## 2 Comparison of BRI with Other Global and Regional Infrastructure Initiatives
### Inclusivity and Regional Integration
There is a noticeable lack of discussion on the degree to which participating countries are expected to absorb these norms, a shared understanding on what construes fair and sustainable among domestic stakeholders, and how a misalignment of preferences on project terms will be addressed. This suggests that participating countries are limited to a binary choice: to either accept or decline cooperation in EU connectivity projects in the interest of high-quality assurance of the infrastructure to be delivered ([PERSON], 2023). This highlights an important irony in that both the BRI and GG could face similar criticisms about inclusivity, albeit for different reasons: the BRI for not fulfilling promises of local engagement and GG for enforcing strict compliance to regional standards without enough flexibility to adapt to local contexts. While China was the ASEAN's largest external trading partner in 2015, lower tariffs under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), alongside concerns over China's lending practices and South China Sea disputes, have allowed the valuation of Japan's infrastructure projects in ASEAN's six largest economies to surpass China's by USD 112 billion in 2019. This shift aligns with the FOIP strategy, leveraging the ASEAN's strategic role in connecting the Indian and Pacific Oceans ([PERSON] and [PERSON], 2021). However, although ASEAN countries are generally supportive of FOIP's proposed connectivity and economic development policies, the compromise of ASEAN centrality and unity is a concern, i.e., the ASEAN is not playing a central role in the FOIP strategy unlike in the Asia-Pacific, and the necessity of adopting shared values may put some ASEAN countries off from participating. In addition, given that most ASEAN countries are already actively participating in BRI projects, the decoupling of U.S.-China security confrontation from sustainable economic development is preferred ([PERSON], 2021). Not all EU's values are also welcomed by ASEAN countries, meaning that GG faces the same type of resistance as FOIP ([PERSON] and [PERSON], 2015). Transtionary allowances are also essential to ensure that the trade-off between economic/energy security and the adoption of green energy or other sustainable development goals is not compromised. Some developing countries may be unable to adhere to the strict principles and standards set out by the other infrastructure initiatives with regard to human rights, environmental sustainability, legislation and anti-corruption frameworks, thus being excluded from participating in them. For example, with regard to environmental protection, the funding of coal-fired power plants is phased out under PGII. However, the BRI provides transitory funding allowances for abated and more efficient coal-fired power plants, which would be more practical for developing countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam where there are significant concerns about the increase in electricity prices and potential power shortages with regard to the phasing out of coal power ([PERSON] & [PERSON], 2022; [PERSON], 2024). Another challenge of high-quality infrastructure investments is that they demand robust and transparent governance, which often entails lengthy administrative processes and potential reductions in state sovereignty for participating countries. Developing nations may struggle with these complex bureaucratic requirements, hindering their ability to mobilise investments swiftly. In Africa, infrastructure projects are frequently tied to election campaigns, suggesting a mismatch between local time preferences and the extended screening processes necessary for mobilising investments, unlike the faster-paced BRI. Moreover, while the transition to green energy is perceived to be a necessity according to EU norms in the GG strategy, it may be perceived as secondary to the pressing need for basic infrastructure by developing countries, leading to resistance against mandates for minimum green investments.