- Chinas Silk Road Strategy (Foreign Policy, 10.11.

2014,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/11/10/TPP_APEC_China_
US_free_trade_agreements )
article, taken from the Foreign Policy magazine, November 10, 2014 edition, depicts the
plans of the Chinese President Xi Jingping regarding the establishment of tree-trade
connections between China and its neighbours, proposed during the 26th APEC 1
reunion
held at Beijing on 10-12 November, in which Jingping met leaders such as Barack
Obama (USA), Vladimir Putin(Russia) or Stephen Harper(Canada). The theme focuses on
the debate between two alternative projects of international development: on the one hand is
the American TPP,2based on market economy principles, while on the other is the Silk
Road Strategy, organized on state interventionist policies. Min Ye invoked in this case
President Jingpings declaration from November 8, in which he announced the
establishment of a 40 billion dollar infrastructure fund, destined to enhance the transport
lines that linked China to Central and Southern Asia. The analyst associate this New Silk
Road project with the Jingpings proposal of FTAAP. 3 Nevertheless, to my mind, this
attempt of revival of the famous trade route which connects Europe and Asia during the
Middle Ages is not only an strategy a political gambling for dismembering the US
superpower status, but also a logical consequence of the Eurasian project. The question
of global trade supremacy has nothing to do with US and China, but with US and
Russia. China can never be a hegemonic power in the true sense of the word, due
to its marginal geographical position.

I invoke the historical argument. What did the Silk road mean? It was a contact area
between the Chinese and Greek-Roman civilizations, which led to the establishment of
powerful Persian and Arabian states. So, the most significant beneficiaries of it were
neither the Occident nor the Orient, but the intermediary regions of Central Asia. Cities
like Samarkand and Bukhara became richer than their Chinese or Roman counterparts, as

1
APEC= Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation; economic association which includes 21 states (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Indonesia,
Japan, South Korea,Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Chinese Taipei, Hong-Kong, China, Mexico, Vietnam ,Papua
New Guinea, Chile, Peru, Russia, Vietnam)
2
TPP=Trans-Pacific Partnership; trade agreement signed at Wellington (July 18, 2005) between USA and 12 Asian- Pacific nations
(New Zealand, Australia, Brunei, China, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam); the implementation of this
program is one of the primary goals of Obama administration
3
FTAAP=Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific; a space of Asian -Pacific free trade area proposed by Chinese officials
a consequence of their capacity of controlling the route through the authorities of shahs
and sultans. And nowadays the large part of Silk-road area consists in small states
placed in the Russian sphere of domination, mainly the republics of Armenia, Kazakhstan
and Uzbekistan. Thus, Xi Jingpings initiative has to be associated with the Chinese-
Russian agreement signed on May 21,2014. on the basis of natural resources; and the
Eurasian pact of May, 29, 2014, in which Belarus and Kazahstan agreed with the
Moscow administration to erase the artificial separation of the so-called world-island area
by creating a political and economic community similarly to the EU. Moreover, Armenia
is also part of the plan, as it had already announced its intention to enlarge the Russian-
Kazakh association. It is only a time problem till the Silk Road project would be
transformed into a Russian Road to hegemony. The Russians are quite conscious of their
strategic positions and do not want to repeat the mistake of their Soviet predecessors.

That is why the US tries to implement the TPP accord. Obama administration
understands Putins mission to take down the Stalin-Mao rivalry, which oriented China
towards the East. He knows very well that if China looks towards West, it would be an
aid for Russia in its attempt of taking the control over EU and if EU becomes a
Russian ally, America is over. In this way, the Americans initiated intensive negotiations
of including China in the TPP, which culminated with the September 2013s decision of
strong collaboration between the Beijing government and TPP countries. Unfortunately,
the negotiations seems to fail. Jingpings decision is a symbol of a new policy for China,
which wants to open the trade gates for Putin under the mask of regional agreements on
investment, energy, transport and financial policy (the internationalization of Chinese
currency). What factors caused this failure remain an issue of debate. Min Ye accused
the Chinese leaderships suspicion concerning the possibility of a growing US influence
in Asia, which would eventually force the regime to make new steps of liberalization;
but, if someone analyses the real situation of the region, he would observe that the
suspicion actions take place rather on the US part. In their continuous desire to
establish an order which does not belong to the local identities of South-Eastern
Asia, Americans seem to make a political suicide. And if America really wants to
maintain the world stability, its government should renounce at this continuous
game of making justice.
All in all, it is clear that the future belongs to Eurasia and every action of the
international relations should be made according to its interest. China is only a chess
play in the hands of a Russian administration and its Silk-Road project illustrates the
diplomatic tact of Kremlin. US is no longer a major actor, as it destroys all its vital
links in the exclusivist activity of TPP. Liberalism cannot be imposed by force,
because it is a force. Every action implies a reaction. I sustain that the article of
Min Ye is relevant in the problem of economic partnerships, but he takes little into
consideration of the historical process of globalization.