Brendan S. Mulvaney

Editor's Note:

The development of China-initiated "One Belt, One Road" program is gradually unfolding, but there have been concerns and doubts from the US. What is US scholars' understanding of the initiative? How will it be positioned in the Sino-US relationship? Global Times (GT) reporter Li Aixin talked to Brendan S. Mulvaney (Mulvaney), a US Marines Lieutenant Colonel, an assistant professor of Chinese at the US Naval Academy, and non-resident senior fellow of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China.

GT: What is your understanding of the "One Belt, One Road" initiative?

Mulvaney: The "One Belt, One Road" program appears to be a genuine effort on the part of the Chinese government to expand China's integration across Asia and into the Middle East and Eastern Europe. While there are many facets to this ambitious program, the economic and trade aspects appear to be the true driving force. 

With the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China appears to be poised at the beginning of a new era in trade expansion.  In a perfect world, this would lead to benefits not only for China, but also direct benefits for each of the nations involved in the program, as they would be able to increase the amount of trade and international commerce as well as improve their domestic infrastructure. 

All of these improvements could yield tangible results for the people of these nations, and could assist major international trading nations as well, including the US, by bringing more people into the global market for goods and services, and allowing each to focus on areas where they have a competitive advantage. 

The world has witnessed the rise of Hyderabad and Bangalore as world-class technology hubs as they grabbed their chance to use their natural advantages. The "One Belt, One Road" program could help many other developing countries to do the same.

Some obstacles do remain of course, one of the largest of which is the pace of internationalization of the yuan. If China truly wants to compete on the global stage as a major trade and commerce actor, then eventually it will have to come to terms with the fact that the modern world requires a freely traded, market-determined currency exchange rate.

GT: You have previously mentioned that a number of US scholars and military officials have concerns over this program. However, you think Beijing and Washington can work with each other. Why?

Mulvaney: Once the implementation of the "One Belt, One Road" program begins in earnest, and it begins to bear economic and developmental fruit, it will also provide opportunities for other members of the international community to help expand the progress. 

The US can certainly lend assistance, along with international organizations like the World Bank, the IMF, and other global powers. By focusing on the development of these regions, the "One Belt, One Road" program can start to alleviate some of the sources of tension throughout the region and help to improve stability and security throughout Central and Western Asia. 

By working with China to build up organizations and institutions within and across countries in the region, the US and other partners can ensure that they conform to global norms and standards, and can ideally help them avoid many of the pitfalls and strife that the West faced during its industrialization period and the dire ecological consequences China is now facing due to its rapid economic expansion.

By focusing on green finance, good governance, and environmentally sound policy and development strategies, the nations along the program can benefit by learning from the mistakes of others.

China must also candidly recognize that with increased economic and trade integration comes an increase in responsibility, as well as a broadening of national interests. This may bring some unintended consequences to the development of the "One Belt, One Road" project.

China has shown time and again that it is willing and able to adapt to economic challenges, hopefully it will use this opportunity to prove the naysayers wrong and confront these issues in a forthright manner according to international norms.

 

GT: Why is the Sino-US relationship seen by many as fraught at present?

Mulvaney: There are certainly some voices in Beijing, and in Western capitals, that fear that the overall relationship with China is experiencing a downturn. While there have been a handful of major issues with a broad impact, like the South China Sea and recent cyber operations, in the grand scheme of things, the bilateral and multilateral relationships with China still seem to be on a firm footing.

The issue of the South China Sea is perhaps the most difficult facing the Sino-US relationship today. One of the main reasons for this difficulty is the fact that the US is not a claimant in the disputed areas and has no direct or territorial national interests.

This is in no way to say that the US does not have meaningful interests involved in the South China Sea, it most certainly does. But those interests are more broad and generalized: freedom of navigation; maritime security; adherence to global standards, norms, and institutions; free access to trade; peaceful and mutually acceptable resolution of disputes, and so on.

GT: What should the US do?

Mulvaney: The official position of the US has generally been that it takes no position on the sovereignty of the islands, rocks, features, etc. within the South China Sea. 

So from a policy standpoint, it makes it a little more difficult to justify direct intervention or mediation of the issues involved. Further complicating the matter is the fact that there are multiple claimants, with various degrees of overlapping claims with some or all of the other claimants, all of whom have various relationships with the US, up to and including treaty allies.

The US must walk a fine line of knowing when to step in, when to offer assistance, and when to step away and stay out. This certainly will be a topic of discussion during President Xi Jinping's visit to the US in September, which is a good thing, because it requires a political solution and not a military one.