Opinion: Why the “One Road, One Belt” is Not China’s Marshall Plan

While China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative seeks to establish economic cooperation across Eurasia, the geopolitical implications for China cannot be ignored. At first glance, the emphasis of the initiative, investing in infrastructure in developing nations, bears resemblance to the Marshall Plan. However, the various political and economic institutions that will both complement and compete with the initiative could limit China’s ability to achieve its envisioned geopolitical goals. One resemblance  between the “One Belt, One Road” and the Marshall Plan is the incorporation of  funds for underdeveloped or ravaged regions to build infrastructure. While the Marshall Plan invested over $12 billion in war-torn Western Europe in 1948, China has already begun pouring funds into its neighbors’ economies: $30 billion in Kazakhstan, $15 billion in Uzbekistan, and $24 billion in Turkmenistan. And these are just the investments for energy infrastructure.

The political motivations behind each initiative seem to line up as well, since the funds from the Marshall Plan helped consolidate the influence of capitalism against the Soviet Union. Perhaps China seeks a similar goal, intending to secure its influence in Eurasia. Eurasia offers attractive advantages for Chinese geopolitics with untapped markets to release its steel and cement overcapacity along with the opportunity to placate its restive western regions through economic development.

Wang Jisi, professor of International Relations at Peking University, expressed this opinion in an op-ed written in 2012: “the area is free from a U.S.-dominated regional order … Washington is retreating from the area, leaving … China a perfect opportunity to advance in.”

While this comparison certainly offers some convincing points, the institutions surrounding the “One Belt, One Road” say otherwise. This initiative will be competing with the recently finalized Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Since the TPP challenges China in its traditional markets of East Asia, Vedomosti columnist Maria Snegovaya believes that “the TPP will force China to adapt to more pro-Western standards and display greater transparency in order to remain competitive.” Compared to the Marshall Plan, the “One Belt, One Road” will not have as much freedom to project Chinese influence upon its participants, especially those in Southeast Asia.

The institutions that support the “One Belt, One Road” will also limit Chinese dominance in Eurasia. The most prominent example is the inclusion of numerous European countries as founding members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). With over $100 billion in capital stock, the AIIB will play an enormous role in financing the "One Belt, One Road." Members such as the U.K. and France will be involved in shaping the policies of the bank and guiding it through the nuances of international law. In this regard, China appears to stick to its vision of a "peaceful rise" to international prominence through adjusting to international norms and engaging in cooperation rather than coercion.

While geopolitics are behind the initiative, the finalization of the TPP, as well as the inclusion of many Western nations in the AIIB, makes China’s ability to project its influence uncertain. Thus what may have been a challenge to Western influence in Eurasia may simply integrate China further into the international order.