Chinese Perspectives on the Belt and Road Initiative:

Strategic Rationales, Risks, and Implications

by Joel Wuthnow

CHINA STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 12

Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs

Institute for National Strategic Studies

National Defense University
Cover photo: Karakoram Highway and Tashgurkan, China, July 2012

(Flickr/Marc van der Chijs)

The mission of the China Center is to serve as a national focal 

point and resource center for multidisciplinary research and analytic 

exchanges on the national goals and strategic posture of the People’s 

Republic of China and the ability of that nation to develop, field, and 

deploy an effective military instrument in support of its national strategic objectives. The Center keeps officials in the Department of 

Defense (DOD), other government agencies, and Congress apprised of 

the results of these efforts. The Center also engages the faculty and 

students of the National Defense University and other components of 

the DOD professional military education system in aspects of its work 

and thereby assists their respective programs of teaching, training, and 

research. The Center has an active outreach program designed to promote exchanges among American and international analysts of 

Chinese military affairs.

Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative 

Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs

Institute for National Strategic Studies

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

Series Editor: Phillip C. Saunders 

National Defense University Press

Washington, D.C.

October 2017

by Joel Wuthnow

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative:

Strategic Rationales, Risks, and Implications
For current publications of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, please visit inss.ndu.edu/Publications.aspx.

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those 

of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any 

other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited.

Portions of this work may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided that a 

standard source credit line is included. NDU Press would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints 

or reviews.

First printing, October 2017

For their valuable comments and advice, the author thanks Jack Gill, Thomas F. Lynch, 

Phillip C. Saunders, Andrew Scobell, and Cynthia Watson. NDU research interns Alex Jeffers 

and Jordan Link provided helpful translation and research assistance. The author also thanks 

the Mercator Institute for China Studies for giving permission to use the figure on page 6.
Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 1

Introduction........................................................................................................ 3

Background ......................................................................................................... 4

Strategic Drivers................................................................................................. 8

Risks and Challenges........................................................................................13

New Requirements...........................................................................................22

Conclusion ........................................................................................................26

Notes ..................................................................................................................30

About the Author .............................................................................................45

1

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

Executive Summary

Chinese officials have downplayed the security dimensions of Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy initiative—the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, Chinese strategists have 

extensively analyzed three major issues: strategic benefits the BRI can provide for China, key 

security risks and challenges, and ways to reduce those risks. This study surveys their views and 

comments on implications for U.S. strategy. Key findings include:

The main strategic benefits of the BRI include bolstering regional stability, improving China’s energy security, and amassing influence in Eurasia.

■ Chinese analysts see Eurasian integration as a way to create a more stable security environment around China’s southern and western periphery by addressing the underlying 

sources of violence and building mutual trust. Another benefit is increasing China’s energy security by diversifying oil and natural gas supply and transport routes. 

■ Several analyses describe the BRI as a way for China to simultaneously achieve two geopolitical objectives: amassing strategic influence in Eurasia’s heartland while deftly avoiding direct competition with the United States. Some sources, however, are more explicit 

in portraying the BRI as a response to U.S. pressure, especially that posed by the Barack 

Obama administration’s rebalance to Asia policy.

Implementing BRI projects could be frustrated by domestic and regional instability, nontraditional security threats, and strategic balancing from other major powers.

■ Chinese sources—including Xi Jinping himself—portray the BRI as unfolding within a 

turbulent and, in some ways, deteriorating security environment. 

■ Key operational challenges include regional conflict and protecting property and personnel from “radical” groups, such as Uighur separatists, the so-called Islamic State, and 

Pakistani militants, although Chinese sources rarely acknowledge that anti-China sentiment stemming from policies such as exclusive use of Chinese labor could be contributing 

to that violence.

■ Chinese observers closely follow perceptions of the BRI in states such as the United 

States, Japan, and India, and assume that all three will respond individually or collectively 
2 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

to oppose China’s ambitions, or have already done so. Lesser concerns are raised about 

Russia and Southeast Asian states. 

China will have to marshal military, intelligence, diplomatic, and economic tools to counter perceived threats to the BRI’s long-term viability.

■ While some Chinese sources advocate greater expeditionary naval and ground force 

capabilities as a means to protect overseas equities, others argue that many challenges can 

be reduced through private security forces and host nation support. Mitigating threats 

to Chinese overseas interests also requires stronger risk assessment capabilities and enhanced nontraditional security cooperation, especially in the counterterrorism arena. 

■ Many Chinese writings argue that strategic competition can be avoided by co-opting 

other major powers, such as by including U.S. companies in key BRI projects, and by carefully avoiding encroaching in other states’ spheres of influence. Many also call for a more 

attractive strategic message to enlist supporters and calm detractors. 

U.S. strategy should seek to check China’s geopolitical ambitions while advancing mutually 

beneficial cooperation where possible.

■ The most negative outcome for the United States would be a Sinocentric Eurasian order 

in which Beijing locks countries into exclusive economic relationships and U.S. interests 

are marginalized. 

■ China’s ability to pursue an exclusive regional sphere of influence hinges on variables 

including China’s interests in maintaining stable relations with the United States, the willingness of other major powers to check China’s aspirations, and the ability of BRI partners 

to avoid overreliance on China’s economic largesse.

■ U.S. strategy should aim to preserve the strategic balance in Eurasia by maintaining 

strong U.S.-China economic relations, encouraging alternative regional infrastructure 

development plans, and remaining a committed partner to states across the continent. 

However, this does not preclude U.S.-China cooperation in areas of shared interest, such 

as in the counterterrorism domain. The mix of competitive and cooperative responses to 

the BRI should facilitate larger U.S. strategic aims in the region and vis-à-vis China. 
3

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

Introduction

One of Chinese president Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy programs is the Belt and 

Road Initiative (BRI), a web of infrastructure development plans designed to increase Eurasian 

economic integration. Chinese official rhetoric on the BRI focuses on its economic promise and 

progress, often in altruistic terms: all countries have been invited to board this “express train” to 

wealth and prosperity.1

 Missing from the rhetoric is much discussion of the initiative’s security 

dimensions and implications. Chinese officials avoid describing the strategic benefits they think 

the BRI could produce, while also gliding over major security risks and concerns. Yet at the 

unofficial level, China’s security community has paid close attention to these issues, probing in 

great depth the gains Beijing can expect, the challenges it will face, and the new demands it will 

have to satisfy.

Understanding those Chinese assessments is helpful as the United States considers how, 

when, and in what capacity to engage the BRI.2

 Many foreign observers have speculated about 

the geopolitical ambitions behind the initiative, often describing it as a Chinese “Marshall Plan” 

designed to amass influence in Eurasia.3

 Evidence from Chinese sources helps validate, but in 

some ways qualify, those views. At the same time, there could be room for mutually beneficial 

security cooperation on Eurasian security affairs, insofar as both China and the United States 

seek to advance stability in Central Asia and other affected regions, and oppose common challenges, such as terrorism and piracy. Chinese writings help illuminate how those risks might 

impact BRI, and where opportunities for cooperation might arise.

This study finds that Chinese security perspectives on the BRI are fundamentally ambivalent. On one hand, the thinking goes, economic development and connectivity will help stabilize China’s border regions, secure its energy supplies, and allow China to extend its strategic 

influence. On the other hand, China will face various challenges, ranging from terrorism to 

strategic competition from the United States, Japan, and India. Meeting these challenges requires careful diplomatic coordination and messaging, a stronger ability to anticipate and assess 

risk, and new capabilities to protect trade routes and Chinese citizens abroad. For the United 

States, evidence from Chinese sources supports the need for caution about Beijing’s intentions, 

but also highlights areas of potential cooperation to the extent that both countries share complementary regional agendas. 

Following a brief background section, the study surveys the Chinese literature in three 

main parts: the first covers strategic drivers, the second covers key operational and strategic 
4 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

challenges, and the third part focuses on the range of new requirements. The final section provides overarching thoughts about the discourse and discusses implications for the United States.

Background

Xi Jinping outlined a vision for enhanced Eurasian economic integration in two speeches 

delivered in late 2013: remarks in Kazakhstan announced the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB), 

while a speech in Indonesia unveiled the Maritime Silk Road (MSR). Together, these formed the 

main components of the BRI, often known internationally as “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR).4

Xi’s agenda was not fundamentally new, but rather built on Chinese overseas infrastructure development activities pursued over the preceding 25 years. This included various energy, transportation, communications, and other projects, largely in Central and Southeast Asia.5

 Several 

of these projects were subsumed under the BRI framework, such as a freight line connecting 

Chongqing with Duisburg, Germany, that opened in 2011, and the Bangladesh-China-IndiaMyanmar (BCIM) economic corridor, which had been discussed as early as 1999.6

China was not alone in its focus on Eurasian development. Since 1992, the European 

Union had launched several projects under its Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia initiative.7

 In 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the New Silk Road Initiative 

to better integrate Afghanistan into the Central and South Asian economies through energy and 

transportation development.8

 In 2013, Japan’s Shinzo Abe initiated a “revitalization strategy” 

involving $110 billion in infrastructure investment over 5 years, while in the same year South 

Korea’s Park Geun-hye announced a Eurasia Initiative focused on regional economic connectivity.9

 All of these programs took place in the context of Eurasia’s growing need for infrastructure 

spending to support development, which the Asian Development Bank assessed would require 

$1.7 trillion per year between 2016 and 2030.10

What was unique was the BRI’s expansive scope and scale. The centerpiece is a web of six 

economic corridors linking China with each of its neighboring subregions, identified in the table.11 Perhaps the most well-known is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), involving $46 billion in Chinese investments, mainly in the energy sector; other corridors link China 

with Central, South, and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and ultimately Europe.12 Financing 

would be allocated by new multilateral institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment 

Bank (AIIB), with an initial capitalization of $100 billion, and the $40 billion Silk Road Fund, in 

addition to national banks such as China’s Export-Import Bank. In total, Chinese government 

spending on the BRI is expected to reach $1 trillion.13 The figure on page 6 sketches the scope 

of BRI projects and routes.
5

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

Corridor Partners Example Projects 

Bangladesh-ChinaIndia-Myanmar 

Economic Corridor

Bangladesh, India, Myanmar • China-Myanmar crude oil and 

liquified natural gas (LNG) 

pipeline 

• Padma Bridge (Bangladesh)

• Tunnel construction under 

Karnaphuli River (Bangladesh)

China-Central 

Asia-West Africa 

Economic Corridor

Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, 

Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, 

Tajikistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan

• China-Kazakhstan passenger 

train

• Manas airport modernization 

(Kyrgyzstan)

• Turkey east-west high-speed 

rail

China-Indochina 

Peninsula Economic 

Corridor 

Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, 

Vietnam

• China-Laos Railway

• Upgrade of Lancang-Mekong 

ship route

China-MongoliaRussia Economic 

Corridor

Mongolia, Russia • Altai LNG pipeline (linking 

Xinjiang and Siberia)

• Altanbulag-UlaanbaatarZamiin-Uud highway

China-Pakistan 

Economic Corridor 

Pakistan • Gwadar free zone development

• Karakoram Highway, Phase II 

(Thakot-Havelian)

• Peshawar-Karachi Motorway

New Eurasian Land 

Bridge Economic 

Corridor 

Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech 

Republic, Greece, Hungary, 

Kazakhstan, Poland, Russia, 

Serbia, Slovakia

• China-Europe freight trains 

(39 routes linking China with 9 

European countries)

• Hungary-Serbia railway 

• China-Belarus Industrial Park

• China-Kazakhstan Khorgos 

International Border 

Cooperation Center

• Port of Pireaus (Greece)

Sources: Office of the Leading Group for the Belt and Road Initiative, Building the Belt and Road: Concept, Practice, 

and China’s Contribution (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2017), 10–17; Nadège Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? Political and Strategic Implications of the Belt and Road Initiative (Washington, DC: National Bureau of Asian 

Research, 2017), 74–85. Zhuang Beining, “Spotlight: China-Myanmar Oil, Gas Project Benefits Both,” Xinhua, May 

10, 2017, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/10/c_136272395.htm>. “China Focus: China 

Mulls Upgrade of Lancang-Mekong Ship Route,” Xinhua, March 25, 2016, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/

english/2016-03/26/c_135224454.htm>. “Infographic: China-Europe Freight Train Service,” Xinhua, April 21, 2017, 

available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-04/21/c_136225717.htm>. For a comprehensive list of ChinaPakistan Economic Corridor projects, see <www.cpec.gov.pk/>.

Table. Summary of BRI Economic Corridors
6 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

Used with permission
7

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

The official rationale behind the BRI is that economic growth can be accelerated through 

infrastructure development, lower trade barriers, stronger energy connectivity, harmonization 

of standards, and other means. One authoritative Chinese document states that the economic 

corridors help facilitate “an efficient and smooth Eurasian market,” and create opportunities 

for development of Eurasia’s “hinterland.”14 However, foreign analysts have discussed a range of 

more self-interested Chinese economic motives. These include employing industrial overcapacity in areas such as steel, aluminum, and cement; sustaining gross domestic product growth, 

which is needed to maintain social stability; providing capital for struggling Chinese national 

and local state-owned enterprises; developing impoverished Chinese inland provinces, such as 

Xinjiang, Gansu, and Yunnan; and promoting the internationalization of the renminbi.15

Chinese rhetoric on the BRI exudes economic confidence, often focusing on “early harvest” results. At the May 2017 Belt and Road Forum, for instance, Xi Jinping said that the BRI 

was “becoming a reality and bearing rich fruit,” highlighting progress in areas such as port 

development projects in Pakistan and Greece; high-speed railway projects in Southeast Asia, 

the Middle East, and Eastern Europe; an increase in trade and investment between China and 

BRI partners; and provision of $1.7 billion in AIIB loans.16 China’s state-run media also frequently cite impressive statistics illustrating the BRI’s progress, such as its “support” from “over 

100” countries and international organizations, 66 partner nations, and infrastructure projects 

valued at “nearly $500 billion.”17 This message not only attracts potential investors; it also helps 

burnish Xi’s legacy by aligning him with economic success.18

However, largely absent from China’s official commentary is a discussion of the BRI’s strategic benefits and security risks. Avoiding discussion of the initiative’s strategic rationale helps 

to reduce suspicions of China’s intentions, especially among other major countries.19 At times, 

Chinese officials have even actively tried to counteract foreign speculation about Beijing’s motives. For instance, Foreign Minister Wang Yi rejected comparisons of the BRI to the Marshall 

Plan, one purpose of which was to resist Soviet expansionism by strengthening Western European economies after World War II.20 According to Wang, the BRI is both “much older and 

much younger” than the Marshall Plan: older, in that it embodies the “friendly exchange” of the 

ancient Silk Road, and younger, because it is “born in the era of globalization,” and is thus “not 

a tool of geopolitics.”21

Chinese leaders have been only slightly more vocal about the security risks facing the BRI. 

At the 2017 Belt and Road Forum, Xi acknowledged that the initiative is active in regions associated with “conflict, turbulence, crisis and challenge,” and called for efforts to reduce those 

problems through dialogue and counterterrorism (CT) cooperation.22 However, neither Xi nor 
8 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

other senior officials have detailed the specific operational risks facing BRI projects, nor have 

they commented on the larger strategic problem, namely, that other major powers could take 

steps to try to preserve their geopolitical influence in areas where Chinese investments are increasing.23 This silence is consistent with efforts to reassure investors and convince a domestic 

and foreign audience about the BRI’s long-term viability.

Nevertheless, Chinese policy experts have thoroughly explored the BRI’s security dimensions, producing hundreds of books, reports, and articles over the last few years. The most 

obvious reason is that policymakers require analysis and recommendations about the ways in 

which the BRI can be structured to advance China’s strategic interests and to mitigate potential 

pitfalls, including threats to Chinese workers and investments abroad. It is likely that Chinese 

scholars have conducted BRI research for more parochial reasons as well, including securing 

government funding and attracting the attention of senior officials.24 The absence of clear official positions has also meant that this unofficial discourse has been relatively candid, with frequent disagreements between experts. The resulting literature provides a unique window into 

the types of assessments that are informing leaders. 

The following sections utilize this literature to illuminate the BRI’s drivers, risks, and requirements from a security perspective. Priority is given to assessments from key state think 

tanks, such as the Chinese Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), various 

institutes of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), and China’s National Defense 

University (NDU), which are institutionally linked to policy customers and whose analysts are 

informed by access to internal documents and discussions.25 Also consulted are prominent Chinese academics, who may supply policy advice on an ad hoc basis.26 Finally, the study builds on 

two recent English-language volumes, Nadège Rolland’s China’s Eurasian Century? and Rafaello 

Pantucci and Sarah Lain’s China’s Eurasian Pivot, both of which holistically examine the BRI and 

its implications, and are required reading on the topic.

Strategic Drivers

One of the challenges for foreign observers has been deciphering the range of strategic 

goals that Beijing might be pursuing through the BRI, alongside more quotidian economic objectives. Chinese assessments suggest a few plausible strategic motives, or at least benefits that 

might accrue from the initiative’s successful implementation. These include improving regional 

stability, increasing China’s energy security, and amassing strategic influence in Eurasia while 

avoiding a direct competition with the United States. 
9

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

Bolstering Regional Stability

One common argument in Chinese analyses of the BRI is that regional integration will 

contribute to a more stable security environment, especially around China’s southern and western periphery. This argument both reflects and supports Xi’s broader vision for a new regional 

order—often described as a “community of common destiny” or “community of shared interests”—in which economic development and cooperative security reinforce each other.27 China’s 

2017 white paper on Asia-Pacific security explains the logic:

Security and development are closely linked and mutually complementary. Equal 

consideration should be given to both a security framework and an economic 

framework—the main components of the entire regional structure—to ensure 

their parallel development. On the one hand, the improvement of the security 

framework will help ensure a peaceful and stable environment for economic 

development; on the other, faster regional economic integration will provide solid 

economic and social support for the development of the security framework.28

This is not an abstract goal but rather vital to the mitigation of a range of security challenges within and around China’s borders, including terrorism, separatism, and extremism (known 

as the “three evils”), territorial disputes with India in the Himalayas and with several Southeast 

Asian nations in the South China Sea, and the alleged fomenting of “color revolutions” by the 

United States.29 Along these lines, Chinese scholars argue that the BRI can help improve stability 

in several ways:

■ Mitigating the sources of violence in fragile states. Retired Major General Wang Haiyun, a senior advisor at the China Institute of International Strategic Studies (CIISS), 

claims that economic growth created by the BRI will “eradicate poverty,” which is a “root 

cause” of terrorism and extremism, and play a role in “diffusing clashes of civilization 

that should actually never happen, and calming the restless social sentiments of Islamic 

regions.”30 This could reduce perceived threats such as those posed by Uighur separatists 

and militants of the so-called Islamic State (IS) infiltrating into China.31

■ Ameliorating territorial disputes. Wang Junsheng, a scholar at the CASS National Institute of International Strategy, argues that the BRI will help resolve territorial disputes 
10 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

in the South China Sea by moving leaders away from a “zero sum” mindset. As evidence, 

he claims that Vietnam’s participation in BRI projects has lowered tensions between Beijing and Hanoi in the South China Sea, and led to stronger overall Sino-Vietnamese relations.32 Hu Bo, a research fellow at Beijing University, similarly argues that one goal of the 

BRI is to alleviate maritime disputes, though this does not imply that China will “sacrifice” 

its “legal rights” to enforce territorial claims.33

■ Increasing mutual trust.34 Li Gang, a scholar at the Central Party School’s Institute of 

International Strategy, argues that the BRI will exhibit China’s virtues of “openness, trustworthiness, inclusivity, and development,” and thus convince other states of its peaceful 

intentions.35 Renmin University professor Wang Yiwei likewise contends that trust gained 

through “civil and local interactions” in creating the BCIM economic corridor will help 

Beijing and New Delhi overcome historical suspicions.36

■ Building more effective security partnerships. Central Party School scholar Sun Xianpu 

argues that China can expand CT intelligence sharing, training, and technical exchanges 

under the BRI framework, citing closer CT cooperation with Pakistan as an example. Sun 

also anticipates greater cooperation in the areas of counternarcotics in Southeast Asia, and 

counterpiracy in South Asia.37 Senior Colonel Meng Xiangqing, a professor at the People’s 

Liberation Army (PLA) NDU, similarly argues that the BRI will lead to closer CT cooperation among Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) members, which is needed to address violent extremism and to stabilize Afghanistan following a reduction of U.S. forces.38

A weakness of the Chinese literature is that it tends to assert rather than substantiate a 

causal relationship between development and security. This tendency underscores official 

rhetoric promoting the “community of common destiny,” but ignores contentious debates in 

international relations and policy circles about the linkages between regional integration and 

conflict. Many studies, of course, support the argument that regional trade integration helps 

reduce conflict.39 Others, however, have found either no relationship or suggest that high levels 

of economic interdependence could even increase the chance of interstate militarized disputes 

in some cases.40 Moreover, Chinese analyses often fail to consider how regional integration may 

be increasing transnational security threats, such as facilitating international crime.41 By ignoring these perspectives, China’s security community might not have adequately considered the 

possible externalities of BRI projects. 
11

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

Improving Energy Security

Another argument is that infrastructure development projects under the BRI will improve 

China’s energy security. China’s economic growth over the last two decades has led Beijing to 

increasingly rely on energy imports, especially crude oil and natural gas.42 A negative consequence is that Chinese energy shipments are vulnerable to piracy or interdiction by foreign 

navies, especially in narrow maritime “chokepoints.” Hu Jintao labeled this problem the “Malacca Dilemma,” after the strait through which around 80 percent of Chinese oil imports flow.43 

Moreover, despite efforts to reduce risks through overland pipeline construction and domestic 

energy production, the risks remain: in 2014, China became the largest global net importer of 

oil, most of it arriving by sea.44

Chinese scholars suggest that BRI projects could ameliorate the Malacca Dilemma in two 

ways. First is through port construction, especially in the Indian Ocean. Wang Yiwei notes that 

China’s development of Gwadar (Pakistan) and Columbo (Sri Lanka) will provide “new route 

options” for China and thus reduce “transport pressure” on Malacca.45 Wang also notes Gwadar’s role as the southern terminus of a planned 1 million barrel-per-day pipeline that will result 

in oil flowing from the Arabian Sea to northwestern China. This will help provide a “secure 

energy route,” which is needed in light of instability in the South China Sea.46 Two scholars from 

the PLA Military Transport Academy likewise argue that Columbo, as well as port projects in 

Tanzania and Greece, will benefit China’s “strategic transport,” including in the energy realm.47 

The second way the BRI could ameliorate the Malacca Dilemma is through overland pipeline construction. Huang Xiaoyong, director of the International Energy Security Research 

Center at CASS, argues that the planned Gwadar-Kashgar oil pipeline (which is a component of 

CPEC), as well as a planned oil pipeline linking the Bay of Bengal and Yunnan via Myanmar, will 

both help reduce China’s reliance on Malacca.48 Two other CASS scholars argue that pipelines 

under the China-Russia-Mongolia economic corridor will help assure China’s energy security 

at a time of potential conflict in the South China Sea and on the Korean Peninsula.49 However, 

CICIR analysts Fu Mengzi and Lou Chunhao note that even with new pipelines, China will 

remain dependent on maritime energy supply routes. Thus Beijing needs to increase maritime 

cooperation with others to ensure the safety of critical sea lanes.50 

Expanding Strategic Influence

A third perspective is that China can use the BRI to expand its strategic influence in Eurasia while avoiding direct competition with the United States. A conundrum facing Chinese 
12 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

strategists for decades has been amassing “comprehensive national power” (综合国力) in the 

face of suspected U.S. containment plots, while also maintaining positive relations with Washington.51 On one hand is the view that U.S. military alliances, deployments, and operations in 

Asia are constraining China’s rise.52 Of particular recent concern was the U.S. rebalance to Asia 

strategy, which China’s 2015 defense white paper listed first in a series of negative strategic 

trends.53 On the other hand is the desire for stable U.S.-China relations, which if undermined 

could upset regional stability and endanger Chinese economic gains from cooperation, both of 

which Beijing needs to sustain economic growth and thus preserve regime legitimacy.54

One way out of this dilemma is to focus on expanding China’s influence along its western periphery, where U.S. presence and interests are limited. Nadège Rolland notes that PLA 

General Liu Yazhou and others have circulated this idea since at least 2001.55 However, Beijing 

University professor Wang Jisi gave the argument its most famous articulation in a 2012 Global 

Times opinion piece, which described China’s need for a “march west” (西进) strategy.56 Wang 

argued that a “strategic rebalancing” of Chinese diplomacy to the West would achieve two major goals: building regional partnerships, which would expand China’s “strategic maneuvering space” (and provide other benefits, such as stabilizing China’s restive western regions), and 

minimizing friction in U.S.-China relations.57

While Wang’s influence on the BRI’s origins is debatable, a number of Chinese assessments 

follow his logic.58 Sun Xianpu argues that prioritizing Western development would reduce “external pressure,” while avoiding the more intense U.S.-China rivalry that would result from a 

preoccupation with increasing China’s “strategic position” in maritime East Asia.59 In Sun’s view, 

the BRI could even improve U.S.-China relations by satisfying Washington’s desire that Beijing 

play a more active role in global public goods provision, and in more specific ways, such as developing basic infrastructure development in Afghanistan, which “accords with U.S. strategy.”60 

Peng Bo of the PLA’s Institute of International Relations notes that the initiative will help China 

build economic ties with other Asian nations while “avoiding tit-for-tat competition with the 

United States in the overly crowded eastern coastal region.”61

Other analysts portray the BRI in more starkly competitive terms. Major General Qiao Liang, a professor at the PLA NDU known for his hawkish views, writes that Beijing should avoid 

direct competition with Washington due to the latter’s relative hard and soft power advantages, 

but can use the BRI as a “very clever and non-confrontational type of strategic hedging.”62 Li 

Yonghui, a Russia specialist at CASS, argues that development of the China-Russia-Mongolia 

economic corridor is useful in “shaking off ” U.S. influence in Mongolia, while developing a 

“strategic triangle” between the three countries could help to offset the U.S.-Japan alliance and 
13

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

safeguard “our geostrategic security interests.”63 Wang Haiyun describes the BRI as a way to 

“counterbalance maritime hegemony through expanding land power,” and suggests that it will 

give China an advantage in the regional competition for influence by differentiating Beijing’s 

positive agenda of “common development” with the “power politics and hegemony” of a “certain major country.”64 

In sum, Chinese policy experts have discussed a range of strategic dividends that could 

result from BRI projects. This suggests that the initiative has some “geostrategic underpinnings,” 

to use Christopher Johnson’s phrase, or at least auxiliary benefits that could advantage China 

in the region and vis-à-vis the United States.65 However, Chinese scholars are equally—if not 

more—vocal about the security risks and challenges of Eurasian integration. 

Risks and Challenges

Despite Beijing’s optimistic narrative, the BRI could be jeopardized by a range of factors. 

Foreign observers often comment on economic constraints, such as credit risk, macroeconomic 

risk, legal and regulatory challenges, and poor governance and corruption in partner states.66 

In the security realm, Chinese analysts discuss risk on two levels. Operationally, Chinese (and 

partner) workers and investments could be subject to regional conflict as well as transnational 

challenges such as terrorism and piracy. Strategically, other major powers could oppose, either 

individually or collectively, China’s endeavors in key regions. 

Operational Challenges

At the operational level are physical dangers facing BRI projects and personnel. From a 

Chinese perspective, this is an evolving but not intrinsically new problem. Chinese firms and 

citizens have “gone out” in search of economic opportunities over the last two decades, often in dangerous developing world locations.67 In some cases, Chinese workers have been subject to terrorist attacks, such as those which resulted in the deaths of 14 Chinese nationals in 

Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2004 and which led to suspended projects as Chinese workers 

were withdrawn.68 Civil wars, natural disasters, and other large-scale disruptions have led to 

the destruction of property and required Beijing to carry out evacuations. Most famous is the 

2011 evacuation of 35,000 Chinese citizens from Libya, though China conducted a dozen other 

evacuations between 2006 and 2014 in areas such as Thailand, Syria, and Vietnam.69 Chinese 

assessments highlight a range of similar risks to BRI projects.
14 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

Regional Conflict

One common argument is that BRI projects are subject to the risks of operating in conflictprone areas. Lin Limin, director of CICIR’s Foreign Strategy Research Center, assesses that the 

SREB traverses a “geopolitical black hole,” marked by unstable regimes and rampant corruption. 

This has led many investors to “turn back,” and made it difficult to launch a high-speed rail 

network.70 Major General Wang Weixing, director of the Foreign Military Studies Department 

at the Academy of Military Sciences (AMS), likewise notes that “the BRI route passes through 

many geopolitically fragile areas, with complex historical issues, intense ethnic and religious 

disputes, and frequent armed conflict.”71 In another article, Wang argues that “religious violence,” in particular, can “completely throw the BRI’s construction into chaos and threaten the 

security of our investment projects and personnel.”72

Chinese scholars often focus on discord in specific subregions. These include the following:

■ Middle East/North Africa. Tian Wenlin, a Middle East specialist at CICIR, assesses that 

since the Arab Spring, the Middle East has entered its “most turbulent period since the 

end of the Cold War.” Specific challenges endangering infrastructure development include 

increasing violence between Shia and Sunni factions, especially between Iran and Saudi 

Arabia; the rise of separatism in areas such as southern Yemen and Libya; and the IS desire 

to form a state, which has split parts of Iraq and Syria.73 Other scholars note the negative 

consequence of the Syrian refugee crisis on Europe, which will complicate BRI projects in 

both regions.74 For instance, Hu Bo argues:

If West Asian and North African trends are not slowly alleviated, refugees could 

come swarming forward and seriously endanger eastern Europe, southern 

Europe, even western European countries’ governments and social stability, be a 

burden on economic development, and cause extremist and terrorist ideology to 

spread . . . and in Europe some right-wing powers still might use the confusion 

caused by the refugee crisis and dissatisfaction in society to change a part of the 

country’s domestic governance structure.75

In the maritime domain, Fu Mengzi and Lou Chunhao note that sectarian conflict in places 

such as Yemen and Somalia could threaten the region’s key sea lanes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, and thus the viability of the MSR.76
15

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

■ South/Central Asia. Chen Xiangyang, deputy director of CICIR’s Institute of World 

Politics, assesses that a reduction of U.S. forces will negatively impact the security situation in Afghanistan and “surrounding countries,” which could pose dangers for BRI projects in the region (including Pakistan).77 Fu Mengzi and Lou Chunhao write that an intensifying India-Pakistan conflict, reflected in an October 2014 border incident in Kashmir 

that was the deadliest since 2003, will threaten projects under both CPEC and the BCIM 

economic corridor.78

■ Southeast Asia. Senior Colonel Li Daguang of China’s NDU describes Southeast Asia as 

a “very unstable strategic direction,” involving a recent escalation of South China Sea territorial disputes and challenges from Vietnam and the Philippines, which could threaten 

the development of the MSR.79 Wang Weixing writes that internal instability in Thailand 

led to the cancellation of a China-Thailand high-speed rail plan, while internal conflict in 

Myanmar has led to dams and copper mine projects being halted.80

Nontraditional Security Challenges

A related issue is the impact of nontraditional security challenges on BRI projects. Perhaps the most commonly cited problem in the Chinese literature is the threat of terrorism and 

violent extremism. Some scholars contend that extremists might oppose the BRI on ideological 

grounds, since economic development strengthens existing regimes, whereas radical groups often seek to subvert them.81 Wang Yiwei also notes that development makes it harder for extremists to recruit new members and influence public opinion.82 BRI projects and workers might 

make attractive targets for financially motivated attacks, including kidnappings for ransom and 

theft of property, such as drilling machinery, oil, and communications equipment.83 Aside from 

direct losses, attacks could also impose indirect economic costs as firms spend more on security 

services and insurance premiums rise.84

Several specific groups are repeatedly identified in Chinese assessments. Those include:

■ Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP). One CICIR terrorism specialist claims that the Uighur 

separatist group TIP (known in China as the East Turkestan Independence Movement) 

has been “hiding out” in South Asia and forming “symbiotic relationships with local terrorists,” which could impact the BRI’s implementation in the region.85 Likewise, a terrorism scholar at the Northwest University of Politics and Law suggests that TIP is seeking 

to expand its influence into Southeast Asia, and could threaten Chinese workers involved 
16 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

in BRI projects, including through hostage-taking.86 Chen Xiangyang states that Uighur 

forces both in and outside of China launch periodic terrorist attacks, “threatening the 

personal safety and property of Chinese nationals.”87 

■ IS. Zhang Jie, a scholar at the CASS National Institute of International Strategy, contends that foreign pressure on IS in Iraq and Syria is leading the group to expand globally 

and encourage “lone wolf ” attacks on targets in other countries. Based on these threats, 

the “risks facing Chinese personnel and investments cannot be underestimated.”88 Tian 

Wenlin argues that the IS desire to gain control of oil fields in the Middle East conflicts 

with China’s interests in oil development as part of the BRI. Another concern is that IS 

could influence rebel groups in Pakistani tribal regions, thus expanding the security risks 

facing CPEC.89

■ Pakistani Insurgents/Taliban. One CICIR South Asia specialist portrays the security 

situation in Baluchistan, where Gwadar and other major CPEC projects are located, as 

especially dangerous, recalling that Baluchi insurgents have a history of attacking infrastructure projects, including one 2006 assault that resulted in the deaths of three Chinese 

engineers.90 He also notes increasing activities by insurgent and Pakistani Taliban forces in 

Sindh Province, site of various transportation and energy projects under CPEC.91 A Central Party School researcher also assesses that insurgency poses “uncontrollable risks” to 

CPEC in tribal regions, blaming the Pakistani government for approving routes through 

these areas for political reasons.92 However, in interviews in 2017, several Chinese South 

Asia scholars downplayed the risks to Chinese personnel in Pakistan, pointing to a decline 

in the number of terrorist attacks in recent years.93

While most Chinese writings focus on terrorist threats to overseas interests, some also 

discuss the impact on China itself. Li Daguang notes that terrorists based in Central Asia and 

Afghanistan could launch new attacks in Xinjiang, which is a focal point for BRI investment 

within China.94 Tian Wenlin writes that IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi envisioned that Xinjiang would become part of a new Islamic caliphate, which could prompt further IS involvement 

in China’s northwest.95 A CASS scholar similarly predicts that Xinjiang could be threatened 

by Islamic militants returning from IS-held territories in the Middle East.96 More generally, a 

researcher at the AMS Border and Coastal Defense Research Center argues that implementing 
17

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

the BRI could pose new threats to China’s border security, including terrorism and international 

crime, and create new requirements, such as for maritime search and rescue.97

Chinese sources also discuss several other nontraditional security problems. First is piracy. 

Senior Colonel Liang Fang, a professor at the PLA NDU, describes piracy as a major issue along 

several parts of the MSR, stating that around 20 percent of Chinese ships in the Gulf of Aden 

have been attacked, while seven have been hijacked.98 CICIR analysts also describe an increase 

in the incidence of piracy in the South China Sea, where 124 incidents were reported in 2014.99 

Second is drug trafficking, which Wang Weixing notes led to a 2011 plot to kill 13 Chinese sailors on the Mekong River in Myanmar.100 The third problem is environmental risks. One scholar, 

for instance, argues that mudslides and other natural disasters resulting from climate change 

could impact BRI projects “in the construction and implementation phase.”101

Despite these observations, a gap in the literature concerns the possibility that Chinese 

policies and practices themselves might be contributing to these risks. For instance, Wang Yiwei 

notes that local civil society groups, such as human rights or environmental activists, might 

instigate protests against BRI projects, but sees this as a result of conspiracies by “the Western world” to frustrate China’s ambitions rather than local anti-China sentiment.102 Wang and 

other scholars do not acknowledge that many incidents targeting overseas Chinese interests 

have arisen from policies such as the exclusive use of Chinese workers, poor working conditions 

for local employees, and collusion with corrupt local officials.103 Neither do they consider how 

restrictive policies on Uighur minorities might be increasing the prospects for violent incidents 

in Xinjiang. Lack of critical self-reflection means that China’s security community may not fully 

appreciate the sources of violence along BRI routes. 

Strategic Challenges

At the strategic level, prospects of competition or opposition from other major powers 

challenge the BRI. Chinese sources sometimes describe this as a more intractable and insidious 

challenge than pure operational risks. Wang Weixing notes that BRI projects are active in areas 

other major states regard as their “traditional spheres of influence”—the United States in Southeast Asia, Russia in Central Asia, and India in South Asia. He also labels Japan as an “enemy” 

that will try to block China’s gains at every turn.104 Wang concludes that these countries are all 

on “high alert” regarding the BRI, and “all have their own policies to counteract it.”105 Wang 

and other analysts delve into these countries’ perceptions and assess the ways in which they are 

working, alone or in concert, to undermine China.
18 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

The United States

One of the most frequently discussed potential competitors is the United States. Cao 

Xiaoyang, a researcher at the CASS National Institute of International Strategy, notes that many 

U.S. observers are wary that China is using the BRI to “expand its influence,” often describing it 

as a Chinese Marshall Plan and as a response to the U.S. rebalance to Asia.106 Those suspicions, 

according to some Chinese observers, are heightened by the very real challenges that the BRI 

could pose to U.S. global and regional leadership. Retired Major General Yang Xilian, a senior 

advisor at CIISS, argues that:

The establishment of the post-World War II global governance system, including 

the international order, international systems, international rules and norms 

represented by the [United Nations] and the Bretton Woods system, was 

dominated by the United States and other Western developed countries. Now 

they are out of step with current reality characterized by multi-polarization and 

rapid development of globalization. In this sense, the emergence of the Belt and 

Road Initiative could have an impact on the current international economic order 

dominated by the U.S. and other Western developed countries. The gaming will 

be inevitable between the emerging economies represented by China and the 

established economies represented by the [United States].107

Likewise, Wang Weixing writes that the AIIB and the Silk Road Fund could “pose a threat 

to U.S. leadership in the international financial and trading system,” and, in particular, undermine U.S. efforts to retain influence in Central Asia, such as through the Obama administration’s New Silk Road initiative.108 Tian Wenlin argues that the increasing use of the renminbi to 

settle international transactions, which is a goal of the BRI, threatens the U.S. “lifeblood” (that 

is, the influence of the U.S. dollar) and would spark greater U.S.-China competition, especially 

in the Middle East.109

For some Chinese observers, U.S. misgivings could translate into active attempts to counter the BRI. Hu Bo speculates that the United States will use “diplomatic resistance” and military 

tools to frustrate China’s plans, including by inciting tensions in the South China Sea as a way to 

complicate the development of the MSR.110 Other scholars note specific ways that Washington 

could try to interrupt the BRI, or has already done so, including:
19

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

■ Strengthening U.S. economic engagement in Asia. Writing prior to the 2016 presidential election and its theme of economic retrenchment, Wang Weixing predicted that the 

United States could increase development aid to Asian partners in order to compete with 

China, advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and “make changes” to international 

financial institutions in order to “protect its leading role in global economic governance.”111

■ Encouraging U.S. allies to avoid participation. Peng Bo claims that Washington “tried 

to block” South Korea, Australia, and other Asian states from joining the AIIB, and expressed dissatisfaction with the willingness of several European partners to join the bank. 

He concludes that while Washington’s attitude on AIIB membership has evolved, its “established policy” of trying to “control China’s rise” has not changed.112

■ Stoking domestic opposition in BRI partner states. One scholar accuses the United 

States (and Japan) of actively opposing CPEC by using “agents” to “stir up trouble” in Pakistan, and by exercising influence in international human rights, labor, and environmental 

organizations critical of the projects.113 Tang Yinchu similarly asserts that Washington has 

used nongovernmental organizations to oppose Chinese development projects along the 

MSR “under disguises of environmental and human rights protection.”114

Japan

Japan is another commonly cited competitor. Chinese observers frame Tokyo’s reactions 

to the BRI in the context of a larger Sino-Japanese contest for influence in the region. One specialist notes that this rivalry has included Tokyo’s use of official development aid since 2008 to 

bring countries such as India, Vietnam, and the Philippines into closer alignment to “constrain 

China,” and Tokyo’s efforts to weaken Chinese influence in Myanmar.115 Another analyst argues 

that this competition intensified with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s purported pursuit of military normalization and anti-China predisposition.116 The BRI further exacerbates this rivalry by 

threatening Japan’s regional economic influence, especially in Central Asia.117

Japan could be responding to the BRI in several ways. Diplomatically, Chinese observers 

portray Abe’s “diplomatic offensive” in areas ranging from South Pacific island nations to the 

Philippines, Mongolia, and Turkmenistan, as part of a campaign to counterbalance the BRI.118

Diplomatic opposition, according to one scholar, also includes meddling in the South China Sea 

disputes and portraying China as a threat to freedom of navigation.119 Economically, a CASS Japan specialist notes that Tokyo responded to the AIIB with its own plan to provide $110 billion in 
20 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

additional funding for Asian infrastructure development and has used competitive bids to counter Chinese infrastructure development proposals in South and Southeast Asia.120 In the security 

arena, one analyst asserts that Japan strengthened maritime security cooperation with the Philippines and other South China Sea claimants in order to impede the MSR.121

India

Competition from India is another frequently discussed problem. Hu Shisheng, director 

of South Asian studies at CICIR, assesses that New Delhi has been “cautious” about the BRI, 

with some Indian analysts seeing it as an “upgrade” of the “String of Pearls.”122 Hu acknowledges 

that part of the problem is that Beijing has not articulated the specific contents of the Maritime 

Silk Road, which traverses the Indian Ocean; this ambiguity only serves to “breed suspicions.”123

Another Chinese scholar likewise notes that Chinese-funded port development in Pakistan, 

Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Bangladesh, along with China-Nepal negotiations over highway construction in the Himalayas, “threatens India’s leading role in the region,” and has inspired many 

doubts in New Delhi.124 Another source of tension, according to Zhang Jie, is that CPEC is envisioned to cross disputed territory in Kashmir.125

Chinese scholars portray a range of Indian policies and activities as responses to the BRI. 

These include the following: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s advocacy of an assertive 

“Act East” policy; proposals for an India-centric Spice Route; purported interference in a January 2015 Sri Lankan election that resulted in the defeat of a pro-China candidate; efforts to 

block a $1.5 billion Chinese port development project in Columbo (Sri Lanka); encouragement 

of refusal to fully embrace BCIM and the China-Nepal-India economic corridor; and plans 

to expand a strategic naval base in the Andaman Islands.126 Wang Weixing predicts that New 

Delhi will continue to interfere with the participation of other South Asian countries in the BRI, 

support pro-India candidates in regional contests, and undermine Chinese economic agreements.127 Prime Minister Modi’s absence from the May 2017 Belt and Road Forum likely only 

increased Chinese apprehensions of New Delhi’s motives.128

Major Power Coordination

Of perhaps even greater concern to Chinese analysts is the possibility that major powers 

might collaborate in their opposition to the BRI. Several Chinese sources focus on developments in the U.S.-Japan alliance. Yang Xilian argues that Washington and Tokyo responded to 

the AIIB by promoting the TPP, encouraging reforms of the Asian Development Bank to ensure 

its ability to compete with the AIIB (such as raising loan limits), and prodding European states 
21

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

to shape the AIIB in a way that supports U.S. and Japanese goals.129 Other scholars also contend 

that the United States and Japan are colluding to oppose the BRI by refusing to join the AIIB, 

declining participation in other major Chinese events such as a September 2015 military parade 

in Beijing, and “stirring up trouble” in the South China Sea.130 While some sources attribute 

stronger U.S.-Japanese coordination to U.S. designs, others suggest it reflects Tokyo’s aims to 

limit China’s economic success.131

Other analyses highlight India’s bilateral and multilateral activities. Fu Mengzi and Lou 

Chunhao, for instance, speculate that enhanced U.S.-Indian maritime security cooperation and 

joint statements on the South China Sea have been intended as a response to the MSR.132 A 

CASS researcher describes the evolution of the U.S.-Japan-India naval exercise Malabar as a way 

to demonstrate commitment to safeguard key sea lanes in the Indian Ocean in light of growing 

Chinese involvement.133 Tang Yinchu describes Modi’s call for U.S. and Japanese support for the 

Mekong-Ganga Cooperation, which fosters economic and cultural cooperation between India 

and Southeast Asian nations, as a counterweight to the MSR.134

Other Countries

While less prominent in Chinese discourse, some analysts also consider potential challenges from Russia and several Southeast Asian states. Early Chinese analyses focused on Russian concerns about the impact of BRI projects on Moscow’s sphere of influence in Central Asia, 

and over the perceived lack of coordination between the two countries.135 However, writing in 

2017, Zhang Jie noted that Russia had actively embraced the continental SREB, as symbolized 

by Putin’s attendance at the Belt and Road Forum. This served as a “green light” for more active 

involvement from Central Asian states, such as Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, which had been 

wary of alienating Moscow.136

Other Chinese assessments describe persistent challenges to the BRI in Southeast Asia. For 

instance, Zhang Jie argues that Indonesia’s “Global Maritime Fulcrum” strategy, which involves 

balancing relations with major powers, could complicate China’s attempts to foster BRI projects 

in that country. Zhang also notes that friction over China’s military activities in the South China 

Sea could constrain Jakarta’s support for BRI projects.137 CICIR scholars similarly argue that 

Vietnam and the Philippines, which are already wary about China’s role in the South China Sea, 

could “misperceive” the MSR as a type of “strategic weapon” that China is using to press its territorial ambitions.138 Nevertheless, those concerns might be receding. Zhang Jie contends that 

2016 elections in Vietnam and the Philippines were both “favorable” for the BRI, reflected in the 

participation of leaders from both states in the 2017 Belt and Road Forum.139
22 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

In sum, Chinese sources describe an almost uniformly negative, and even deteriorating, 

operational and strategic environment in which the BRI is unfolding. For some foreign analysts, 

the logical conclusion might be that the security risks are too great to contemplate large-scale 

infrastructure development, and that state-owned or private firms should simply avoid operating in some countries or subregions. Yet in line with official pronouncements of BRI success, 

Chinese analysts project optimism that those risks can be addressed through careful interagency and industrial planning. 

New Requirements

Managing the risks associated with the BRI requires parallel improvements in several 

areas. Chinese sources point, in particular, to the need for longer-range military capabilities, 

stronger risk assessment capacity, closer regional CT cooperation, more effective strategic communications, and better management of major power relations. The expectation is that the net 

effect of these changes will guarantee the BRI’s long-term viability and safeguard China’s expanding overseas interests writ large. 

Developing Military Capabilities

One requirement concerns longer-range naval and ground force capabilities. Consistent 

with the PLA navy’s focus in recent years on developing “blue water” capabilities, deployment of 

carrier task forces to distant areas to protect sea lanes associated with the MSR is advocated by 

Liang Fang.140 Liang also notes that those ships could serve useful warfighting functions, such 

as blockading enemy ports during a crisis.141 Qiao Liang calls on the PLA to build lighter, more 

mobile ground forces (including special operations and army aviation units) that can operate in 

complex terrain, such as in Afghanistan.142 This would help the PLA be better able to conduct 

“military operations other than war,” such as noncombatant evacuations or CT missions. 

In a similar vein, PLA analysts contend that an expeditionary capability requires overseas 

facilities and supply points. This includes both Chinese-operated facilities and agreements with 

host nations to secure “places without bases,” such as airports and harbors that can be used during a crisis.143 In one assessment, Senior Colonel Zhou Bo, director of the Ministry of National 

Defense’s International Security Cooperation Center, argues that the PLA’s inaugural overseas 

base, located in Djibouti, will help facilitate disaster relief, as well as intelligence collection, and 

joint CT exercises with U.S., Japanese, and other foreign navies.144 Another source envisions a 

broader “security supply chain” (安保补给链) spanning the MSR. This will require “friendly 
23

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

cooperation” with Indian Ocean partners, such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as with 

Middle Eastern and African states.145

Chinese military diplomacy can also support out-of-area operations and other requirements associated with the BRI.146 One author contends that the PLA needs to develop stronger 

foreign affairs capabilities to facilitate interactions with partners; this requires greater investment in linguistic and cultural training.147 Zhou Bo argues that the PLA navy should step up 

anti-piracy exercises with foreign partners in the Indian Ocean. This not only helps improve 

the PLA’s operational proficiency, but also helps to “normalize” Chinese naval presence in the 

region.148 Liang Fang also supports increased port visits and combined naval exercises, which 

helps increase mutual trust and strengthens China’s ability to protect sea lanes.149

However, other sources describe limits on the PLA’s ability to safeguard overseas Chinese 

interests and recommend alternate solutions. Major General Zhu Chenghu, former director 

of the Institute for Strategic Studies at the PLA NDU, states that political turmoil can jeopardize access to overseas bases during a crisis, arguing that Chinese companies should rely more 

on embedded private security contractors. If such a capability existed during the Libya civil 

war, he states, “I think we certainly wouldn’t have seen the outcome we saw in that conflict.”150

Other scholars argue that, instead of deploying troops, China should depend on host nations 

for security protection.151 For instance, two CICIR analysts note that the Ethiopian government 

dispatched 100 troops to protect a Chinese-operated industrial park during riots in October 

2016; this spared the facility from damage.152 Another, more prominent example is Pakistan’s 

provision of a 12,000-strong special security force to protect Chinese workers engaged in CPEC 

projects.153

Improving Assessments

No less important is the need to anticipate and assess risk in the first place. Several sources emphasize the need for interagency information-sharing and analysis. For instance, Wang 

Weixing argues that China needs to gather “all national intelligence capabilities” to assess the 

security situations in BRI partner states, as well as the policies of other major countries (including the U.S. rebalance to Asia) that might impact the initiative at the operational or strategic levels.154 Senior Colonel Liu Qun, director of the PLA NDU National Defense Economics Research 

Center, writes that the PLA should work with state agencies to assess “political changes” and 

“public opinion” in partner nations, and provide more granular data in areas such as weather 

and hydrological conditions.155 Other analysts recommend the creation of a CT intelligence 
24 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

center under the National Security Commission (NSC) that can manage risk assessments and 

facilitate better inter-bureaucratic coordination of China’s CT organizations.156

A related imperative concerns the risk assessment functions of Chinese firms. One article, 

for instance, critiques Chinese companies operating overseas for inadequate risk assessment 

capabilities, and encourages them to recruit a cadre of risk analysts, learn lessons from foreign 

multinational corporations, and build “early warning and management systems” to assess risks 

facing Chinese investments.157

Enhancing Regional CT Cooperation

Another common argument is the need for China to enhance its counterterrorism cooperation with partners. At the official level, Meng Jianzhu, a Politburo member with the public security portfolio, has called on all BRI partners to increase information-sharing and deepen cooperation between law enforcement agencies, intended in part to address terrorism concerns.158

Chinese analysts have offered various ways in which this goal can be achieved. One proposal is 

to create special CT units under the direction of the NSC, in which PLA, People’s Armed Police, 

and public security officials can liaise with foreign partners and deploy if needed.159 Another is 

to build a dedicated CT center for BRI partners which would facilitate information exchanges, 

issue warnings to regional embassies and consulates, and provide training to personnel and 

firms on how to handle terrorist incidents.160

A focus of several analyses is improving CT cooperation under the SCO framework. Liu 

Qun argues that the SCO should be the “foundation” of CT cooperation along the SREB, and 

BRI partners should be invited to attend exercises as observers (or as full SCO members).161

Zhou Bo contends that the benefits of working through the SCO include making use of the 

joint SCO training facility in Xinjiang, testing PLA capabilities under realistic conditions, and 

increasing reliance of other states on Chinese equipment (implying that China will export more 

CT-related equipment to SCO states).162 In addition, a CT specialist at CICIR advocates for 

stronger, “complementary” relations with the SCO and a recent CT mechanism set up among 

China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan.163 

Shaping Perceptions

At a broader level, Chinese authors regard strategic communications as useful in mollifying international suspicions and reducing domestic opposition to the BRI in some countries. 

For instance, one PLA media specialist argues that China needs to emphasize “soft vocabulary,” such as “proposals” and “initiatives,” and avoid stronger language, such as “forbidden” and 
25

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

“resolutely.” She also encourages a friendly media strategy that tells the BRI’s “story” through 

the lens of specific projects and individuals, and which casts China as an “advocate and implementer of win-win cooperation.”164 Wang Weixing calls on Beijing to send an upbeat message 

through multiple means, including arts performances, films, links with foreign think tanks and 

industry associations, and high-level summits, to “make clear that we are bearing the burdens 

of responsibility.”165

Effective messaging will also be tailored to individual countries and audiences. One source, 

for instance, argues that China needs to launch BRI websites in partner states’ native languages; 

the reason is that “only by maximizing the use of the Internet can China gain an advantageous 

position in international public opinion.”166 Countries with entrenched domestic opposition 

also need to be specifically targeted. For instance, one specialist notes that China suffers low 

favorability ratings in Mongolia, and to correct this problem, Beijing should clarify how the 

China-Russia-Mongolia economic corridor is useful in “raising peoples’ standards of living.”167

Another source argues that messaging should address Russian “fears of exclusion,” and reassure 

India of its “special status” in South Asia while noting the economic benefits of cooperation.168

Co-opting Strategic Competitors

A related issue is how to manage great power relations to avoid strategic competition. 

Several Chinese analysts argue that instead of direct confrontation, the most effective strategy is 

to co-opt the United States, Japan, India, and Russia into the BRI. Wang Weixing advocates increased technological and investment cooperation, while being cautious about hitting the “sensitive strategic nerves” of other major powers.169 Similarly, Zhang Jie writes that China should 

try to involve companies from other major states in BRI projects, investments, and technologysharing. This will help influence the “narrow thinking” among these countries’ leaders, even 

though it will not remove their suspicions altogether.170 Another scholar suggests linking CPEC 

to other states’ development strategies and inviting Western companies to join CPEC projects, 

including through co-bidding.171

Chinese discourse focuses on relations with two states in particular.172 First is India. Ye 

Hailin, a South Asia specialist at CASS, argues that Beijing should not compete directly with 

New Delhi, since India can frustrate BRI projects “by paying only a small price.”173 Instead, 

China should exercise “strategic patience,” focusing on joint projects while downplaying the 

BRI’s security dimensions.174 Hu Shisheng similarly warns that India has the “resources and 

ability to disrupt and even destroy” the BRI’s progress in South Asia, and has less need for Chinese infrastructure development funding than other states. Thus, he outlines a careful approach 
26 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

that includes avoiding overly close military cooperation with smaller Indian Ocean countries, 

incrementally expanding the MSR in a way that considers India’s “level of tolerance,” and using 

“all types of platforms” to counter strategic suspicions.175

Second is the United States. Some scholars emphasize economic inducement as key to 

managing relations with Washington. For instance, Wang Junsheng advocates the participation 

of U.S. companies in large-scale BRI energy projects as a way to gain U.S. acquiescence.176 Qiao 

Liang likewise posits that U.S. businesses, including investment banks and high-tech firms, can 

be “cleverly” enmeshed into BRI projects; this will make it less likely that Washington will “cause 

trouble.” 177 Other analysts, however, support balancing U.S. competition by increasing China’s 

influence elsewhere. Wang Weixing argues that Beijing should increase security cooperation 

with Latin American countries as a “wedge” in the U.S. backyard, and should also exploit U.S.-

Russian and U.S.-European differences to “relieve strategic pressure.”178 Cao Xiaoyang contends 

that China can reduce U.S. influence through closer relations with Association of Southeast 

Asian Nations (ASEAN) states.179

In sum, Chinese strategists argue that a range of tools can be useful in mitigating the dangers associated with the BRI. Some of these, such as expeditionary military capabilities, risk 

assessments, and regional CT cooperation, are focused on operational challenges to Chinese 

workers and investments, while others, such as messaging and economic co-optation, are more 

relevant to perceived strategic challenges. 

Conclusion

China’s unofficial discourse on the BRI acknowledges potential strategic benefits of Eurasian economic integration, but also highlights a range of obstacles and considers how those can 

be overcome. On one hand, implementing projects can help ensure a more stable southern and 

western periphery, assure China’s energy supplies in the face of potential threats, and expand 

regional influence in a way that preserves U.S.-China cooperation. On the other hand, despite 

an optimistic official narrative, Chinese strategists note that Chinese (and partner state) citizens 

and property are subject to the risks of operating in turbulent areas, and worry more broadly 

about current or potential strategic competition from other major powers, especially the United 

States, Japan, and India. Addressing those challenges requires careful interagency planning to 

maximize gains and reduce risks.

From a U.S. perspective, Chinese assessments of the BRI help validate concerns that Beijing’s intentions are neither altruistic nor purely economic in nature. The direst interpretation 

of the evidence is that Beijing is seeking spheres of influence in a way analogous to British 
27

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

geographer Halford Mackinder’s early 20th-century thesis that the quest for world dominance 

starts by occupying the Eurasian heartland.180 Though usually not stated so boldly, Chinese 

sources do argue that the BRI can help expand China’s “strategic space” and in some cases, such 

as currying favor with Mongolia, can help weaken U.S. influence in the Asia-Pacific.181

None of the sources consulted for this study provides a clear roadmap for how China will 

manipulate BRI projects and related institutions to achieve strategic dominance in Eurasia.182

Yet it is possible to speculate about how Beijing would pursue such a goal over the next decade.183 Specific steps in using the BRI to advance a Sinocentric order could include the following: directing national banks to provide loans to states deemed adequately deferential to China’s 

interests and away from those that are not, and trying to manipulate the AIIB and Silk Road 

Fund for similar purposes; creating indebtedness by providing loans to states unable to pay 

them off;184 fostering political loyalty by routing BRI funds to politicians and other elites known 

to support China’s agenda; and allowing Chinese firms to own and operate ports and other 

critical infrastructure, possibly including the ability to deny use of those facilities to China’s 

opponents.185

These economic and financial steps could buttress other activities that strengthen Chinese 

regional influence, such as promotion of sovereignty norms, rejection of liberal democracy, and 

enhanced security and defense cooperation with partners. Establishment of overseas military 

bases and more routine PLA naval presence in and beyond the Indian Ocean might also be used 

to protect critical supply routes and, during emergencies, protect Chinese workers and investments, as well as to shape the broader strategic environment more in China’s favor. As Ashley 

Tellis notes, Beijing could use expanded power projection capabilities throughout the Eastern 

Hemisphere “both in order to signal its arrival as a true great power in world politics and to 

influence political outcomes on diverse issues important to China.”186 Beijing might also selectively raise tensions with neighbors opposed to its agenda; Indian media, for instance, attribute 

Chinese construction in a disputed area near the China-Indian-Bhutan border as a response to 

Indian Prime Minister Modi’s refusal to attend the May 2017 Belt and Road Forum.187

Nevertheless, China’s ability to use the BRI to advance a Sinocentric order hinges on several variables. First is the extent to which BRI projects uniquely advantage China. Railways, 

pipelines, and other infrastructure built to Chinese specifications and that link China with its 

neighbors might give Beijing exclusive benefits, though other developments (such as ports) 

could be used by others, including China’s competitors. The second variable is the extent to 

which China values stability in its relations with the United States. Wang Jisi’s logic suggests 

that Beijing might temper its ambitions and focus its efforts on areas where U.S. interests are 
28 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

limited. However, China could use the BRI framework to more directly challenge U.S. equities, 

such as those in the Middle East, or even in Latin America or the Arctic.188 Third is how robustly 

other major powers work to preserve their competitive advantages in affected regions. Much 

like the Marshall Plan precipitated countermoves by a committed rival (the Soviet Union), Chinese analysts acknowledge that efforts to develop spheres of influence might stimulate strategic 

competition from states such as Japan and India.189 Fourth is whether BRI partner nations will 

try to avoid overreliance on China, such as by limiting acceptance of Chinese loans, inviting 

competitive bids, or diversifying their economic relationships and strategic partnerships. To 

one degree or another, most countries are likely to play the field to maximize their negotiating 

leverage. Thus, the strategic impact of the BRI could be self-limiting, as participating states also 

create close ties with Japan, India, or the United States to maintain balance.190

U.S. strategy should seek to influence these variables in a way that moderates China’s geopolitical aspirations. First is incentivizing Beijing to avoid direct competition with the United 

States and avoiding executing the BRI in a way that hits U.S. “sensitive strategic nerves” by 

maintaining strong U.S.-China economic relations (although it is likely that China will become 

less dependent on the United States as an export market in the coming years).191 Second is encouraging alternative regional infrastructure development plans that help countries diversify 

their economic relationships. While U.S.-led programs, such as the New Silk Road, will never 

match the scale of the BRI, Washington can help promote regional balance and competition by 

encouraging Japanese and Indian infrastructure development initiatives (and strategic cooperation between Tokyo and New Delhi), and by working through the Asian Development Bank and 

World Bank to provide alternative financing.192 Third, the United States can support the many 

BRI states who wish to avoid overdependence on China by remaining a reliable economic and 

security partner. This can be achieved through continued strong U.S. regional engagement, despite the current milieu of retrenchment.193

The BRI does not, however, have to be interpreted in exclusively zero-sum terms. Although the United States has an interest in maintaining strategic balance in Eurasia, and in 

retaining competitive advantage in regions critical to U.S. economic interests, there might also 

be areas where China and the United States share common interests. While Chinese arguments 

suggesting that Eurasian integration will help ease regional tensions and ameliorate problems 

such as terrorism are analytically debatable, they are consistent with U.S. official thinking that 

links development with security.194 Thus, in principle, BRI projects could support broader U.S. 

interests in promoting regional peace and stability. Washington could help guarantee that those 
29

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

effects are achieved by joining the AIIB and supporting select BRI projects, especially in areas 

like Central Asia that are more peripheral to U.S. commercial interests. 

Under a cooperative framework, mutually beneficial results might also be achieved in the 

nontraditional security arena. Chinese scholars identify a variety of threats, ranging from terrorism to piracy to climate change, to BRI projects. Assuming more of the burden in addressing 

those types of challenges not only helps safeguard Chinese interests, but also benefits China’s 

image as a supplier (rather than a consumer) of global governance. Washington can leverage 

those considerations to expect more from Beijing as the two states work at a bilateral or regional 

level to meet common challenges. Nevertheless, U.S. officials will have to weigh those benefits 

against concerns, such as bolstering China’s image in the face of continued assertive actions in 

maritime Asia, or legitimizing Beijing’s internal crackdown of dissidents.195

At a macro level, the United States faces a tradeoff in the mix of competitive and cooperative responses to the BRI. Crude attempts to blunt China’s relative gains through unilateral or 

collective opposition could detract from U.S. interests in shaping the initiative through active 

participation and reduce the likelihood for effective U.S.-China cooperation on nontraditional 

security issues. Conversely, a passive U.S. approach could allow Beijing to significantly expand 

its regional influence at U.S. expense. How that tradeoff is handled should be nested within the 

formulation of a larger U.S. China strategy. A strategy prioritizing economic cooperation and 

global governance would allow for greater engagement with the BRI, while a more competitive 

strategy focused on deterring Chinese assertiveness in and beyond Asia would approach the 

BRI in more zero-sum, antagonistic terms. Attempting to segregate responses to the BRI from 

larger U.S. strategic aims would lead only to mixed messages and missed opportunities.
30 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

Notes 1 “Commentary: China’s ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative Delivering Benefits to the World,” Xinhua, 

April 15, 2017, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-04/15/c_136210956.htm>.

2As part of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue, the United States 

“recognize[d] the importance of China’s One Belt and One Road initiative” and pledged that a U.S. official would attend the May 2017 Belt and Road Forum (that official would be NSC senior director for 

Asia Matthew Pottinger). “Joint Release: Initial Results of the 100-Day Action Plan of the U.S.-China 

Comprehensive Economic Dialogue,” May 11, 2017, available at <www.commerce.gov/news/pressreleases/2017/05/joint-release-initial-results-100-day-action-plan-us-china-comprehensive>.

3Enda Curran, “China’s Marshall Plan,” Bloomberg, August 7, 2016; Theresa Fallon, “The New 

Silk Road: Xi Jinping’s Grand Strategy for Eurasia,” American Foreign Policy Interests 37 (2015), 142. 

4This report uses BRI, which is more commonly used in official English-language Chinese 

media sources. Nevertheless, OBOR is a more literal translation of the original Chinese yidai yilu (一带

一路). 

5Nadège Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? Political and Strategic Implications of the Belt and 

Road Initiative (Washington, DC: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2017), 32–39.

6Rafaello Pantucci and Sarah Lain, China’s Eurasian Pivot (London: Royal United Services 

Institute, 2016), 11.

7Vladimir Fedorenko, The New Silk Road Initiatives in Central Asia, Rethink Paper 10 (Washington, DC: Rethink Institute, August 2013), August 2013, 17–18.

8 “U.S. Support for the New Silk Road,” U.S. Department of State, available at 

<https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/sca/ci/af/newsilkroad/index.htm>. 

9Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? 17–26. 

10Meeting Asia’s Infrastructure Needs (Manila: Asian Development Bank, 2017), xi. 

11 For a thorough overview of BRI projects, see Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? 72–88. 

12Office of the Leading Group for the Belt and Road Initiative, Building the Belt and Road: Concept, Practice, and China’s Contribution (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2017), 10–17. 

13 “The New Silk Road,” The Economist, September 10, 2015, available at <www.economist.com/

news/special-report/21663326-chinas-latest-wave-globalisers-will-enrich-their-countryand-worldnew-silk-road>. 

14Building the Belt and Road, 12. 

15Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? 95–108; Simeon Djankow, “The Rationale Behind China’s 

Belt and Road Initiative,” in China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Motives, Scope, and Challenges, ed. Simeon 

Djankov and Sean Minder (Washington, DC: Peterson Institute of International Economics, 2016), 7–8.

16 “Full Text of President Xi’s Speech at Opening of Belt and Road Forum,” Xinhua, May 14, 

2017, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/14/c_136282982.htm>.

17 “Belt and Road to Offer New Momentum for Globalization: BCG,” Xinhua, March 25, 2017, 

available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/25/c_136157463.htm>; “Spotlight: World 

Leaders Chant Belt & Road Chorus,” Xinhua, May 14, 2017, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/

english/2017-05/14/c_136282837.htm>. 
31

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

18However, Christopher Johnson notes this could also be a liability if “politicization” of the 

BRI trumps “economic practicality.” See Christopher K. Johnson, President Xi Jinping’s “Belt and Road” 

Initiative (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2016), 23. 

19 For a survey of regional views, see “China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Views from Along the 

Silk Road,” Asia Policy 24 (2017), 66–122. 

20 For instance, in December 1947, George Kennan, then the director of the State Department’s 

Policy Planning Staff, wrote that the Marshall Plan would be an effective tool in containing Soviet 

power. Diane B. Kunz, “The Marshall Plan Reconsidered: A Complex of Motives,” Foreign Affairs 76, no. 

3 (May–June 1997), 165. 

21 “Foreign Minister Wang Yi Meets the Press,” PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 8, 2015, 

available at <www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/wjbz_663308/2461_663310/t1243662.shtm>. 

See also “Comparing China’s ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative with Marshall Plan Absurd: Scholars,” Xinhua, 

March 14, 2015, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-03/14/c_134066619.htm>.

22 “Full Text of President Xi’s Speech at Opening of Belt and Road Forum.”

23Discussion of security challenges is also absent in two key BRI documents: Action Plan on the 

Belt and Road Initiative, released by the State Council on March 30, 2015; and Building the Belt and Road: 

Concept, Practice, and China’s Contribution, released by the Leading Group for the BRI in May 2017. 

24A search of the China Knowledge Infrastructure database suggests a variety of official funding programs for BRI research. The most prominent is the National Social Science Fund (国家社会科

学基金), which has supported over 1,000 research articles. Another motive for scholars may be gaining 

feedback from senior officials, often expressed through laudatory margin comments (批示). This can 

raise a scholar’s status and help solicit government funding. For a discussion, see Bonnie S. Glaser, “Chinese Foreign Policy Research Institutes and the Practice of Influence,” in Chinese Foreign Policy: Who 

Makes It and How Is It Made? ed. Gilbert Rozman (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 120–122. 

25 For further discussion of China’s foreign policy think tanks, see Bonnie S. Glaser and Phillip C. Saunders, “Chinese Civilian Foreign Policy Research Institutes: Evolving Roles and Increasing 

Influence,” China Quarterly 171 (September 2002), 597–616; Glaser, 87–124; and Pascal Abb, “China’s 

Foreign Policy Think Tanks: Institutional Evolution and Changing Roles,” Journal of Contemporary 

China 24, no. 93 (2015), 531–553. 

26The study avoids works from more peripheral institutes and scholars, as well as media commentary (especially in English-language venues), which are often either superficial or designed solely 

to advance strategic messaging. See, for example, Shen Dingli, “China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy Is 

Not Another Marshall Plan,” China-U.S. Focus, March 16, 2015, available at <www.chinausfocus.com/

finance-economy/china-advances-its-one-belt-one-road-strategy/>. 

27 “Xi Jinping: Let the Sense of Community of Common Destiny Take Deep Root in Neighboring Countries,” PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, October 25, 2013, available at <www.fmprc.gov.cn/

mfa_eng/wjb_663304/wjbz_663308/activities_663312/t1093870.shtml>. For an analysis, see Michael 

D. Swaine, “Chinese Views and Commentary on Periphery Diplomacy,” China Leadership Monitor 44 

(2014), 1–43. 

28 “Full Text: China’s Policies on Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation,” Xinhua, January 11, 2017, 

available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2017-01/11/c_135973695.htm>. 
32 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

29 “Full Text: China’s Military Strategy,” Xinhua, May 26, 2015, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2015-05/26/c_134271001.htm>.

30Wang Haiyun, “Geostrategic Thinking of Belt and Road Initiative,” International Strategic 

Studies, no. 3 (2015), 13–22. Wang previously served as a defense attaché to Moscow; China Institute 

of International Strategic Studies is affiliated with the military intelligence department of the People’s 

Liberation Army (PLA). 

31 Similarly, other scholars contend that the BRI will “improve ordinary people’s lives,” which 

will make it harder for extremists to recruit converts and “cause them to lose social influence.” Wang 

Yiwei and Zheng Dong, “Non-Traditional Security Challenges Facing One Belt, One Road [一带一路

面临的飞传统安全挑战],” China Opening Journal [开放导报], no. 4 (2015), 23.

32Wang Junsheng, “‘One Belt, One Road’ and China’s Peripheral Strategy in the New Period [‘

一带一路’ 与中国新时期的周边战略],” Shandong Social Sciences [山东社会科学], no. 8 (2015), 54. 

For a similar argument from a U.S. scholar, see Cullen Hendrix, “Rough Patches on the Silk Road? Security Implications of China’s Belt and Road Initiative,” in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, 25–30.

33Hu Bo, “Three Major Maritime Security Issues Pose a Test for ‘One Belt, One Road [三大海

上安全问题考验’一代一路’],’” in Assessment of China’s Peripheral Security Situation 2016 [中国周边安

全形势评估2016], ed. Zhang Jie (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2016), 193.

34China’s official action plan on the BRI, released by the State Council in 2015, states that 

regional connectivity will help partner nations “understand, trust and respect each other and live 

in harmony, peace and prosperity.” “Full Text: Action Plan on the Belt and Road Initiative,” People’s 

Republic of China State Council, March 28, 2015, available at <news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2015-

03/28/c_134105858.htm>.

35Li Gang, “Exploration of New Type Great Power Relations under ‘One Belt, One Road [‘一带

一路’ 视野下的新型大国关系考察],’” Western Journal [西部学刊], no. 8 (2016), 12. 

36Wang Yiwei, Challenges and Opportunities of “One Belt, One Road” [一带一路’ 机遇与挑

战] (Beijing: Renmin University Press, 2015), 69. Wang Junshung portrays the BRI as the “glue” driving 

regional engagement. He explains how this promotes trust: “As BRI proposals unfold, this will not only 

involve more high-level meetings between officials, but there will also be many working level meetings. 

As they carry out projects, leaders will also discuss cooperation in the security and law enforcement, 

social and cultural arenas. This will subconsciously advance political and security mutual trust between 

China and neighboring countries.” Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ and China’s Peripheral Strategy in 

the New Period,” 54. See also Sun Xianpu, “‘One Belt, One Road’ and Remodeling the Pattern of Great 

Peripheral Diplomacy [一带一路’ 与大周边外交格局的重塑],” Yunnan Social Sciences [云南社会科

学], no. 3 (2016).

37 Sun, 5. Likewise, Yang Liwei, a scholar at China’s Foreign Affairs University, argues that the 

BRI can promote closer counterpiracy cooperation between China and India, allowing “both to achieve 

their dreams of becoming maritime great powers.” Yang Liwei, “‘One Belt, One Road’: A New Opportunity for Developing China-India Relations [‘一带一路’: 中印关系发展的新机遇],” China Business 

& Trade [中国商贸], no. 8 (2016), 91. In an interview, Senior Colonel Meng Xiangqing, a professor at 

the PLA NDU, similarly argues that the BRI will stimulate closer counterterrorism cooperation among 

Shanghai Cooperation Organization members, which is needed to address the “three evils” and to 
33

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

counter potential instability in Afghanistan following a reduction of U.S. forces. Dong Ruifeng, “Create a Peaceful and Secure External Environment [营造即和平又安全的外部环境],” Liaowang [瞭望], 

September 23, 2013.

38Dong.

39 See, for example, John Oneal and Bruce Russett, “Assessing the Liberal Peace with Alternative 

Specifications: Trade Still Reduces Conflict,” Journal of Peace Research 36, no. 4 (1999), 423–442; Edward 

D. Mansfield and Jon C. Pevehouse, “Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International Conflict,” International 

Organization 54, no. 4 (2000), 775–808; Erik Gartzke, Quan Li, and Charles Boehmer, “Investing in 

the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict,” International Organization 55, no. 2 

(2001), 391–438; and Brandon J. Kinne, “Multilateral Trade and Militarized Conflict: Centrality, Openness, and Asymmetry in the Global Trade Network,” Journal of Politics 74, no. 1 (2012), 308–322. 

40Katherine Barbieri, “Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate 

Conflict?” Journal of Peace Research 33, no. 1 (1996), 2949. 

41 See, for example, The Globalization of Crime (Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and 

Crime, 2010). Another externality is the possibility that development could lead to greater chances for 

insurgencies as radical groups fear a loss of social support. Benjamin Crost, Joseph Felter, and Patrick 

Johnston, “Development Projects and Civil Conflict,” American Economic Review 104, no. 6 (2014), 

1833–1856. 

42 For a discussion, see Erica S. Downs, “The Chinese Energy Security Debate,” The China 

Quarterly 177 (2004), 21–41; Marc Lanteigne, “China’s Maritime Security and the ‘Malacca Dilemma,’” 

Asian Security 4, no. 2 (2008), 143–161; and Zhongxiang Zhang, “China’s Energy Security, the Malacca 

Dilemma, and Responses,” Energy Policy 39, no. 12 (2011), 7612–7615. 

43 “China,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, May 14, 2015, available at <www.eia.gov/

beta/international/analysis_includes/countries_long/China/china.pdf>. 

44Candace Dunn, “China is Now the World’s Largest Net Importer of Petroleum and Other 

Liquid Fuels,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 24, 2014, available at <www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=15531>. 

45Wang, Challenges and Opportunities of ‘One Belt, One Road,’ 74. 

46 Ibid., 68.

47Li Yuanxing and Liang Changzheng, “A Study of Basic Questions on China’s Strategic Transport Support [我国海上战略运输保障基本问题研究],” National Defense [国防], no. 12 (2015), 55. 

48Huang Xiaoyong, “Promote Collective Asian Energy Security Through One Belt, One Road 

[以 ‘一带一路’促进亚洲共同能源安全],” Foreign Affairs Observer [外交观察], August 7, 2015, available at <www.faobserver.com/NewsInfo.aspx?id=11409>. For background on the Gwadar-Kashgar 

pipeline, see Fawad Yousafzai, “China to Build Mega Oil Pipeline from Gwadar to Kashgar,” The Nation, 

June 13, 2016, available at <http://nation.com.pk/national/13-Jun-2016/china-to-build-mega-oil-pipeline-from-gwadar-to-kashgar>. For background on the Bay of Bengal pipeline, see Cao Siqi and You 

Ma, “China, Myanmar Ink Oil Pipeline Deal,” Global Times, April 10, 2017, available at <www.globaltimes.cn/content/1041785.shtml>. 

49Piao Guangji and Li Su, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Construction and China-Mongolia-Russia 

Energy Cooperation [‘一带一路’ 建设与中蒙俄能源合作],” Asia-Pacific Economics [亚太经济], no. 5 
34 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

(2016), 6. Likewise, Han Jingkuan, vice president of the China National Petroleum Corporation’s China 

Petroleum Planning and Engineering Institute, claims that new pipelines developed in multiple regions 

could account for around 24 percent of China’s oil imports and 67 percent of its natural gas imports 

within 20–30 years, though he does not provide baseline figures. See Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? 

112–113.

50 Fu Mengzi and Lou Chunhao, “Some Thoughts on Building the 21st Century Maritime Silk 

Road [关于21世纪‘海上丝绸之路’建设的若干思考],’” Contemporary International Relations [现代国

际关系], no. 3 (2015), 2. Fu is vice president of Chinese Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) and Lou is an associate research fellow in CICIR’s Maritime Strategy Center. 

51 For a discussion of “comprehensive national power,” see Hu Angang and Men Honghua, 

“The Rising of Modern China: Comprehensive National Power and Grand Strategy,” Paper presented at 

the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy conference on “Rising China and the East Asian 

Economy,” Seoul, March 19–20, 2004.

52 See, for example, John Garver and Fei-ling Wang, “China’s Anti-Encirclement Struggle,” 

Asian Security 6 (2010), 238–261; Yong Deng, “Hegemon on the Offensive: Chinese Perspectives on U.S. 

Global Strategy,” Political Science Quarterly 116 (2001), 343–365; David Shambaugh, “China’s Military 

Views the World,” International Security 24 (1999–2000), 52–79; and Thomas J. Christensen, “China, the 

U.S.-Japan Alliance, and the Security Dilemma in East Asia,” International Security 23 (1999), 49–80.

53 “Full Text: China’s Military Strategy,” Xinhua, May 26, 2015, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2015-05/26/c_134271001.htm>. A particular concern was strengthening of the 

U.S.-Japan alliance. For a discussion, see Adam P. Liff, “‘China and the U.S. Alliance System,”’ The China 

Quarterly, April 24, 2017, 6, available at <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741017000601>.

54One manifestation was Xi Jinping’s emphasis on military confidence-building measures 

as a way to avoid unnecessary friction between U.S. and Chinese naval and air forces. See Phillip C. 

Saunders and Julia G. Bowie, “U.S.-China Military Relations: Competition and Cooperation,’ Journal of 

Strategic Studies 39 (2016), 662–684.

55Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? 117–118. 

56Wang Jisi, “‘March West,’ China’s Geostrategic Rebalance [‘西进,’ 中国地缘战略的再平

衡],” Global Times [环球时报], October 17, 2012, available at <http://opinion.huanqiu.com/opinion_

world/2012-10/3193760.html>. For a discussion of Wang’s thesis, see Yun Sun, “March West: China’s 

Response to the U.S. Rebalancing,” The Brookings Institution, January 31, 2013, available at <www.

brookings.edu/blog/upfront/2013/01/31/march-west-chinas-response-to-the-u-s-rebalancing/>. 

57 Ibid. 

58 Foreign and Chinese observers have debated the specific influence of the “march west” proposal on the formulation of the BRI. Wang Yong, a professor of international policy economy at Beijing 

University, asserts that Wang Jisi’s proposal “got resonance by China’s new leadership quickly, who made 

decisions on AIIB and the Belt and Road Initiative.” Yong Wang, “Offensive for Defensive: The Belt and 

Road Initiative in China’s New Grand Strategy,” Pacific Review 29, no. 3 (2016), 458. However, Rolland 

suggests that Wang’s piece was more a reflection of renewed interest in Eurasia by policymakers. Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? 117. 

59 Sun, “‘One Belt, One Road’ and Remodeling the Pattern of Great Peripheral Diplomacy,” 5–6. 
35

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

60 Ibid, 6. 

61Peng Bo, “Analysis of the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy [‘一带一路’战略探析],” International Studies Reference [国际研究参考], no. 9 (2015), 5. See also Ling Shengli, “‘One Belt, One Road’ 

Strategy and Reshaping Peripheral Geopolitics [‘一带一路’战略与周边地缘重塑],” International Relations Research [国际关系研究], no. 1 (2016), 80. 

62Qiao Liang, “The U.S. Strategic Eastward Shift and China’s Strategic March West [美国的战

略东移与中国的战略西进],” High End Talk [高瑞话题], no. 5 (2015), 24. Qiao is best known as coauthor of the 1999 volume Unrestricted Warfare [超限战], which argued that China should use a range 

of unconventional tools, including legal and economic warfare, to counter U.S. hegemony. 

63Li Yonghui, “Thoughts on the Strategic Meaning and Promotion of the China-Russia-Mongolia Economic Corridor [中俄蒙经济走廊的战略内涵和推进思路],” Journal of Northeast Asian Studies [东北亚学刊], no. 4 (2015), 11.

64Wang, “Geostrategic Thinking of Belt and Road Initiative,” 21–22. 

65 Johnson, President Xi Jinping’s ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative, 19.

66 For a discussion, see Economic Intelligence Unit, Prospects and Challenges on China’s “One 

Belt, One Road”: A Risk Assessment Report, 2015. See also Djankov, “The Rationale Behind China’s Belt 

and Road Initiative,” 9–10; and Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? 156–159.

67China’s 2015 defense white paper summarizes the problem: “With the growth of China’s national interests, its national security is more vulnerable to international and regional turmoil, terrorism, 

piracy, serious natural disasters and epidemics, and the security of overseas interests concerning energy 

and resources, strategic sea lines of communication, as well as institutions, personnel and assets abroad, 

has become an imminent issue.” “Full Text: China’s Military Strategy.” 

68Mathieu Duchâtel, Oliver Brauner, and Zhou Hong, Protecting China’s Overseas Interests 

(Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute I, 2014), 41. See also Jonas ParelloLesner and Mathieu Duchâtel, China’s Strong Arm: Protecting Citizens and Assets Abroad (London: 

International Institute of Strategic Studies, 2015).

69 Ibid., 46. On the Libya evacuation, see also Shaio H. Zerba, “China’s Libya Evacuation Operation: A New Diplomatic Imperative—Overseas Citizen Protection,” Journal of Contemporary China 23, 

no. 90 (2014), 1093–1112. 

70Lin Limin, “Advancing ‘One Belt, One Road,’ Highlight the Focus [推进’一带一路’, 要突出

重点],” World Affairs [世界知识], no. 21 (2016), 66. 

71Wang Weixing, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Global Vision: Risks and Challenges [全球视野

下的’一带一路’: 风险与挑战],” Frontiers [学术前沿], no. 5 (2015), 10. 

72Wang Weixing, “Research on the Risks and Challenges Facing the ‘One Belt, One Road’ 

Strategy and Responses [一带一路’战略面临的风险挑战及对策研究],” China Leadership Science [中

国领导科学], no. 8 (2015), 44. 

73Tian Wenlin, “‘One Belt, One Road,’ and China’s Middle East Strategy [‘一带一路’ 与中国的

中东战略],” West Asia and Africa [西亚非洲], no. 2 (2016), 137.

74Zhang Lili and Zhang Yuyan, “The Status of the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy and Future 

Challenges [‘一带一路’战略实践形势与未来推进挑战],” People’s Tribune [人民论坛], no. 1 (2016), 

29. Zhang Li Li is Director of the Diplomacy Research Center at the China Foreign Affairs University 
36 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

and Zhang Yuyan is a Ph.D. student at Renmin University. 

75Hu, “Three Major Maritime Security Issues Pose a Test for ‘One Belt, One Road,’” 193. 

76 Fu and Lou, “Some Thoughts on Building the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road,” 7. Moreover, 

Wang Weixing lists West Asia and North Africa as areas where the BRI coincides with “key conflict 

areas,” and notes that “many Chinese citizens have been killed in this violence.” Wang, “Research on the 

Risks and Challenges Facing the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy,” 44.

77Chen Xiangyang, “A Snapshot of External Security Risks of Building ‘One Belt, One Road [绸

缪“一带一路建设外部安全风险],’” Liaowang [瞭望], April 14, 2014. Fu and Lou similarly argue that 

political strife, economic challenges, and “security chaos” in Afghanistan and Pakistan are difficult to address in the near term. Fu and Lou, “Some Thoughts on Building the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road,’” 6.

78 Fu and Lou, “Some Thoughts on Building the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road,” 6. The 

incident involved firing of shells from both sides, resulting in a reported five Indian and four Pakistani 

civilian casualties. “Kashmir: Nine Civilians Killed in India-Pakistan Border Firing,” BBC, October 6, 

2014, available at <www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-29502054>. 

79Li Daguang, “Military Diplomacy Under the Strategic Idea of ‘One Belt, One Road [‘一带一

路’ 战略构想下的军事外交],’” Defense Industry Conversion in China [中国军转民], no. 11 (2015), 74; 

see also Hu, “Three Major Maritime Security Issues Pose a Test for ‘One Belt, One Road,’” 193–194. 

80Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Global Vision,” 10. However, the Bangkok-Yunnan 

high-speed rail project, which foundered over cost-sharing disputes, resumed when Thailand decided 

to finance the project itself. Tan Hui Yee, “Thai-China Rail Project Will Continue,” Jakarta Post, April 6, 

2016, available at <www.thejakartapost.com/seasia/2016/04/06/thai-china-rail-project-will-continue.

html>. With respect to Myanmar, two CICIR scholars also note that civil conflict has resulted in artillery being fired into Chinese territory, posing challenges for border security and influencing bilateral 

economic cooperation. Fu Mengzi and Xu Gang, “‘One Belt, One Road’: Progress, Challenges, and 

Responses [一带一路’: 进展, 挑战与应对],” China International Studies [国际问题研究], no. 3 (2017), 

available at <www.cicir.ac.cn/chinese/News_8198.html>. 

81Wang and Zhang, “Non-Traditional Security Challenges Facing One Belt, One Road,” 22–23. 

82Wang Yiwei, “One Belt, One Road”: Opportunities and Challenges [‘一带一路’ 机遇与挑战] 

(Beijing: Renmin University Press, 2015), 114. 

83 Shi Xiehong, “The Influence of Central Asian Religious Extremists on ‘One Belt, One Road’ 

Construction and China’s Response [中亚宗教极端势力对’一带一路’建设的影响及 我国的应对],” 

World Religious Cultures [世界宗教文化), no. 2 (2016], 16–17. Shi is a postdoctoral researcher in the 

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) National Institute of International Strategy. 

84Zhang Jinping, “The Threats to ‘One Belt, One Road’ of the Strategic ‘Eastward Shift’ of International Terrorist Forces [国际恐怖势力战略 ‘东向’对’一带一路’的威胁],” in Assessment of China’s 

Peripheral Security Situation, 206. 

85Yan Shuai, “Severe Terrorist Threats Is the Biggest Motive of China-Afghanistan-PakistanTajikistan Anti-Terrorism Cooperation [严峻暴恐威胁是中阿巴塔加强反恐合作最大动因],” China 

Radio International [国际在线], August 8, 2016.

86Zhang, “The Threats to ‘One Belt, One Road’ of the Strategic ‘Eastward Shift’ of International 

Terrorist Forces,” 204. 
37

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

87Chen, “A Snapshot of External Security Risks of Building ‘One Belt, One Road.’”

88Zhang Jie, “Regional Security Issues in Constructing ‘One Belt, One Road [一带一路’ 建设

中的周边安全问题),’” World Affairs [世界知识], no. 9 (2017), 22–23. 

89Liu Zongyi, “Building the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: Progress and Challenges [中

巴经济走廊建设: 进展与挑战],” International Studies Research [国际问题研究], no. 3 (2016), 133. Liu 

is a South Asia specialist at the Shanghai Institutes of International Studies. 

90Wang Shida, “The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Helping ‘One Belt, One Road’ [中巴

经济走廊助力 ‘一带一路’],” in Assessment of China’s Peripheral Security Situation 2016, 175. 

91 Ibid. 

92Yuan Sha, “Analysis of the Characteristics, Influence, and Evolution of Pakistani Domestic 

Terrorist Forces [巴基斯坦国内恐怖主义势力的演变,特点及影响分析],” South Asian Studies Quarterly [南亚研究季刊], no. 2 (2016), 41. Moreover, Liu Zongyi writes that several Pakistani insurgent 

groups have held an “adversarial view on Chinese workers and are opposed to the Gwadar project,” 

suggesting the possibility for more targeted attacks. Liu, “Building the China-Pakistan-Economic Corridor,” 133. 

93 Interviews, June 2017. Notably, one scholar characterized the key risk to CPEC not as terrorism, but as “efficiency,” suggesting economic challenges. 

94Li, “Military Diplomacy Under the Strategic Idea of ‘One Belt, One Road,’” 73–74. 

95Tian, “‘One Belt, One Road,’ and China’s Middle East Strategy,” 137. 

96 Shi, “The Influence of Central Asian Religious Extremists on ‘One Belt, One Road’ Construction,” 17. 

97Hou Anghao, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Calls for Big Border and Coastal Defense Theory [‘一

带一路’战略呼唤大边海防理念], Jiefangjun Bao [解放军报], August 5, 2015, available at <www.mod.

gov.cn/intl/2015-08/05/content_4612819.htm>. 

98Liang Fang, “The Risks of the ‘Maritime Silk Road’ Are Great [今日’海上丝绸之路’通道风

险有多大],” National Defense Reference [国防参考], February 11, 2015. In fact, piracy in the Gulf of 

Aden has significantly declined over the last several years due to international counterpiracy operations. 

However, the hijacking of a Sri Lankan oil tanker off Somalia in March 2017 suggested a potential reversal of those gains. See Luke Graham, “Somali Pirates Hijack First Commercial Ships in 5 Years,” CNBC, 

March 14, 2017, available at <www.cnbc.com/2017/03/14/somali-pirates-hijack-first-commercial-shipin-5years.html>. 

99 Fu and Lou, “Some Thoughts on Building the ‘21st Century Maritime Silk Road,’” 7. 

100Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Global Vision,” 12. 

101Wang, “One Belt, One Road”: Opportunities and Challenges, 115–116. Another risk is major earthquakes along routes in northern Pakistan (Gilgit-Basalt). Thanks to Thomas Lynch for this 

observation. 

102 Ibid., 115–116. 

103That was the case, for instance, in a spate of attacks on Chinese workers in Africa in the 

2000s. See, for example, “Overseas and Under Siege,” The Economist, August 11, 2009, available at 

<www.economist.com/node/14207132>; and Bates Gill and James Reilly, “The Tenuous Hold of China 

Inc. in Africa,” The Washington Quarterly 30, no. 3 (2007), 37–52. For a more recent discussion, see Tom 
38 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

Miller, China’s Asian Dream: Empire Building along the New Silk Road (London: Zed Books, 2017).

104Wang, “Research on the Risks and Challenges Facing the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy,” 43. 

105 Ibid. 

106Cao Xiaoyang, “China-U.S. Games: ‘Asia-Pacific Rebalance’ and ‘One Belt, One Road [中美

博弈: ‘亚太再平衡’ 与 ‘一带一路’],’” China Economic Report [中国经济报告], no. 4 (2016), 103. Tian 

Wenlin similarly finds that Americans “think that the BRI is about revising the geostrategic chessboard 

and the global order.” Tian, “One Belt, One Road, and China’s Middle East Strategy,” 138.

107Yang Xilian, “Assessment on Security Environment of East Asian Region Along Belt and 

Road,” International Strategic Studies no. 3 (2015), 37. Yang is a former defense attaché to both the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 

108Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Global Vision,” 8. For details on the New Silk Road 

initiative, see “Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns on Economic Connectivity in Central Asia,” 

Asia Society, September 23, 2014, available at <http://asiasociety.org/policyinstitute/deputy-secretarystate-william-j-burns-economic-connectivity-central-asia>. 

109Tian, “One Belt, One Road, and China’s Middle East Strategy,” 138. Nevertheless, the RMB 

declined as a share of international payments in 2016, which analysts attributed to factors including 

exchange rate volatility and slowing Chinese economic growth. See Frank Tang, “International Yuan 

Payment Drops Sharply in 2016 on Depreciation and Capital Control,” South China Morning Post, January 27, 2017, available at <www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/2065832/international-yuanpayment-drops-significantly-2016-depreciation>. 

110Hu, “Three Major Maritime Security Issues Pose a Test for ‘One Belt, One Road,’” 191. 

111Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Global Vision,” 8–9. 

112Peng, “Analysis of the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy,” 7. Xue Li, a scholar at the CASS Institute of World Economics and Politics, comes to a different conclusion, arguing that Washington was 

never particularly concerned about its allies joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), 

since this “did not fundamentally challenge U.S. leadership,” but would have reacted more strongly 

if China had sought to form military alliances with any of these states. Xue Li, “The U.S. Rebalance 

Strategy and China’s ‘One Belt, One Road [美国再平衡战略与中国’一带一路’],’” World Economics and 

Politics [世界经济与政治], no. 5 (2016), 71. 

113Liu, “Building the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor,” 133. 

114Tang, “Jointly Building the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road in the South China Sea,” 28. Fu 

Mengzi and Lou Chunhao likewise argue that the United States is using “new media” and nongovernmental organizations to promote democracy, support environmental protection, and carry out “color 

revolutions,” which pose challenges for the Maritime Silk Road. Fu and Lou, “Some Thoughts on Building the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road,” 6. 

115Ding Man, “Will China-Japan Relations under ‘One Belt, One Road’ Be Cooperative or 

Conflictual? [中日两国在‘一带一路’上合作还是对抗],” Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian 

Studies [俄罗斯东欧中亚研究) no. 5 (2016), 124. Ding is a professor at the China Foreign Affairs 

University. 

116Li Chengri, “The Rise of ‘Shinzo Abe’s Way’ and the Regionalization of Sino-Japanese Strategic Rivalry [“安倍路线” 的抬头与中日战略博弈的地区化)],” in Assessment of China’s Peripheral 
39

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

Security Situation 2016, 54. Li is a scholar at the CASS National Institute of International Strategy. 

117Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Global Vision,” 10. 

118Li, “The Rise of ‘Shinzo Abe’s Way’ and the Regionalization of Sino-Japanese Strategic Rivalry,” 64–66; Li Suhua, “Japan’s Thinking and Responses to the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Idea [日本对’一

带一路’构想的认知和反应],” Journal of Northeast Asian Studies [东北亚学刊], no. 3 (2015), 16–17. Li 

is an assistant research fellow in the CASS National Institute of International Strategy.

119Ding, “Will China-Japan Relations under ‘One Belt, One Road’ Be Cooperative or Conflictual?” 125–128. 

120Chang Sichun, “The Pattern of Japanese Investment Along the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Route 

and Its Influence on China [日本在 ‘一带一路’沿线投资的格局及对华影响],” Journal of Northeast 

Asian Studies [东北亚学刊], no. 3 (2016), 44–45. Chang is an associate research fellow in the CASS Institute of Japan Studies. For details on Japan’s infrastructure development aid, see Leika Kihara and Linda Sieg, “Japan Unveils $110 Billion Plan to Fund Asian Infrastructure, Eye on AIIB,” Reuters, May 21, 

2015, available at <www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-asia-investment-idUSKBN0O617G20150521>. 

121Li, “Japan’s Thinking and Responses to the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Idea,” 16–17. 

122Hu Fangxin, “China, Indonesia, India: ‘Meeting’ at Sea [中国印尼印度: ‘相会’ 在海上],” 

World Knowledge [世界知识], no. 5 (2015), 20. The “String of Pearls” refers to an idea popularized in 

the mid-2000s that China is seeking to develop a series of bases in the Indian Ocean region to safeguard 

critical sea lanes and expand its strategic influence. For an Indian perspective, see Gurpreet S. Khurana, 

“China’s ‘String of Pearls’ in the Indian Ocean and Its Security Implications,” Strategic Analysis 32, no. 1 

(2008), 1–39. 

123 Ibid. 

124Yang, “‘One Belt, One Road’: A New Opportunity for Developing China-India Relations,” 92. 

125Zhang, “Regional Security Issues in Constructing ‘One Belt, One Road,’” 22. Similarly, Ge 

Cheng, a researcher with the CASS National Institute of International Strategy, notes that many Indian 

scholars view Chinese infrastructure development in India’s “back yard,” especially with Pakistan, as a 

kind of “containment.” Ge Cheng, “The China-India Consensus on ‘One Belt, One Road’: Opportunities 

and Challenges [‘一带一路’的中印共识: 机遇与困局], Shandong Journal of Social Science [山东社会

科学], no. 8 (2015), 60. See also Fu and Lou, “Some Thoughts on Building the ‘21st Century Maritime 

Silk Road,’” 4.

126Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Global Vision,” 9; Tang, “Jointly Building the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road in the South China Sea,” 29; Zhang, “Regional Security Issues in Constructing 

‘One Belt, One Road,’” 22; Liang, “’The Risks of the ‘Maritime Silk Road’ Are Great.” 

127Wang, “Research on the Risks and Challenges Facing the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy and 

Responses,” 44. 

128 Sutirtho Patranobis, “Pride and Diplomacy: Why India May Not Attend China’s Belt and 

Road Forum,” Hindustan Times, May 14, 2017, available at <www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/

will-india-s-absence-at-brf-in-beijing-further-impact-ties-with-china/story-v9f4JlTYyD2DZuTPcw62SO.html>.

129Yang, “Assessment on Security Environment of East Asian Region along Belt and Road,” 

37–38. 
40 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

130Zhang and Zhang, “The Status of the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy and Future Challenges,” 28. 

131Ding, “Will China-Japan Relations under ‘One Belt, One Road’ Be Cooperative or Conflictual?” 125. 

132 Fu and Lou, “Some Thoughts on Building the ‘21st Century Maritime Silk Road,’” 5. 

133Li, “The Rise of ‘Shinzo Abe’s Way’ and the Regionalization of Sino-Japanese Strategic Rivalry,” 66. 

134Tang, “Jointly Building the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road in the South China Sea,” 29. 

135Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Global Vision,” 9; Peng, “Analysis of the ‘One Belt, One 

Road’ Strategy,” 7. 

136Zhang, “Regional Security Issues in Constructing ‘One Belt, One Road,’” 21. 

137Zhang Jie, “‘One Belt, One Road’ and ‘Global Maritime Fulcrum’: China and Indonesia Strategic Abutment and Challenges [‘一带一路’与 ‘全球海洋支点’: 中国与印尼的战略对接及其挑战],’” 

Contemporary World (当代世界), no. 8 (2015), 40. 

138 Fu and Lou, “Some Thoughts on Building the ‘21st Century Maritime Silk Road,’” 5. Tang 

Yinchu also identifies friction over the South China Sea as a potential brake on the BRI, warning, in 

particular, about the emergence of anti-China “cliques among ASEAN countries.” Tang, “Jointly Building the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road in the South China Sea,” 30. In addition, Wang Weixing argues 

that ASEAN’s “hedging attitudes” due to South China Sea disputes have blocked the BRI from “taking 

root in Southeast Asia.” Wang Weixing, “Research on the Risks and Challenges Facing the ‘One Belt, 

One Road’ Strategy and Responses,” 43.

139Zhang, “Regional Security Issues in Constructing ‘One Belt, One Road,’” 22. Similarly, Hu 

Bo argues that the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations want to “hitch a ride” on China’s 

economic development; this means that the influence of the South China Sea disputes on the MSR’s 

development is “still not large.” Hu, “Three Major Maritime Security Issues Pose a Test for ‘One Belt, 

One Road,’” 189. 

140Liang, “The Risks of the ‘Maritime Silk Road’ Are Great.” For a discussion of the development of PLA expeditionary capabilities, see Kristen Gunness and Oriana Skylar Mastro, “A Global 

People’s Liberation Army: Possibilities, Challenges, and Opportunities,” Asia Policy 22 (July 2016), 

131–155; and Christopher H. Sharman, China Moves Out: Stepping Stones toward a New Maritime Strategy (Washington, DC: [U.S.] National Defense University, 2015). 

141 Ibid. Liang suggests that far seas blockades could be a useful “asymmetric” way to counter 

blockades of China during a conflict. 

142Qiao Liang, “PLA Major General: One Belt, One Road Strategy Requires China’s Ground 

Forces to Take Flight [我军少将: 一带一路要求中国陆军必须飞起来],” Global Times [环球时报], 

May 7, 2015, available at <http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2015-05-07/1708830002.html/>. Indeed, developing PLA army aviation has been a focus of recent reforms. For a discussion, see Dennis J. Blasko, 

“Recent Developments in the Chinese Army’s Helicopter Force,” China Brief 17, no. 8 (2017), available 

at <https://jamestown.org/program/recent-developments-chinese-armys-helicopter-force/>. On PLA 

special operations capabilities, see Dennis J. Blasko, “PLA Special Operations Forces: Organizations, 

Missions and Training,” China Brief 15, no. 9 (2015), available at <https://jamestown.org/program/plaspecial-operations-forces-organizations-missions-and-training/>. 
41

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

143Liang, “The Risks of the ‘Maritime Silk Road’ Are Great”; Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ 

Under Global Vision,” 17–18. For a discussion of different basing options, see Christopher D. Yung and 

Ross Rustici with Scott Devary and Jenny Lin, “Not an Idea We Have to Shun”: Chinese Overseas Basing 

Requirements in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: [U.S.] National Defense University, 2014). 

144Zhou Bo, “International Military Cooperation and the Security of Overseas Interests [国际

军事合作和海外利益安全],” in PLA NDU National Security Engineering Laboratory and National 

Defense Economics Research Center, “One Belt, One Road” Security Support Research Seminar [‘一带

一路’安全保障研讨会辑要] (Beijing: NDU Press, n.d.), 61–64. The Djibouti facility formally opened 

in July 2017. See “China Sets up Base in Djibouti,” Xinhua, July 11, 2017, available at <news.xinhuanet.

com/english/2017-07/11/c_136435716.htm>. For a discussion, see Erica Downs, Jeffrey Becker, and 

Patrick DeGategno, China’s Military Support Facility in Djibouti: The Economic and Security Dimensions 

of China’s First Overseas Base (Arlington, VA: Center for Naval Analyses, 2017).

145Liu Qun, “Innovating Overseas Military Activity Models to Protect ‘One Belt, One Road’ 

Security [创新海外军事行动模式维护 ‘一带一路’安全],” in PLA NDU National Security Engineering 

Laboratory and National Defense Economics Research Center, ‘One Belt, One Road’ Security Support 

Research Seminar [‘一带一路’安全保障研讨会辑要], 76. 

146 For a recent analysis of China’s military diplomacy, see Kenneth Allen, Phillip C. Saunders, 

and John Chen, Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016: Trends and Implications (Washington, DC: 

[U.S.] National Defense University, 2017). 

147 Ibid. 

148Zhou, “International Military Cooperation and the Security of Overseas Interests,” 62. 

149Liang, “The Risks of the ‘Maritime Silk Road’ Are Great.”

150 “NDU Professor: ‘One Belt, One Road’ Requires Building Overseas Security Capabilities [

国防大学教授: ‘一带一路’ 要建海外安保力量],” Ta Kung Pao [大公网], May 13, 2015, available at < 

http://news.takungpao.com/mainland/focus/2015-05/2998430.html>. For a discussion of the evolving 

role of China’s private security companies in protecting overseas interests, see Duchâtel, Braunder, and 

Zhou, Protecting China’s Overseas Interests, 54–56; and Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? 168–169. 

151Zhang and Zhang, “The Status of the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy and Future Challenges,” 29. 

152 Fu and Xu, “‘One Belt, One Road’: Progress, Challenges, and Responses.” 

153 For background, see Saeed Shah and Josh Chin, “Pakistan to Create Security Force to Protect Chinese Workers,” Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2015, available at <www.wsj.com/articles/pakistanto-create-security-force-to-protect-chinese-workers-1429701872>.

154Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Global Vision,” 15. 

155Liu, “Innovating Overseas Military Activity Models to Protect ‘One Belt, One Road’ Security,” 77. 

156Li, Mei, and Ling, “Build a Chinese Counter-Terrorism Mechanism Under the Leadership of 

the National Security Commission,” 82. For a discussion of the NSC, see Joel Wuthnow, “China’s New 

‘Black Box’: Problems and Prospects for the Central National Security Commission,” China Quarterly, 

forthcoming (2017). 

157Wang, ‘“One Belt, One Road’ Under Global Vision,” 15. 

158 “Beijing Holds Security Cooperation Dialogue on Belt and Road Initiative,” Xinhua, May 4, 
42 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

2017, available at <news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/04/c_136257488.htm>.

159Li Benxian, Mei Jianming, and Ling Yunxiang, “Build a Chinese Counter-Terrorism Mechanism Under the Leadership of the National Security Commission [建立国家安全委员会主导下的中

国反恐机制],” Global Review [国际展望], no. 4 (2015), 70–84. The authors are public security specialists associated with China’s People’s Armed Police Academy and People’s Public Security University.

160 Shi, “The Influence of Central Asian Religious Extremists on ‘One Belt, One Road’ Construction and China’s Response,” 18. 

161Liu, “Innovating Overseas Military Activity Models to Protect ‘One Belt, One Road’ Security,” 75. 

162Zhou, “International Military Cooperation and the Security of Overseas Interests,” 64. 

163Yan Shuai, “Severe Terrorist Threats Is the Biggest Motive of China-Afghanistan-PakistanTajikistan Anti-Terrorism Cooperation [严峻暴恐威胁是中阿巴塔加强反恐合作最大动因],” China 

Radio International [国际在线], August 8, 2016. For background, see “China Joins Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan in Security Alliance,” Reuters, August 4, 2016, available at <www.reuters.com/article/

us-china-security-idUSKCN10F1A6>. 

164Cheng Guo, “Building Propaganda for ‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Current International 

Public Opinion [当前国际舆论形式下的‘一带一路’建设宣传],” Journal of News Research [新闻研

究导刊] (2015), 262. The author is a professor in the Department of Military News Propaganda at the 

Nanjing Army Political Academy. 

165Wang, “Research on the Risks and Challenges Facing the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy,” 

46. Likewise, Wang Yiwei argues that “civil exchanges,” such as interactions between firms, local, and 

city governments, and other actors can help to “lay a positive public opinion basis” for the BRI. Wang, 

Challenges and Opportunities of ‘One Belt, One Road,’ 75. See also: Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? 

164–165. 

166 Su Mengqi, “A Brief Analysis of How to Tell the “One Belt, One Road’ Story under Media 

Convergence [浅析媒体融合背景下如何讲好 ‘一带一路’故事],” News Dissemination [新闻传播], no. 

7 (2016), 46. Su teaches military journalism at the Nanjing Army Political Academy. 

167Li, “Thoughts on the Strategic Meaning and Promotion of the China-Russia-Mongolia Economic Corridor,” 13. 

168Cheng, “Building Propaganda for ‘One Belt, One Road’ Under Current Public Opinion,” 

262. 

169Wang, “Research on the Risks and Challenges Facing the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy and 

Responses,” 46. 

170Zhang, “Regional Security Issues in Constructing ‘One Belt, One Road,” 22. 

171Liu, “Building the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: Progress and Challenges,” 136. 

172Other major countries are also sometimes discussed. For instance, Zhang Jie argues that 

China should manage relations with Indonesia by respecting Jakarta’s pursuit of independent foreign 

policy, avoid overly negotiating or committing to projects, and avoid pursuing projects with “excessive 

risk.” Zhang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ and ‘Global Maritime Fulcrum,’” 41. On Russia, Chen Xiangyang argues that China should “take pains” to cooperate with Moscow in building the Silk Road Economic Belt 

and prevent the West from “fomenting dissent and driving a wedge between China and Russia.” Chen, 
43

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

“A Snapshot of External Security Risks in Building ‘One Belt, One Road.’”

173Ye Hailin, “India’s South Asia Policy and its Influence on China Promoting ‘One Belt, One 

Road [印度南亚政策及对中国推进’一带一路’的影响],’” Indian Ocean Economic Research [印度洋经

济体研究], no. 2 (2016), 15. 

174 Ibid. 

175Hu, “China, Indonesia, India: ‘Meeting’ at Sea,” 20. Nevertheless, Yang Liwei points out that 

there is some economic complementarity between the two countries: China can encourage greater participation of Indian information technology, insurance, financial, and other service industries in China, 

and can also support the manufacturing needs of India’s software industry. Yang, “‘One Belt, One Road’: 

A New Opportunity for Developing China-India Relations,” 92. 

176Wang, “‘One Belt, One Road’ and China’s Peripheral Strategy in the New Period,” 49. 

177Qiao, “PLA Major General: One Belt, One Road Strategy Requires China’s Ground Forces to 

Fight.” 

178Wang, “Research on the Risks and Challenges Facing the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Strategy,” 46. 

179Cao, “China-U.S. Games: ‘Asia-Pacific Rebalance’ and ‘One Belt, One Road,’” 105. 

180Nadège Rolland, “China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’: Underwhelming or Game-Changer?” 

The Washington Quarterly 40, no. 1 (2017), 133. 

181However, in one essay, Wang Yiwei does explicitly link the BRI to the Mackinder thesis. Fallon, “The New Silk Road,” 142.

182This could reflect either a lack of detailed thinking in China’s security community or, more 

likely, the sensitivity of the subject for open source publications. 

183 See also Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? 142–148. 

184 For instance, Djibouti is reportedly indebted to China at a rate of 60 percent of its gross 

domestic product. One government critic states that “such generous credit is itself a form of control. 

We don’t know what China’s intentions really are.” See Andrew Jacobs and Jane Perlez, “U.S. Wary of Its 

New Neighbor in Djibouti: A Chinese Naval Base,” The New York Times, February 25, 2017, available at 

<www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/world/africa/us-djibouti-chinese-naval-base.html?_r=0>. 

185One example is Sri Lanka’s sale of a majority stake in the Hanbantota port to a Chinese 

private firm, though the Sri Lankan government claimed that it would continue to control which ships 

can dock there. Anjana Pasricha, “Sri Lanka Sells China Majority Stake in Strategic Indian Ocean Port,” 

Voice of America, July 29, 2017, available at <www.voanews.com/a/sri-lanka-china-majority-stateindian-ocean-port/3964042.html>. 

186Ashley J. Tellis, “Protecting American Primacy in the Indo-Pacific,” Testimony before the 

Senate Armed Services Committee, April 25, 2017, 3. 

187 Sushil Aaron, “Is China Punishing India For Its Belt and Road Stance While Testing Modi 

and Trump?” Hindustan Times, July 4, 2017, available at <www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/is-chinapunishing-india-for-its-belt-and-road-stance-while-testing-modi-and-trump/story-1NIB0lcGtgMy4UVO5pDO1M.html>. 

188However, Matt Ferchen argues that China’s prospects in Latin America could be limited by 

conflict, local opposition, and bureaucratic impediment. Matt Ferchen, “Chinese Infrastructure Initiatives in Latin America: A Bumpy Road Ahead,” Phoenix Weekly, June 26, 2015, available at <http://carn-
44 

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 12

egietsinghua.org/2015/06/26/chinese-infrastructure-initiatives-in-latin-america-bumpy-road-aheadpub-60840>. 

189The Soviet Union responded to the Marshall Plan by increasing its economic and political 

intervention in Eastern Europe, taking steps such as introducing the Council for Mutual Economic 

Assistance (Comecon) to engineer a “Soviet bloc.” For a discussion, see Scott D. Parrish and Mikhail N. 

Narinsky, “New Evidence on the Soviet Rejection of the Marshall Plan, 1947: Two Reports,” Cold War 

International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, March 1994.

190 For instance, Southeast Asian states have long sought to strike a balance between reliance 

on China and the United States. See, for example, Evelyn Goh, “Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in 

Southeast Asia: Analyzing Regional Security Strategies,” International Security 32, no. 3 (2008), 113–

157; and John G. Ikenberry, “Between the Eagle and the Dragon: America, China, and Middle State 

Strategies in East Asia,” Political Science Quarterly 131, no. 1 (2016), 9–43. 

191Two Brookings Institution scholars note that, as of 2017, Chinese exports account for only 5 

percent of gross domestic product and around 3 percent when only value-added is included. Ryan Hass 

and David Dollar, “Making Sense of the Trump Administration’s Possible Economic Actions Against 

China,” Order from Chaos Blog, August 3, 2017, available at <www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fromchaos/2017/08/03/making-sense-of-the-trump-administrations-possible-economic-actions-againstchina/>. 

192Darshana Baruah, “Growing Strategic Engagement Between Tokyo and Delhi,” Carnegie 

India, May 31, 2017, available at <http://carnegieindia.org/2017/05/31/growing-strategic-engagementbetween-tokyo-and-delhi-pub-70127>. See also Thomas F. Lynch III and James J. Pryzstup, India-Japan 

Strategic Cooperation and Implications for U.S. Strategy in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region (Washington, 

DC: NDU Press, 2017), 17–18.

193This is especially important for key non-allies such as India. See, for example, Ashley J. 

Tellis, “Avoiding the Labors of Sisyphus: Strengthening U.S.-India Relations in a Trump Administration,” Asia Policy 23 (2017), 45–46. 

194 For instance, the 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy states that “Development reinforces 

diplomacy and defense, reducing long-term threats to our national security by helping to build stable, 

prosperous, and peaceful societies.” National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC: The White House, 2006), 33. See also Hillary Rodham Clinton, “Leading through Civilian 

Power,” Foreign Affairs 89, no. 6 (November–December 2010), 18. Moreover, the U.S. Department of 

Defense considers infrastructure development in fragile states, such as Afghanistan, a key to stability. 

See Joint Publication 3-07, Stability Operations (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff, 2011).

195This is especially relevant to any cooperation against Uighur separatists, whom Beijing has 

long regarded as “terrorists.” For a discussion of constraints on U.S.-China CT cooperation, see Murray Scot Tanner and James Bellacqua, China’s Response to Terrorism (Arlington, VA: Center for Naval 

Analyses, 2016), 118–122.
45

Chinese Perspectives on the Belt Road Initiative

About the Author

Dr. Joel Wuthnow is a Research Fellow in the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Institute for National Strategic Studies, at the National Defense University (NDU). Prior 

to joining NDU, he was a China analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses, a post-doctoral fellow 

in the China and the World Program at Princeton University, and a pre-doctoral fellow at the 

Brookings Institution. His recent publications include “A Brave New World for Chinese Joint 

Operations,” Journal of Strategic Studies 40, no. 1 (2017), Posing Problems Without an Alliance: 

China-Iran Relations after the Nuclear Deal, INSS Strategic Forum 290 (NDU Press, 2016), and 

“Barriers, Springboards, and Benchmarks: China Conceptualizes the Pacific ‘Island Chains’” The 

China Quarterly 225 (2016), with Andrew S. Erickson. Dr. Wuthnow received an A.B. in Public and International Affairs from Princeton University, an M.Phil. in Modern Chinese Studies 

from Oxford University, and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University.

For a complete list of INSS publications, researchers, and staff, visit http://inss.ndu.edu

No. 11 Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016: Trends and Implications

by Kenneth Allen, Phillip C. Saunders, and John Chen (07/17)

No. 10 Chinese Military Reforms in the Age of Xi Jinping: Drivers, Challenges, and Implications

by Joel Wuthnow and Phillip C. Saunders (03/17)

No. 9 China Moves Out: Stepping Stones Toward a New Maritime Strategy

by Christopher H. Sharman (03/15)

No. 8 Red China’s ‘Capitalist Bomb’: Inside the Chinese Neutron Bomb Program

by Jonathan Ray (01/15)

No. 7 “Not an Idea We Need to Shun”: Chinese Overseas Basing Requirements in the 21st Century

by Christopher Yung and Ross Rustici, with Scott Devary and Jenny Lin (10/14)

No. 6 China’s Forbearance Has Limits: Chinese Threat and Retaliation Signaling and Its Implications for 

a Sino-American Military Confrontation

by Paul H.B. Godwin and Alice Miller (04/13)

No. 5 Managing Sino-U.S. Air and Naval Interactions: Cold War Lessons and New Avenues of Approach

by Mark E. Redden and Phillip C. Saunders (09/12)

No. 4 Buy, Build, or Steal: China’s Quest for Advanced Military Aviation Technologies

by Phillip C. Saunders and Joshua Wiseman (12/11)

No. 3 China’s Out of Area Naval Operations: Case Studies, Trajectories, Obstacles and Potential Solutions

by Christopher Yung and Ross Rustici, with Isaac Kardon and Joshua Wiseman (12/10)

No. 2 Civil-Military Relations in China: Assessing the PLA’s Role in Elite Politics

by Michael Kiselycznyk and Phillip C. Saunders (08/10)

No. 1 Assessing Chinese Military Transparency

by Phillip C. Saunders and Michael Kiselycznyk (06/10)

China Strategic Perspectives Series

Editor, Dr. Phillip C. Saunders