Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘One Belt, One Road’: China, US and the Emerging Hegemonic Struggle in Asia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
China's Global Rebalancing and the New Silk Road

Abstract

During the post-Second World War era in the emerging rivalry between the US and the former USSR, Washington announced a Marshall Plan for European Economic Recovery. It sounded as if it pertained soley to economics, but the strategic dimension was barely hidden. The USSR then responded with the establishment of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) and, by implication, created an economic zone centered around Moscow. Recently, China now has responded to the “New Silk Road” idea from the US by proposing a “Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Route.” While, on the surface, both the US proposal for the creation of “New Silk Road” and the Chinese proposal for a “New Silk Road Economic Belt” are economic in character, the strategic implication of such proposals are abundantly clear. Thus, a new kind of rivalry has been steadily emerging in India’s neighborhood that requires utmost attention and scrutiny.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In September 2013, about six months after becoming China’s new President for a ten year tenure, Xi Jinping, while delivering a speech at Kazakhstan’s Nazrbayev University, proposed the establishment of a Silk Road Economic Belt. A month later, while speaking to the Indonesia’s Parliament, he proposed the creation of a twenty first Century Maritime Silk Route.

  2. 2.

    Secretary of the State Hillary Rodham Clinton stated that the US-backed New Silk Road would bolster economic development and cross-border trading in Central and Southern Asia and beyond. See Ekaterina Blinova, “Chinese Initiative to Diminish US’s Role,” Pioneer, 9 February 2015.

  3. 3.

    For details on Washington’s New Silk Road initiative, see “National Security Priorities in the Fiscal Year 2015, International Affairs Budget,” Hearings, US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 113th Congress, 8 April 2014.

  4. 4.

    Umut (2014).

  5. 5.

    When asked to comment on comparisons between China’s “Belt-and-Road” plan and the Marshall Plan—through which the US delivered billions of dollars of aid to Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War—Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi replied: “It [‘Belt and Road’] is a product of inclusive cooperation, not a tool of geopolitics, and must not be viewed with the outdated Cold War mentality.” See, “Beijing Calls for New Silk Road Between China and Europe,” 10 March 2015, http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/beijing-calls-new-silk-road-between-china-and-europe-312748.

  6. 6.

    A Xinhua commentary contended that “The Marshall Plan was part of U.S. attempts to contain the expansion of Soviet Union, excluding all Communist countries. The Cold War mentality and bipolar structure, however, have found no resonance in China’s “One Belt and One Road” initiatives, which are open to all countries and aim to achieve win-win situations rather than regional hegemony. China is by no means organizing alliances to confront any other country.” See Xinhua (2015).

  7. 7.

    Brahma Chellaney argues that “Simply put, the Silk Road initiative is designed to make China the hub of a new order in Asia and the Indian Ocean region. Indeed, by working to establish its dominance along major trade arteries, while instigating territorial and maritime disputes with several neighbors, China is attempting to redraw Asia’s geopolitical map.” In “A Silk Glove for China’s Iron Fist,” Chellaney further argues that “The strategic dimension of the maritime Silk Road is underscored by the fact that the People’s Liberation Army has led the debate on the subject. The PLA National Defense University’s Major General Ji Mingkui argues that the initiative can help China to craft a “new image” and “win influence,” especially as the US “pivot” to Asia “loses momentum.” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-silk-road-dominance-by-brahma-chellaney-2015-03.

  8. 8.

    Jacob (2015).

  9. 9.

    “American experts stress that China’s infrastructure initiative was started as a response to the challenge of the US strategy of maintaining its influence in Asia”. Indeed, in 2011 Washington announced the idea of developing a New Silk Road project in order to create a “new North-South transit and trade routes that complement vibrant East-West connection across Eurasia,” the US Department of State official press release read. http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150203/1017731544.html#ixzz3TUOKyEdj.

  10. 10.

    The Hindu, 23 January 2015.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Canadian, US and Latin American Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

    Chintamani Mahapatra

Authors
  1. Chintamani Mahapatra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chintamani Mahapatra .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

    B. R. Deepak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mahapatra, C. (2018). ‘One Belt, One Road’: China, US and the Emerging Hegemonic Struggle in Asia. In: Deepak, B. (eds) China's Global Rebalancing and the New Silk Road . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5972-8_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5972-8_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5971-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5972-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation