities and expert among others. China is one of the countries
which have extended extensively to the emerging markets through the use of OBOR initiative
(Chhibber, 2015). The OBOR initiative is good and accepted by many nations. However, one
remains with the question, is China promoting autocracy through OBOR initiative or not? This is
the question the researcher is going to answer through literature analysis and come up with an
opinion in the end.
My argument is that China is not promoting autocracy because the initiative serves to
promote the common good of all where the parties involved mutually benefits in the long run.
First, we begin by giving a definition of autocracy, autocracy promotion and OBOR. The
following section examines the world from the realist and liberal lenses in the perspective of
international relation theories, the motivation of China to undertake OBOR initiative, examine
whether the OBOR project is an autocracy, examines the case of India, and end with a
conclusion.
An autocracy is a way of governance where the entire power is central to one person
whose decisions is not subject to external legal restraint or regularized control. Autocracy
promotion therefore is the initiative of promoting autocracy governance, it is an initiative to
control or be governed by a subject of one power.
One Belt One Road (OBOR) is a project by the Chinese government which focuses on
enhancing connectivity as well as cooperation among nations spreading across the continent-
Europe, Asia, and Africa. The OBOR has covered 78 nations and involves building roadways,
maritime ports, railways, power grids, and other related projects (Banerjee, 2016). OBOR is not

3
only focusing on infrastructural connectivity but also endeavor to encourage policy
harmonization, connectivity enablement, unhindered trade, financial assimilation and creation of
people-to people-bond (Winter, 2016). Additionally, the initiative target areas of low-income
economies and which have the potential for growth and when proper conditions are put in place
they can create cooperation with China and also provide new destination opportunities for
Chinese investment as well as exports.
The World from the Realist and Liberal Lenses
The world is seen by realist theorist as anarchistic states of affairs where there is strive
for authority with the assumptions that all intercontinental relations are zero-sum (Rosenau,
2018). It is asserted that the struggle for international affairs among nations with similar interests
is the struggle for power and pessimistic on the outcome for solving conflict and war (Rana,
2015). In realist realms, the interpretation of a nation’s action yields a variance of the classical
theory’s interpretation thus providing a different perspective of the motivation of states. The
defensive realists highlight that powerful states do not seek power because it does not guarantee
security but rather look for ways to remain in the position (Jackson, Sørensen, and Møller, 2019).
Offensive realists, on the other hand, contend that the powerful states always continue to look for
power and safety in a zero-sum game and fear other powerful states. The only goals are to
endeavor to maintain regional hegemony so that they remain the only excessive influence in an
area and develop a regional domination; it is through regional hegemony that they can create
rivalry among other country hegemonies to eradicate peer rivalry (Rana, 2015).
Liberal theories describe that interdependencies among states happen through societal
norms, global systems, and economic exchange which encourages positive-sum interactions
between countries (Rosenau, 2018). The liberalism gives philosophies that support the inter-

4
dependence of countries via an economic-exchange, international organizations, and communal
customs. A key difference of realism and liberalism is that the realists see that comprehensive
relations are zero-sum. The liberals on the other hand belief that international inter-dependence
inspires positive-sum relations among countries (Rosenau, 2018). In the application of
interdependencies, the state’s politics and behavior get affected through the creation or
acceptance of rules, procedures, regulation, and control of relations (Jackson, Sørensen, and
Møller, 2019). In reality, economic as well as diplomatic unity ties happen among states through
globalization. Interdependency, therefore, places constraints on a nation, the commitment of a
nation to the international community, and leadership developed do not entail a complete
political agenda (Rana, 2015).
China’s Motivation in OBOR
In view of international relations and through the lenses of Liberal and Realist, China is
motivated by the fact that it is essential to develop a monetary structure that encourages
successful economy in all states in Asia-South and Middle-Asia by creating regional hegemony
and bringing South Asia into perspective. In the bigger picture China’s initiative has been felt
world-over and the OBOR strategy is affecting the international order in a significant way (Lim,
Chan, Tseng, and Lim, 2016). The country is employing institutionalized cooperation by
working under the limits of world command which is to stimulate collaboration and bilateral
progression. In relation to realists, the perception is that besides what China stated, they are
working to gain coercive power as well as having political influence (Du, 2016). The
incorporation of China into the group of well-entrenched international establishments is evidence
of its desire to consent to worldwide rules. However, it remains to be seen if through the use of
OBOR project the country will work under global institution and rules (Enderwick. 2018).

5
China recognizes that India which is one of the world’s main democracies is the only
country that is capable of threatening its hegemonic ambitions in South Asia. Critics argue that
the infrastructure built by the Chinese is strategically positioned to edge India’s boundaries
(Swaine, 2015). The viable harbors that have the capability are selected as marine centers
because of their strategic positions. China’s overall perspective in the OBOR strategy is to
ensure an increase in economic growth, mutual benefit, regional influence, win-win cooperation,
national security and promote peace (Khattak, and Khalid, 2013).
OBOR Initiative: Is it Autocracy?
There is fear that nations under Beijing's sphere of influence will experience autocracy
while barring democracy in taking part in reverse-wave of democratization. This is not true
because the willingness of China is seen through Xi and his ministers that Chinese trade route is
going to shape China and regional order (Chou, 2015).
The initiative rest on four principles-the first one is respect-nations have to respect other
nations in respect of social systems, development paths, and a country’s rational perception that
comprises policies, visions, and strengths; secondly is a community of common destiny-other
nations has to be accommodated while pursuing own interests; the third is a common,
comprehensive, and sustainable security-require ensuring security to progress where sustainable
security is paramount, and lastly is inclusiveness and mutual learning between civilizations-
actions done can only prosper through learning together and having a common development
(Nicolas, 2015).
This is aligned to the UN’s principles of common development and prosperity of which
the OBOR project metaphorically signifies a road of peace and companionship through the
enhancement of trust, understanding, and action plan. This is an initiative that is beyond the

6
construction of the highways, free-trade corridors, industrial parks, and ports (Appell, and
Douglas, 2017).
Despite the Western suspicion that China and other non-democratic nations are
endeavoring to promote autocracy to other nations. There is no solid evidence that supports the
allegation of democratic rollback by this country. In fact, there is no clear evidence showing
China’s promotion of authoritarianism. Beijing has no any interests in promoting political
practices and norms beyond its borders (Bryant, and Chou, 2016).
Furthermore, the OBOR initiative is unquestionable. The regional partners through the
project have choices, incentive, and to link their future to the future of the Chinese dream. With
the use of the diverse mechanism, channels, and long-term projects under OBOR, Beijing is
actively opening doors and inviting nations to share together in a community of common destiny
(Banerjee, 2016).
Mutual benefit and common security are secured by the OBOR project. Countries world
over want to enhance their infrastructure, have a safe and well-organized system of passages, air,
sea, and land; further, they require building trade and investments opportunities, create political
trust, maintain ties, and improve cultural experiences (Enderwick. 2018).
There is policy coordination where intergovernmental cooperation is promoted. This is
facilitated by enhanced communication and policy exchanges that expend shared interests and
mutual trust as they reach consensus. Also, nations enjoy people linked-bond which gets
enhanced through the essence of friendliness (Lim, Chan, Tseng, and Lim, 2016).
In the examination of the benefits brought forth by OBOR project through policy
objectives, one cannot see the face of autocracy in its true sense. It is established that irrespective
of the fact that China is working with autocracies, there is no proof that the country is promoting

7
autocracy. It is only asserted that China’s rule of "influence without interference" in tyrannical
nations will lead to the endurance in those tyrannies (Khattak, and Khalid, 2013). Even as there
is no promotion of autocracy, China is currently experiencing immense resistance from all
quarters and the “community of common destiny” still will see the light of day. The initiative
will leave a lasting and unique economic, cultural, as well as political legacy that is going to flip
the balance of democracy years to come. Even if the autocracy gets promoted, the traditional
authoritarianism will not survive under democracy dominated regions (Jinchen, 2016).
Indian Case
The growth of India over the years has steadily risen up and this is because of economic
growth and influence of foreign powers in the world of politics (Saran, and Passi, 2016). New
Delhi faces policy dilemma of strategic pressures as well as inducement from world power
nations creating push-pull for the nation (Maçães. 2019). Owing to the strategic environment that
is changing in India, New Delhi remains to consider competitive as well as the cooperative
aspects of the relationship with China on the definition of the OBOR initiative (Banerjee, 2016).
The economic corridor set to pass through India places India strategically as it will join over 60
nations. The immense strategic implications places India in a point of thought putting into
consideration its long-term economic growth aims and state security requirements (Maçães.
2019).
India has a lot to consider in the coming years. Mostly, the Belt and Road represent a
monetary test. Similar reasons that push China into assuming a more prominent worldwide task
and it tell why India is progressively compelled by the Belt and Road (Maçães. 2019).
Admittance to products as well as key resources, control over huge marketplaces cross-cultural
value chains—in every one of these circumstances, China is picking up the advantage.

8
Everywhere the West has been withdrawing, China has immediately taken over and dominated
(Baruah, D. M. (2018). The issue is obviously whether India will get any space left. It is not a
surprise that many technocrats in Delhi respect the Belt and Road more so because it is as an
opening door opportunity. While in a Western-dominance India cannot appreciate a subordinate
job, so it yet to be seen whether India will yield to the call (Maçães. 2019).
In conclusion, China’s overall perspective in the OBOR strategy is to ensure an increase
in economic growth, mutual benefit, regional influence, win-win cooperation, national security
and promote peace. The initial target areas are the low-income economies and which have the
potential for growth. These are the regions which require infrastructure and developments in
order to carry out business as a result of the created opportunities. In the examination of the
benefits brought forth by OBOR project through policy objectives, one cannot see the face of
autocracy in its true sense. It is established that irrespective of the fact that China is working with
autocracies, there is no proof that the country is promoting autocracy. It is only asserted that
China’s strategy of "influence without interference" in despotic nations will lead to the
endurance in those dictatorships. The allegation put forth emanates for quarters that see a threat
of China controlling major projects globally and it is only the authoritarian style of leading that
gets employed in operation of the project. The reason is to ensure that work is done perfectly and
that resources are used optimally and quality is assured. The power nations see potential threat
and feel insecurity since China is seen as a very powerful and daring country challenges other
powerful nations. The initiative presents a lot of opportunities for nations, particularly those still
developing and when fully realized, the economy of the world changes. My opinion from the
literature analyzed is that China is not promoting autocracy as purported but rather promoting the
common good for all involved by ensuring integration through infrastructural development.

9
References
Appell, Douglas, 2017. Global investors are cautious of China's 'One Belt, One Road'. Pensions
& Investments ; Chicago Vol. 45, Iss. 17, (Aug 21, 2017): 1.
Banerjee, D., 2016. China’s One Belt One Road Initiative—An Indian Perspective. Perspective,
14, pp.1-10.
Baruah, D. M. (2018). India’s Answer to the Belt and Road: A Road Map for South Asia.
Retrieved from: https://carnegieindia.org/2018/08/21/india-s-answer-to-belt-and-road-
road-map-for-south-asia-pub-77071
Bryant, O. and Chou, M., 2016. China’s New Silk Road: Autocracy Promotion in the New Asian
Order?. Democratic Theory, 3(2), pp.114-124.
Chatzky, A. and McBride, J. (2019). China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative. Retrieved from:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative
Chhibber, A., 2015. China’s One Belt One Road strategy: The new financial institutions and
India’s options. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy New Delhi.
Chou, M. (2015). Will China Promote Autocracy along its New Silk Road? Retrieved from:
https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_online/0112
Du, M.M., 2016. China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative: Context, focus, institutions, and
implications. The Chinese Journal of Global Governance, 2(1), pp.30-43.
Enderwick, P., 2018. The economic growth and development effects of China's One Belt, One
Road Initiative. Strategic Change, 27(5), pp.447-454.
Greer, T. (2018). One Belt, One Road, One Big Mistake. Retrieved from:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/06/bri-china-belt-road-initiative-blunder/
Jackson, R., Sørensen, G. and Møller, J., 2019. Introduction to international relations: theories

10
and approaches. Oxford University Press, USA.
Jinchen, T., 2016. One Belt and One Road’: Connecting China and the world. Global
Infrastructure Initiative website.
Khattak, A.K. and Khalid, I., 2013. China’s One Belt One Road Initiative: Towards Mutual
Peace & Development. Journal of Research Society of Pakistan, 54, pp.1-20.
Lim, T.W., Chan, H.H.L., Tseng, K.H.Y. and Lim, W.X., 2016. China's one belt one road
initiative. London: Imperial College Press.
Maçães. B. (2019). What are India’s stakes in China’s Belt and Road plan?. Retrieved from:
https://qz.com/india/1547154/what-are-indias-stakes-in-chinas-belt-and-road-plan/
Nicolas, D.P., 2015. Chinese infrastructure in South Asia: a realist and liberal perspective.
Naval Postgraduate School Monterey United States.
Rana, W., 2015. Theory of Complex Interdependence: A Comparative Analysis of Realist and
Neoliberal Thoughts. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(2).
Rosenau, J., 2018. Thinking theory thoroughly: coherent approaches to an incoherent world.
Routledge.
Saran, S. and Passi, R., 2016. Seizing the ‘one belt, one road’opportunity. The Hindu, 2.
Swaine, M.D., 2015. Chinese views and commentary on the ‘One Belt, One Road’initiative.
China Leadership Monitor, 47(2), p.3.
Winter, T., 2016. One belt, one road, one heritage: Cultural diplomacy and the Silk Road. The
Diplomat, 29, pp.1-5.