|A hugely accurate assessment and observation … to the Chinese, success is to be fast in action and engagement. If you are slow, you will be left behind.|
OBOR is just China's programme of geo-economic positioning
https://youtu.be/evxVGig1ZKA (VIDEO: China leading the world into the future)
KUALA LUMPUR (November 2017): Much have been said about China’s multi-billion-dollar One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative to forge trans border businesses and joint-ventures (JV) in Asia and Europe.
China’s strategy is simple: Build infrastructure links - roads, rail links, ports etc - to help boost economic activities with China.
However, there are some who view OBOR as just that - building businesses. Others, those who can’t compete with China’s science and technology and investment power, freely demonise OBOR as China’s devious agenda to shackle the sovereignty of nations via economic might and to lay its military influence and dominance.
To those who demonise China’s OBOR, what’s this view about:
US Defense Secretary James Mattis proclaimed at a congressional hearing: In a globalised world, there are many belts and many roads, and no one nation should put itself into a position of dictating 'One Belt, One Road.' … We have perhaps never seen a programme of geo-economic positioning quite like this before …
I Love Malaysia-China Silk Road opines that the key words by Mattis is “programme of geo-economic positioning”.
Therefore, OBOR is about economics, business and even promoting trans cultural understanding programmes and activities to forge global peace.
It is mind boggling how some even accuses China’s OBOR as a hidden “military or war waging” initiative.
At least this article published by Forbes had some honest views and opinions of OBOR:
OCT 19, 2017 @ 12:06 AM 1,993
Why The Ambiguity Of China's Belt And Road Initiative Is Perhaps Its Biggest Strength
Wade Shepard , CONTRIBUTOR
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
|A member of staff closes the curtains inside the Great Hall of the People. (Photo by Damir Sagolj-Pool/Getty Images)|
On October 3rd, US Defense Secretary James Mattis proclaimed at a congressional hearing, "In a globalized world, there are many belts and many roads, and no one nation should put itself into a position of dictating 'One Belt, One Road.'"
While the defense secretary was ultimately correct -- there are many different countries who are driving trans-Eurasian integration and China’s international infrastructural, economic, and political engagements do often overlap with other initiatives -- the style, scope, financial backing, strategy, and underlaying purpose behind China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) puts it in a category all its own, and should not be underestimated. We have perhaps never seen a program of geo-economic positioning quite like this before, and skeptically framing it in with known practices or established models is a mistake that political analysts, government officials, and even investors have been making -- even as they are encircled by the very initiative they write off or deny.
If you’re looking for an official, correct map of where China’s Belt and Road actually goes, good luck. If you’re looking for an official explanation of what it really is, a list of approved projects, the amount of actual funding, where this funding is really coming from, what entities have the authority to engage projects under its name (and what entities don't), or even a run down of what countries are officially a part of it, you’ve just jumped down into a very deep hole of misinformation, no information, and all out propaganda.
This is an initiative for which there are no publicly-stated KPI, no overarching institutionalization, no formal membership protocols, no founding charters, and a timeline for development that is not measured in mere years, but decades.
While many news sites have published articles and pretty graphics which state things like, "The Belt and Road is a $900 million/ $1 trillion/ $5 trillion dollar initiative spanning 65 countries, 60% of the world’s population, 75% of energy resources, and 30% of GDP," this is little more than grasping at journalistic handholds. I have written these words myself, and I know that this is basically just a more authoritative sounding way to say “a lot of projects in a lot of places that will impact a lot of people which are being financed with a lot of money.”
When you find yourself looking for validation for any these above claims you suddenly discover yourself floating within the vacuum of Beijing-speak — a land of mirages where you either take the illusions at face value or descend into an empirical black hole. But as anyone covering China for very long knows, it is a big mistake to take these government missives “as is” and an equally big mistake to write them off completely. What you need to read is what’s between the lines.
The vagueness, lack of institutionalization, and very broad definition of the China's Belt and Road is probably one of its greatest strengths — and one of the main reasons for its current and, more than likely, future success. This isn't an multilateral club like the EU or a free trade area like NAFTA that can be signed onto or repealed at will. It’s something that is very open-ended, borderless, both literally and figuratively. This initiative is flexible enough to evolve with the times, blow in the direction of contrasting political winds, and ride out the inevitable cycles of the global economy. In a way, it’s more of a concept than a prescribed and pre-ordered initiative.
Ultimately, to speak of the BRI in its most mundane form, it is a framework for partnering with China on economic, political, and infrastructural development — a series of unrelated but nonetheless interconnected bilateral trade pacts and partnerships — and, in this sense, there probably isn't a country on earth which truly sits outside of it. While some nations, like India, can boast that they've boycotted the BRI and secretaries of defense can deride it, the view from the ground says something else entirely. - Forbes"
|The US has wasted so much of their wealth on waging wars, unlike what China is investing into, and OBOR is just one global initiative.|