Belt and Road Initiative Rebuttals

At: EU joining BRI

I. EU can save BRI

A. Contention
1. Xi jinping literally loves his BRI. If EU won’t fund it, Xi would run China
into debt just for funding his BRI [stolen]
a) Xi will always fund the BRI. The BRI has become the centerpiece
of Xi’s foreign policy, so he’ll either run a deficit in his budget, cut
from other sectors, or that the BRI will be delayed a little bit
because of the current lack of funding but will just be completed a
few years later.
2. EU won’t fund it? Fine, Xi would do it no matter what
3. EU is literally funding BRI right now lmao; no reason to vote for pro
a) “There is still some uncertainty regarding how much more funding
for such connectivity projects the EU will allocate in its next
multiannual budget, which will stretch from 2021 to 2027. For
instance, the European Fund for Strategic Investments is seeking to
invest €500 billion in projects by 2020 while the European
External Action Service is expected to guarantee €60 billion
toward investments in connectivity over 2021–2027 with the
expectation that this will help mobilize additional funding from
multilateral development banks and the private financial
institutions. Ultimately, the proposed EU budget will need to be
approved by the European Council and the European Parliament.
Regardless, whatever amount the EU will ultimately allocate will
fall way short of the €1.3 trillion a year it estimates is needed for
infrastructure investment in Asia.”
4. To join BRI, you need entire EU. If one member rejects it, EU can’t find
BRI. How much work will that take
B. Warrant
1. Who is there to say China will use the funds efficiently, won’t be corrupt
with money, add new projects?
a) “Corruption on an epic scale was revealed in Malaysia following
the electoral defeat of former Prime Minister Najib Razak and the
exposure of the 1MDB scandal. A government investigation found
that ECRL contract prices had been vastly inflated and that
Chinese companies involved in the rail project appeared to have
 engaged in money laundering schemes called “round-tripping.”26
But the ECRL is an exception only in that corrupt practices were
exposed and publicized; the pervasive use of bribery, cost padding,
and kickbacks was also indicated in numerous other BRI projects
in the region. Certainly, anti bribery and anti corruption rules exist
in China, where under President Xi Jinping they are often, if
inconsistently, enforced. Most project host countries have their
own anti bribery laws, although enforcement varies widely.
However, there seem to be no operational anti corruption
mechanisms for monitoring, enforcement, and accountability in
BRI projects. No examples of penalties for corruption in Southeast
Asian BRI projects could be identified in the course of our
research, and projects do not appear to have local-language
websites or other accessible mechanisms for “whistle-blowing,”
which is how the vast majority of corruption cases are revealed.”
b) Daniel Russo & Blake Berger, June 2019, Asia Society Policy
Institute, Navigating the Belt and Road Initiative,
https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Navigating
%20the%20Belt%20and%20Road%20Initiative_2.pdf,
2. Who is there to say that prices won’t increase due to inflation, leading to
the EU’s funds not being enough anymore
C. Impact
1. Even if BRI collapses, that’s good! (Con contention here)
II. EU can have a leverage
A. Contention
1. Indifferent. EU can leverage China in different ways like sanctions,
agreements, conferences, etc.
2. China won’t let any European Companies have a say in its projects
anyways
3. EU companies would be blocked from Chinese market regardless. How
much leverage do that give us lmao
4. China refuses to negotiate or even give up some of its influence…
leverage much?
B. Warrant
1. No part of the BRI contract with the EU states the EU could have a say in
any projects the BRI is planning to make
a) “Muh they can always withdraw the money if China don’t listen” -
So isn’t that the same thing as not funding BRI in the first place?
C. Impact
 1. Climate Change - Extremely minimal change. If the world doesn’t
work together, climate change still exists
2. Renewable Energy -

Windmills kill
birds, solar panels extract precious minerals
from Earth, dams affect aquatic life, nuclear
power destroy soil - How else are we going
to make energy?
How
does solar panel extract precious minerals
from earth?

3. Energy Poverty - China is already planning on building energy

sources in the BRI (biomass) and whether or not the EU will leverage
won’t change that
III. “Everything’s bad, but hey… the Economy”
A. Contention
1. This thing is more slippery than minecraft ice… You assume fund BRI →
China will create jobs in Europe → The jobs in Europe would be a success
→ Stonks
a) How do you know the jobs China make would benefit Europe?
b) How do you know said jobs won’t be outsourced by Chinese
workers?
c) How do you know your citizens would want to work in said jobs?
d) How can you be sure that industry would not collapse, be corrupt,
and have bad management?
2. No, Chinese companies get most of the benefits from BRI. Europe’s
economy isn’t going to change much for the better
3. Debt traps = Less $ = More taxes = Less jobs (Use the 1% tax cut
reasoning)
B. Warrant
 1. EU didn’t join BRI yet, so you are only using economist predictions. Like
the Great Depression Era where economists said “stocks will never burst,”
you can’t 100% predict the future.
2. Don’t believe the evidence; there has been no concrete evidence that BRI
would actually do so much good to Europe
C. Impact
1. More jobs, more infrastructure - Indifferent. EU is currently
already investing in infrastructure for its own country
2. More money for EU military to beat Russia - Remember, this
is coming from a continent that let America do all the grunt work for
them… counterterrorism, defeating communism, defeating Hitler, uniting
Europe, you know, making sure the French doesn’t raise their white war
flag
IV. Anything related to health
A. Contention
1. Vaccines aren’t a one-time thing. You need to constantly develop, update,
get booster shots, etc. Where is all this investment coming from?
2. Indifferent. Why can't the EU issue the same things China is doing with
the $ they will invest in BRI?
a) Who knows if the corrupt Chinese gubbermint will actually
administer said health treatments properly
3. Health issues are a matter of individual countries. Ie. Jamaica shouldn’t be
responsible for the vaccination and health treatment of Russia.
a) “Muh those awesome 5G robot doctors” - How do you know 5G
even works when it was literally introduced like 5 months ago?
b) “Muh hospital connectivity” - Uh… Europe can invest without
BRI if they care so much
B. Warrant
1. People are allergic to certain vaccines. Your article doesn’t mention that
2. How well will that “herd immunity” work?
C. Impact
1. (If they go too extreme) Get rid of all [insert disease] - Anti
Vaxxers: allow us to introduce ourselves
2. Slow Economic Progress - CoRreLaTiON is nOt caUSaTIoN
V. Free Trade Agreements!
A. Contention
1. Free trade is bad. China can use their cheap produced product to knock
European companies out of business. More exports to China, less revenue
for EU
a) Now, EU production jobs will be outsourced
 b) You can’t argue this point while also having a contention related to
infrastructure and economy
B. Warrant
1. Study flawed, because it doesn’t take into account that China will still
impose sanctions if EU steps out of line
C. Impact
1. Trade = Money, Everybody eats! - Actually most Chinese trade
agreements are one-sided and only benefit China lel
2. cULtuRaL diFFusION - You can also accomplish this without free
trade AND with tariffs
VI. EU infrastructure increases
A. Contention
1. Wake up people! It’s a BRI loan, not a scholarship!
2. I can walk up to Brazil and ask for $, and I’ll probably achieve the same
result
a) Basically, it is almost impossible to connect loans specifically from
China to EU’s increase in infrastructure
3. China already invests in Europe anyways
a) EU not in BRI didn’t stop China from building ports in France and
Netherlands
b) If China wants money, they’ll have to trade with Europe
B. Warrant
1. Which specific piece of infrastructure would be better after China’s
infrastructure loans compared to if EU just used the money they needed to
fund China
2. Why China? Why not more trustworthy and less corrupt countries?
C. Impact
1. Jobs - Not if Chinese workers come and take over said jobs for less
benefits, less pay, less working conditions, less willing to protest, less
willing to form labor unions, more willing to do said hard labor, etc. You
know, the same reason why Chinese workers are fine being paid $8 a
month making iPhone X
2. Tourism - Yes, in the wake of power struggle and fascism, we should
care about people visiting Paris
3. Maintenance - Indifferent. Go take out a loan from US and invest in
maintenance. Literally nothing would change.
VII. Solve Chinese overproduction
A. Contention
1. Well maybe if China wasn’t communist, you wouldn’t have a ton of
unused extras sitting around gathering dust
 a) Then, point to the Curtin 18 card where not having BRI weakens
Chinese communism
2. If everything is made in China, there should be no logical reason why
China has extra resources with the right management and communication
B. Warrant
1. Your evidence are mostly flawed. Just because China will trade more
doesn’t mean EU wants these new materials. Just because China will build
more doesn’t mean certain materials will be used
C. Impact
1. Global Recession - Overproduction → Supply and Demand →
Deflation → Companies borrow more → China recession → Global
recession
a) Woah! Maybe, just maybe, if one of the 6 prerequisites did not
happen, global recession would not ensue
b) Maybe… we can stop overproducing in the first place
c) Maybe… companies can actually start paying off debt and stop
borrowing money
d) Maybe… you can actually use those steel, cement, and iron instead
of leaving them in your basement
2. Waste of Resources, Environmental Protection - Reduce,
Reuse, Recycle. ‘Nuff said. Stop throwing extra materials in landfills. OR,
look at all the clique con contentions trying to save polar bears
VIII. EU needs to join to make sure EU trade rules are followed
A. Contention
1. Where is this money to enforce trade rules coming from?
2. EU can still enforce these without joining BRI. This is why some of them
are in UNSC and have summits with China
B. Warrant
1. There’s no direct link between EU joining BRI and EU enforcing trade
rules on all BRI countries
C. Impact
1. Human rights- Actually, now that the EU is with China in this BRI,
they are less likely to actually confront China
a) During the UN Human Rights Council, Greece basically said to
EU (paraphrased), “Don’t mention BRI and Human Rights
Violations and report them, because it is unconstructive criticism.”
Andddd guess what? No mentions of BRI Human Rights
Violations.
b) Greece is in current BRI deal
 2. Trade Fairness- Indifferent, EU can interfere, hold sanctions, etc
anyways
IX. Failing to join BRI could split EU (because of current infrastructure in BRI targeting
individual countries)
A. Contention
1. Wait wait wait. You said the entire EU needs to join for BRI to be able to
be funded. The fund will come from the entire EU
2. Where are the individual countries going to go towards to get the $ needed
to invest in BRI?
3. Individual countries can’t take a stand against debt traps
B. Warrant
1. Italy joined the BRI? That’s interesting, because the EU is not collapsing
right now. Maybe your evidence shows individual countries joining BRI
won’t crumble the EU
C. Impact
1. Less cooperation/unity between countries - NATO, Paris
Agreement, EU would literally still exist because they literally use
common currency
2. The fall of the Euro - Yes, because Chinese currency is very reliable
and that we need more competition against the US dollar
3. Countries would feud with each other - Countries literally feud
with each other 24/7… just look at US
4. War - Countries don’t have the financial capabilities to go to war. As the
liberal movement grows stronger, it would be hard for your countries to
raise military draft. Oh wait… US provides all the troops for you, eh?
Jokes on you pro-BRI countries
5. Lack of unified response undermines Europe - In our world,
EU collectively rejects BRI.
6. China with 16+1 will rule Europe - Do you really think Russia and
the US is okay with this? Russia loses a trade partner, USA is angry
because this undermines trade wars
X. BRI = More trade with China (Also has waterways contention too)
A. Contention
1. Look, if the EU is not exporting much to China right now, it means they
do not have much materials China wants to buy.
2. BRI or not, the EU won’t get a drastic increase in trade because China still
won’t want the items
3. BRI would just give bad businesses loans, causing capital to leave the EU.
Basically, the trade deficit would still exist…
 4. Also, EU and China just had a summit 4/9, agreeing on a Bilateral trade
deal. So why do we still need BRI?
B. Warrant
1. BRI has not happened yet, no evidence to say these things
2. Increase trade by 7% due to transportation: Correlation is not causation
buddy. Transportation costs does not cause more trade
a) If San Pancho does not have any exports Centre Perks want,
transportation costs isn’t going to get them more trade. It’ll
probably increase San Pancho imports tho
C. Impact
1. More jobs! More revenue! More economy! - You assume fund
BRI → Lower transport costs → More trade → Trade makes demand and
jobs → The jobs in Europe would be a success → Jobs won’t be corrupt,
outsourced, and last → Stonks
a) Hmm… maybe, just maybe, we can build ports ourselves
b) Hmm… maybe, our industry is indeed rubbish and China doesn’t
want our goods
c) Hmm… maybe, just maybe, a country screws up and China
suddenly posts sanctions, lessening trade
d) Hmm.. maybe, just maybe, Chinese made items are indeed cheaper
(I can go on and on with this)
XI. Easier to resist US not trading with EU
A. Contention
1. It’s individual countries doing the trading, not the entire EU
2. The US is never going to cut off trade with the entire EU unless they want
to suffer massive revenue lost
B. Warrant
1. Studies fail to account that US trades EU items that is unobtainable via
China, and harder to obtain via BRI countries
a) “The top export categories [from US to EU] (2-digit HS) in 2018
were: aircraft ($46.5 billion), machinery ($34.2 billion), mineral
fuel (oil) ($28.5 billion), optical and medical
instruments ($27.7 billion), and pharmaceuticals ($26.6
billion)”
b) Europe would suffer heavily, especially on the pharmaceutical
aspect, since companies like Big Pharma are US companies
C. Impact
1. Renders US Sanctions less effective - Are you seriously kidding
me now? You want the US to lose control over EU? You actually want
 countries to be able to do evil things with less consequences? This impact
was literally how Hitler gained power
2. Trump bad - Trump is temporary, stupid is forever
a) Aren’t you remotely concerned Trump will get angry over this and
stop providing military protection for EU? That’s like saying, “hey
Switzerland! Give up your universal healthcare and these 69
benefits and start raising a military!”
b) You realize US provides 69.3% of NATO funding right? Do you
seriously want Trump to withdraw from this too?
XII. Green Technology and reNeWabLE eNErGY
A. Contention
1. Renewable energy bad
a) Windmills takes up space and kill birds
b) Dams destroy aquatic life
c) Solar panels require precious minerals to make
d) Nuclear energy leads to Russia Fiasco v2
e) The components required to produce △emf produces
electromagnetic radiation (magnetic flux stuff)
B. Warrant
1. Renewable energy statistics are inaccurate because you are predicting
2. Said statistics also are inaccurate because they might not account for the
current fossil fuel usage in “clean” countries
C. Impact
1. Preserves biodiversity - Dams kill aquatic life
2. Stops global warming - Windmills require a lot of space, guess
what we do to get that space? Yep, deforestation
3. More efficient and cleaner energy - Yes, it is clean to extract
minerals from the ground to make solar panels
XIII. Help China’s infrastructure and Economy
A. Contention
1.
B. Warrant
1. Of course they will help China’s economy! Why else do you think China
will take advantage of other nations, sabotage them, and force them into
debt?
C. Impact
1. Nuclear Energy -
2. Stay away from US orbit-
 3. Strong China economy = World economy good - I knew it!
Last night I dreamed that China used its money for international good that
aren’t benefiting only China!
XIV. EU Global Influence
A. Contention
1. But… EU already has global influence because literally represents a whole
continent
2. All hail the new EU: spreading Chinese corruption, cheap labor, and debt
traps to all corners of the planet!
B. Warrant
C. Impact
1. Increases EU soft power - Actually, now that the EU is merged
with China via BRI, they will have less soft power because China will be
the one in charge
2. Spread EU values/human rights - Not sure about this one, but
what I’m sure is countries will think, “hey look! EU values + China! Our
government should suppress EU values on human rights and all!”
XV. People would rush to China for value trades/Chinese trade advantage
A. Contention
1. Judge, are you a Chinese communist or somebody living in the US
2. Are you even remotely concerned about YOUR economy and YOUR
jobs?
3. So Europe would also turn to China. If China is selling everything Europe
makes cheaper (remember, no tariffs on China because of free trade
agreements), why the hell will consumers buy from EU?
a) EU loses jobs, jobs get outsourced, economy, etc
b) It is impossible to argue there would be better economy and jobs
when you use this joke as a contention
B. Warrant
C. Impact
1. China gets more revenue to do good things - Since when did
China do something to help other countries without a plan or reservations
in hindsight?
a) No link between China getting more revenue and China helping
causes
XVI. 5G can spread to Europe
A. Contention
1. 5G causes cancer
2. 5G is relatively new, and we shouldn’t rely on it. There is not much testing
to make sure 5G is actually effective/useful
 B. Warrant
C. Impact
1. New technological advancement - What are we doing now?
Relying on things in beta phase of testing?
XVII. BRI is peaceful and countries join voluntarily
A. Contention
1. Not after what China said to the EU regarding joining BRI
B. Warrant
C. Impact
1. Won’t cause conflicts with nations - It might not cause conflicts
with the nations themselves directly, but is sure will trigger allies!
a) If Germany peacefully joins China in BRI, US will get angry.
Now, you’ll have issues amongst Germany, China, and US
XVIII.
AT: Eu not joining BRI

I. All the environmental stuff

A. Contention
1. Coal Plants - EU can step in and use their leverage to build green
technology. OR, renewable energy bad
2. Deforestation - The last time I looked at a map, I don’t recall seeing
any forests in the land sector (path to Europe) of the BRI
3. Arctic Drilling - Indifferent. No matter BRI or not, countries will drill
in the arctic
B. Warrant
1. Unless you’re a climate change denier, you can’t really argue the evidence
:P
2. Alternatively, google “CliMAtE cHaNGe dOeS nOT exISt” conspiracy
theories
a) “But the glaciers in the Arctic got thicker!”
b) “Climate change is natural!”
C. Impact
1. The World will end in 12 years! - Nonsense, and this is coming
from someone using the AOC tweet for Saudi Arabia
2. Climate Change - Minimal impact. Aren’t we already at the point of
no return?
3. Loss of Biodiversity - Minimal impact and indifferent. We already
lose biodiversity at a rapid rate in South America because a guy in Brazil
refuses to accept foreign aid
II. Debt traps!
 A. Contention
1. “European Union and other developed countries are currently pressuring
China to adopt EU standards for infrastructure projects”
2. Look in the contention. It says join the BRI, not follow every damn thing
China says about the BRI
3. Plus, the current 16+1 is already in BRI. These countries are actually the
most vulnerable to debt traps, and they are already in! This contention is
indifferent!
4. The resolution does not say EU must join BRI without reservations - They
are not mandated to take on the debt and could make reservations
regarding this matter
B. Warrant
1. You have no numbers to show how much debt China will pressure EU to
take… because EU didn’t join yet!
C. Impact
1. Bankruptcy - If you give us the numbers, we can use Chinese
propaganda to show you the revenue outweighs the debt costs
2. EU Financial Conflicts - [Stolen] Railroads and projects bring EU
bank and China bank closer. Offshore “RMB” costs lower transaction
fees, meaning now, free trade! More $!
III. Destroys US-EU relations
A. Contention
1. The EU would still trade with US
2. The EU would still rely on US
3. NATO, UNCLOS, G7, UNSC!?!?
B. Warrant
C. Impact
1. US leaves NATO - Kinda indifferent now that Trump is in office, eh
2. Stops providing anti-terrorist troops/withdraw military -
That’s not going to happen, because after what US did in the middle east,
the terrorists’ first target would be Washington D.C.
a) China can provide military support via BRI
b) The US has valuable allies in the middle east, like Iraq (which does
like all of our scientific research) that it must protect
3. US leaves Paris Agreement - If US leave this agreement, climate
change would be more prevalent, contradicting con’s climate change
contention… Oh wait, we already threw the treaty into a paper shredder.
4. War - You assume: China and EU funds BRI → BRI does well → EU
collaborates fully with China → EU stops listening to US → US and EU
does not try to negotiate → US and EU has the money and supplies for a
 war → UNSC won’t stop the war before it breaks out → NATO won’t
stop the war before it breaks out → Allies will join this pointless war →
World War 3

a)
IV. Chinese gains more naval power
A. Contention
1. The US can still remain a threat to China. It doesn’t matter how many
ports they have on Asia, but the fact is, they don’t have ports all over the
world like the US does.
2.
B. Warrant
1. More ports does not mean more military power. It depends where they
locate their ports
C. Impact
1. Threatens US Power - Yes, they might have more territory due to
their new naval ports. But the strength of our Navy and our technology
makes China’s Dragon Boat squad look like a joke
2. South China Sea - Imagine a country with thousands of years of
philosophy, destroying a trade route they invested so much cash into
3. Better Naval Technology - China’s 2 aircraft carriers and noisy
submarines aren’t going to do much against the new AI military US is
trying to raise (Infographic show, top 5 militaries in 2020)
V. China’s human rights violations
A. Contention
1. Name me a country that doesn’t have human rights violations. I’ll wait.
2. Can’t name any? Exactly! Why should we pull the human rights card
against a project with this double standard?
3. The UNSC! Sanctions! Bruh!
B. Warrant
1. There’s no treat saying that if EU joins, China would stop the Human
Right violations
 C. Impact
1. Revolts - Hong Kong is still a fat mess lol
2. International Criticism - Indifferent
3. Undermines EU Values - Aww man Greece… why did you have to
turn this impact into an indifferent one?
a) During the UN Human Rights Council, Greece basically said to
EU (paraphrased), “Don’t mention BRI and Human Rights
Violations and report them, because it is unconstructive criticism.”
Andddd guess what? No mentions of BRI Human Rights
Violations.
VI. Europe can’t criticize China’s human rights violations
A. Contention
1. You’re forgetting the other superpowers in the world. Through NATO, EU
can still criticize China and impose sanctions
a) Resolution says EU should join BRI, not EU should follow BRI’s
policies like an idiot sandwich
2. UK and France are permanent members of UNSC. Nuff’ said
3. EU has its own fair share of human rights violations. It’s going to become
the ironic “do as I say, not as I do”
B. Warrant
1. Yeaaa, one person does not speak for all the EU countries
C. Impact
1. China would feel entitled to do some bold moves - Russia -
Hold our vodka; US - Hold my area 51 UFOs
2. Human right violations would continue - If being on the
security council, under multiple sanctions, Hong Kong protests known to
the world, and criticized by UNSC multiple times won’t get them to
change, there is almost no difference between the pro and the con world
a) Also, it is impossible for a country to get rid of all human right
violations
b) China could not stop with the Human Right Violations until they
stop feeding Kim Jun Un “double bread with meat”
VII. China dominates global economy
A. Contention
1. That’s good, because it forces US to focus on economic growth
2. You’re assuming: China gets funding for BRI → BRI does well → BRI
revenue lasts long enough for China to profit → Stonks
a) What if BRI flops?
b) What if something happens and BRI is destroyed?
c) Wait… what if BRI can’t maintain a steady revenue?
 B. Warrant
C. Impact
VIII. China military powers bad
A. Contention
1. It’s not like US military power is any better
2.
B. Warrant
1. I thought we learned our lesson to not believe propaganda and conspiracy
theories based on fear after Saudi Arabia
a) “Fearism” - Was the spread of communism actually that
threatening? No! But because of fear, we started all these wars
C. Impact
1. Military Aggression - Surprisingly, the BRI is actually peaceful. The
BRI is actually a passive move to make China a superpower
2.
IX. Decline of US leadership
A. Contention
1. US will flop either way. Today’s world is all about globalization. Since
China dumped all their money into BRI, once that BRI flops, China would
have less money to spare.
a) Can’t afford to sponsor US military anymore
b) Demand US repay their federal debt, meaning less economic
growth (from last January)
(1) US might even have to cut socialist benefits
c) Tariffs would be harsher because China needs the money- trade
war intensifies
2.
B. Warrant
1. No, the country that controls Eurasia trade doesn’t control the world. Look
at Mansa Musa and empires in Africa. Look at Mongols, they didn’t need
to control the Silk Road to be powerful
C. Impact
X. Corruption
A. Contention
1. EU joins BRI = EU leverage
2. [Stolen] The ministry of foreign affairs, along with CLS, met July 2019
where they literally said “hold up, we will fight corruption in our project”
a) “China has signed 55 extradition treaties and 64 judicial assistance
agreements with 77 countries, including the Belt and Road nations,
 to strengthen international cooperation to fight corruption,
repatriate fugitives and recover misappropriated assets.”
B. Warrant
1. Don’t you think if your author is from America, that your author would be
biased against China? You know, like they heavily emphasize something
and put the good stuff in a box? You know, they don’t report BRI
achievements and just spend news cycles solely on BRI corruption
2. (If mainstream media) The mainstream media focuses on news that would
amuse people. Now what is more interesting to report on and will get them
more views: corruption or some boring infrastructure projects?
C. Impact
XI. Connectivity Strategy Better
A. Contention
1. If a plan involves China, you’re not going to get very far into convincing
the US
2. Where’s the money coming from? EU’s external affairs budget is 123
billion euro for 6 years, and they originally only have 10 billion euro
planned out to give to Asia. But now, the connectivity strategy needs 60
billion of that right away. Ouch :(
3. Connectivity strategy literally has the exact same goals as the BRI, but
only the fact China doesn’t fund this strategy. So why not just stick to
BRI?
a) Connectivity strategy only focuses on Eurasia. BRI focuses on
more areas like Africa
B. Warrant

1.
C. Impact
1. Will not saddle countries with debt that they can not
repay - So, where do they draw the line?
a) If every EU country is expected to fork over some cash, what’s the
minimum a country needs to contribute?
b) Yea… but they are literally still handing over money. EU takes
funds every country. Every country will have to pay more
membership contributions
2. Fair payment from each country; unlike unpredictable
BRI - How is it fair for italy, which pays 11.74% of EU membership
contributions, to pay for this connectivity project when they are already in
the BRI?
3. Convenience - There are already some countries in BRI. It would be
more convenient to just join BRI