It
has been eight years since President Xi Jinping unveiled the Belt and
Road Initiative. During this time US-China relations have sharply
deteriorated and global infrastructure has turned from an object of
public good to another arena of great power competition. Washington,
which during the Obama years and the first several months of the Trump
administration exhibited curiosity about the BRI, is now viewing it as a
Chinese scheme to redraw the contour lines of a new world order and to
project influence into the developing world. So strong is the antipathy
toward the BRI that the US Senate earmarked millions of dollars to train
media to publish negative reports about it.
Part
of the American petulance toward the BRI is driven by envy. US
infrastructure is crumbling, and successive administrations have failed
to convince Congress to pass an infrastructure bill to rejuvenate
America’s roads, bridges and airports. The prime casualties of
infrastructure becoming a political football in a great power rivalry
are the hundreds of millions of people of the developing world whose
lives are burdened by lack of access to modern telecommunication,
transportation, clean water and energy systems. In opposing the BRI the
US is not only condemning them to perpetual poverty but it is also
undermining its own economic growth. Improved infrastructure in the
developing world would create new demand for American goods and
services. For example, US engineering, construction, and
equipment-manufacturing companies like Bechtel, Caterpillar, John Deere,
Honeywell, and General Electric could participate in lucrative
contracts; US defense and cybersecurity companies could help protect
critical infrastructure worldwide; with more energy terminals, pipelines
and storage facilities constructed around the world, the US energy
industry would enjoy new markets for its products; and with the
connection of hundreds of millions of new users to high-speed internet,
American tech companies could expand their market.
Sadly,
the US has been blind to those potential benefits. That said,
Washington realizes that it would be immoral to oppose the BRI without
offering the developing world an alternative vision. Therefore, in June
it launched with fellow G-7 members the Build Back Better World (B3W)
initiative which aims to offer developing countries a more transparent,
sustainable and equitable alternative to the BRI. This initiative builds
on and corresponds with the Trump administration’s Blue Dot Network and
the Clean Network Initiative as well as with new initiatives conceived
by US and its allies such as Japan’s Partnership for Quality
Infrastructure, the Quad’s infrastructure coordination group, the G-20
Quality Infrastructure Investment Principles, and the European Union’s
Global Gateway program. All of these programs and initiatives aim to
institute high standards for infrastructure building and to force
creditor countries and multilateral development banks to focus on debt
sustainability, transparency, human rights and accountability. The
hidden agenda, however, is to weaken the appeal of the BRI, to derail
Chinese investment in countries that could become subservient to Beijing
and to prevent China’s efforts to finance infrastructure projects in
non-dollar currencies, undermining the hegemony of the US currency.
The
problem for Washington is that all of these initiatives are nowhere
near sufficient to close the infrastructure gap of approximately $1
trillion per annum needed to keep pace with the demands of rapid
urbanization and economic growth of the developing world. No single
country or even a group of countries, rich as they may be, can undertake
such monumental and costly endeavor. Unlike China, the US and its
allies have neither state-owned enterprises (SOEs), which can be sent to
foreign countries to embark on construction projects, nor the
state-owned banks, which can be instructed to fund such projects. Their
construction and financing companies are mostly controlled by the
private sector, often through publicly traded companies, which is
traditionally unenthusiastic about infrastructure projects in developing
countries due to their high capital investment, inherent regulatory and
legal risk and low return on investment. With both China, the US, Japan
and Europe facing economic challenges in the wake of the pandemic it is
in their best interest to explore ways to enhance cooperation on
infrastructure development as a way of bolstering global economic
recovery. Strengthening connectivity and upgrading infrastructure can be
an engine for global economic growth from which all countries can
benefit. All these great powers must therefore agree on the principle
that infrastructure should be treated as a global good, not a tool for
advancing geopolitical agenda.
Of
all the regions of the world the one that begs the most for urgent
multinational cooperation on infrastructure is Middle East and North
Africa (MENA). Over the past decade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and
Yemen have faced civil wars, refugee crises and in some places the
collapse of state institutions. Other countries, like Egypt, Algeria,
Sudan, Jordan and Palestine, are suffering from social and economic
ailments and under certain circumstances, they too could slide into
chaos. Afghanistan and the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, severely
harmed by last year’s war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, could also be
added to the list of places in which infrastructure revitalization is
urgently needed.
How
long this state of instability in the MENA region will last depends to a
large extent on the focus and determination of the great powers to work
together toward permanent solutions. At some point in the
not-too-distant future, one by one, the broken states of MENA will have
to embark on a rapid and efficient rebuilding of their entire national
infrastructure. The top economies – Europe, US, China, Japan and India –
all have a stake in speedy post-war revitalization of the region.
Europe is already flooded with refugees from the war-torn region and
must create the conditions for those refugees to return to their rebuilt
cities and villages. Its current energy crisis is another reminder for
its dependence on stable energy supply from MENA. The US needs stability
and prosperity in the region so it can successfully deter Iran from
developing nuclear weapons. It also needs shift more of its resources to
compete with China in the Indo-Pacific region. China, which, just like
Japan, relies on energy imports from the region, needs a peaceful and
prosperous MENA in order to ensure stable energy markets and to advance
some of the planned BRI economic corridors which are planned to traverse
it, connecting Asia, Africa and Europe.
Over
the coming years, one by one, the MENA countries will reach political
resolution and become ready to welcome foreign participation in their
reconstruction efforts. To be sure, this will not happen overnight. In
some of the countries, reconstruction can begin immediately while in
others it could take years before conditions on the ground are no longer
precarious. Iraq held its election this month; Libya will go to the
polls in December and with a new internationally recognized government
reconstruction can finally begin next year. In Afghanistan the new
government is striving to gain international recognition which would
pave the road to foreign investment. In Nagorno-Karabakh reconstruction
has already begun and a new international airport built jointly by
Azerbaijani and Turkish companies was recently inaugurated. The
situation in Syria is gradually stabilizing and more than $6 billion
have already been pledged by the international community to support the
country’s reconstruction. While the war in Yemen is still ongoing it too
will eventually end. In all of those countries the infrastructure needs
will be vast – schools, hospitals, roads, electricity and internet
systems, water treatment facilities, sea and air ports must be rebuilt,
often from scratch. In energy-rich countries like Iraq, Libya and Yemen
oil and gas production facilities and export terminals will have to be
quicky repaired and upgraded in order to create the means to pay for
reconstruction projects.
Estimated
at $500 billion, the rebuilding of the MENA region will be the most
ambitious and expensive multinational project since the Marshall Plan
for the reconstruction of Europe after World War II. To put it in
perspective the Marshall Plan cost just over $13 billion, which would be
equivalent of about $115 billion in today’s money. It will require
significant resources, financial management, orderly and transparent
bidding processes, and, in the case of oil-rich countries, an efficient
mechanism to convert oil revenues into capital dedicated to the
reconstruction effort. To ensure the proper use of oil revenues the
international community will have to create a transparent mechanism to
oversee oil transactions and the use of revenues.
This
mammoth task begs for the US, China, Europe and other stakeholders to
transcend beyond their mutual grievances and join forces in creating a
new multinational infrastructure alliance – MENA Reconstruction
Initiative, which can go by the acronym MERCI – with the goal of
coordinating, optimizing and synergizing reconstruction efforts and
budgets. MERCI could be an ideal platform on which the visions of Build
Back Better, the BRI and other initiatives mesh with each other and
build on each other.
To
achieve win-win outcomes all the sides involved must be able to
recognize the positive elements and comparative advantages brought by
each other. While China brings to the table vast experience in
engineering, construction and financing of major infrastructure projects
as well as large development budgets, US and Europe bring to the table
their experience in what is known as “soft infrastructure” – consulting,
legal services, research, financing etc. – which can make the
difference between failed and successful projects. Additionally, the US,
Europe and Japan can share with China best practices regarding
environmentally friendly design and engineering of infrastructure
projects, including building efficiency, using innovative building
materials, waste processing, and smart electricity. The US and its
allies can also leverage their influence in multilateral development
banks and international organization in which they maintain a leadership
role. Institutions such as the World Bank, Asia Development Bank and
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) can play an
important role in screening projects and improving the efficiency of the
capital deployed. These institutions should make their various services
and facilities available to China-led development banks like the Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS’ New Development
Fund. Under MERCI the US, China and other players, including other
Middle Eastern powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE, will
work with the receiving governments to jointly set priorities, assess
projects’ viability and risks, discuss risk sharing schemes, and set
guidelines for financing.
In order to carry out the vision of MERCI
China and the US must first agree to make MENA reconstruction a high
priority platform of cooperation. In time of growing geostrategic and
political tensions cooperation between the two superpowers has been
reduced to a dangerous level. Presidents XI Jinping and Joe Biden will
have an opportunity to reverse the trend and unveil MERCI in their
virtual meeting later this year and call upon other nations to join it.
This will demonstrate that Washington and Beijing, despite their stark
differences, can still jointly address common global challenges while
sending an optimistic message to the people of the war-torn MENA and the
rest of the developing world that help is on the way.
Editor | Xu Chengzhi
Design | Demi
导读
鉴于中国和美、日、欧都面临着疫情带来的经济挑战，最符合各方利益的做法，是寻找基础设施领域加强合作的新方式，进而为全球经济复苏提供有力支持
自中国国家主席习近平提出“一带一路”倡议以来，已有八年的时间了。在此期间，中美关系急转直下——全球基础设施原本只是一种公共物品，如今则变成了大国竞争的又一个领域。虽然在奥巴马时期以及特朗普就任之初数月，华盛顿还对“一带一路”倡议表示好奇，而如今，美国政府已认定“一带一路”是中国重塑世界秩序、向发展中国家投射影响力的计划。美国对“一带一路”倡议变得如此充满敌意，以至于美国参议院拨款数百万美元，用于训练媒体发布有关“一带一路”的负面报道。
美国为“一带一路”倡议而大闹脾气，部分是出于一种嫉妒。美国的基础设施年久失修、濒临崩解，但连续几届政府都没能说服国会通过基础设施法案，来翻新美国的公路、桥梁和机场。但自从基础设施变成了大国博弈的棋子，受伤最大的，还是发展中国家数以亿计的人们。由于缺乏现代的电子通讯、交通系统、清洁水源、能源网络，他们的生活不堪重负。美国反对“一带一路”倡议的举动，不仅让这些人们陷入永久贫困的境地，同时也拖慢了自己的经济增速。这是因为，发展中国家的基础设施若得到改善，本来也会产生对美国商品和服务的新需求。举例而言，美国的工程、建筑和机械制造公司，诸如柏克德（Bechtel）、卡特彼勒（Caterpillar）、约翰迪尔（John
Deere）、霍尼韦尔（Honeywell）、通用电气（General Electric）等，本来能有机会参与承包盈利丰厚的项目。同时，美国的防务公司和网络安全公司也能在全球各处保护关键的基础设施。此外，美国的能源工业还可以在世界各地建造更多的能源码头、管道及能源贮存设施，为自己的产品拓展新的市场。美国的科技公司也可以将数亿新用户纳入高速网络当中，从而拓宽市场。
可惜的是，美国对这些潜在的好处始终视而不见。不过，华盛顿也意识到，如果自己仅仅是抵制“一带一路”倡议，而不为发展中国家提供任何替代方案，会显得很不地道。因此，在2021年6月，美国和“七国集团”其他成员提出了“重建更好世界”（Build Back Better World，B3W）倡议，表示旨在为发展中国家提供更加透明、可持续、公正的替代方案。这一倡议不仅和特朗普政府的“蓝点网络”（Blue
Dot Network）和“清洁网络”计划（Clean
Network）一脉相承、相互呼应，而且还兼顾美国及其盟友制定的诸多新计划，比如日本的“高质量基础设施合作伙伴关系”（Partnership
for Quality Infrastructure）、美日澳印“四国集团”（Quad）的“基础设施协调集团”（infrastructure
coordination group）、“二十国集团”的“G20高质量基础设施投资原则”，以及欧盟的“全球门户”（Global
Gateway）计划。所有这些计划和倡议都旨在制定基础设施建设的高标准，促使债权国和多边开发银行着重关注债务可持续性、透明度、人权与问责制等问题。然而，美国秘而不宣的工作重点却在于—— 削弱“一带一路”倡议的吸引力；搅坏中国的对外投资，防止他国顺从于中国；以及阻止中国以非美元的货币对基础设施项目投资进行结算，避免中国削弱美国的货币霸权。
然而，华盛顿面临的问题是：发展中国家经济增速迅猛，同时还随着城市化产生了巨大需求，伴随而来的，是每年近万亿美元的基础设施缺口，然而，没有一个倡议足以填补上这一巨大缺口。不论是单独一个国家，还是几国组成的集团，甚至无论有多么富裕，都无法完成规模如此庞大、花费如此高昂的任务。同时，美国及其盟友与中国不同，他们既没有国有企业可派往海外开展工程建设项目，也没有国有银行为这些项目提供资金。美国及其盟友的建筑公司和融资公司多数由私营企业控股，其中还以上市公司居多。但由于海外基础设施项目投资数额大、投资回报率低，而且隐含着法律合规风险，这些上市公司历来对投资发展中国家基础设施项目兴致寥寥。
鉴于中国和美、日、欧都面临着疫情带来的经济挑战，最符合各方利益的做法，是寻找基础设施领域加强合作的新方式，进而为全球经济复苏提供有力支持。加强设施联通、更新基础设施能够为全球经济增长提供动力，能够使世界上所有国家受益。因此，所有的大国都应当达成共识——基础设施应当被视为一种国际公共物品，而非达成地缘政治目标的工具。
在世界上，最亟待开展基础设施建设跨国合作的地区，是中东和北非地区（Middle East and North Africa，MENA）。在过去十年里，伊拉克、叙利亚、黎巴嫩、也门和利比亚遭受了内战和难民危机，很多地区还经历了国家政治机构的崩溃。其他国家，如埃及、阿尔及利亚、苏丹、约旦和巴勒斯坦，正面临着社会与经济的诸多问题，一旦某些特定情景引发危机，国家就可能陷入混乱。此外，去年阿塞拜疆与亚美尼亚之间的战争使纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫这片争议领土遭受重创，这片地区同样亟待基础设施重建。同时，阿富汗也可以被列入有待重建基础设施的名单当中。
这种不稳定状态将在中东北非地区持续多久，很大程度上取决于世界主要大国有多么重视这一议题，并且有多大的决心通力协作，彻底解决问题。在不远的将来，中东和北非地区这些曾陷入政治失能的国家，必将陆续开启迅速、高效地重建全国基础设施的进程。这是因为，使战后的中东和北非地区尽快重振起来，对欧洲、美国、中国、日本和印度这些世界主要经济体都至关重要。在欧洲，大批难民从饱受战争蹂躏的地区蜂拥而至。欧洲需要帮助难民们重建城市与村庄，从而为他们重返家园创造条件。此外，欧洲当下的能源危机也显示出，欧洲有多么依赖中东和北非地区稳定的能源供给。对美国而言，为了成功慑止伊朗发展核武器，恢复中东和北非地区的繁荣稳定同样十分重要。更何况，为了与中国竞争，美国还需要把更多资源从这里转移到印太地区。而对于中国和日本，中东和北非地区是不可或缺的能源进口产地，只有这一地区和平繁荣，才能保证能源市场供给稳定，才能使中国顺利推进“一带一路”倡议中，计划穿越该地区、联通亚非欧大陆的经济走廊。
在未来几年，这些中东和北非地区国家将陆续解决政治争端、重回稳定，做好准备欢迎他国参与其重建工程。诚然，这种愿景不会一蹴而就。虽然有些国家可以迅速开始重建，但另一些国家还需要数年，才能保证基本局势不再危机四伏。伊拉克在本月刚刚举行选举。利比亚也将于今年十二月举行选举，并将迎来一个获得国际承认的新政府，终于能使基础设施重建项目在明年启动。阿富汗的新政府仍然在争取国际承认，以期使获取外资的道路更加顺畅。而在纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫，重建工作业已开始：来自阿塞拜疆和土耳其的公司联合建成了新的国际机场，并于近日宣布落成。叙利亚局势也逐步趋于稳定，国际社会已承诺为其提供60多亿美元的捐款，用以支持该国的重建。虽然在也门，内战尚未停止，但这场战争总有一天终将结束。而在所有这些国家中，重建基础设施的任务都异常艰巨：学校、医院、公路、电网和互联网、水处理设备、海港和机场都需要重建，而且常常需要从头开始。此外，在伊拉克、利比亚和也门等能源丰富的国家，石油和天然气生产设施以及能源码头亟待得到修复和升级，从而为进一步的重建工程提供资金。
重建中东和北非地区的基础设施，预计需要投入5000亿美元。这将是自二战后重建欧洲的马歇尔计划以来，最为宏大和昂贵的跨国重建项目：换算一下，马歇尔计划当时投入的 130 多亿美元，折合到今天仅有1150亿美元。此外，中东和北非地区的重建还需要投入大量资源、建立金融管控、确立合规和透明的招标程序；同时，石油资源丰富的国家需要建立一种有效机制，将石油收入转化为重建工程的专项资金。为了确保这些国家正当利用石油收入，国际社会必须建立一个透明的机制，用以监管石油交易及监督石油收入的去向。
面对这一如牛负重的艰巨任务，美国、中国、欧洲和其他相关国家需要放下对彼此的芥蒂，为建立一个新的多国基础设施联盟通力合作。这个计划可以起名为“中东和北非地区重建倡议”（MENA Reconstruction Initiative），简称为“MERCI”计划。计划将以协调、优化重建工程和重建预算为目标，以期达到协同增效的效果：“MERCI”计划可以成为综合美国“重建更好”愿景、中国“一带一路”倡议及其他计划的理想平台，使这些倡议互为参照、融合并进。
若想实现双赢，各方都必须认识到对方的长处与比较优势。具体而言，中国能够在设计与建设重大基础设施项目，以及为项目融资等方面，提供丰富的中国经验，还能带来一笔不菲的开发预算；美国和欧洲则可以分享它们在咨询、法律服务、调查研究、融资等“软基础设施”方面的经验，项目的成败有时恰恰取决于这些方面。此外，美国、欧洲和日本可以与中国分享环保方面的经验，传授基础设施项目设计中最环保的做法，比如提升建筑效率、应用新型建筑材料、建立废物处理和智能电力系统等。同时，美国及其盟友可以充分发挥他们在多边开发银行和国际组织中的领导作用和影响力：世界银行（World
Bank）、亚洲开发银行（Asia Development
Bank）和欧洲复兴开发银行（EBRD）等机构，可以在项目审查和提高资本配置效率方面贡献力量，并应当向亚洲基础设施投资银行（Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank，AIIB）和金砖国家新发展基金（New Development
Fund）等中国主导的开发银行开放各项服务和设施。在“MERCI”计划的框架下，美国、中国和其他成员，包括土耳其、沙特阿拉伯、卡塔尔和阿联酋等中东大国，将与项目对象国政府展开合作，共同确定优先事项、评估项目可行性和项目风险、制定风险分摊计划，以及确立融资方针。
为实现“MERCI”愿景，中美应当首先达成共识，将中东和北非地区作为开展合作的首要平台。虽然在地缘战略与政治局势日趋紧张的背景下，中美两个超级大国之间的合作日渐式微、不容乐观，然而，中国国家主席习近平与美国总统乔·拜登将有机会扭转这一趋势。如果中美能在今年稍后举行的虚拟会议上公布某种“MERCI”计划，并呼吁其他国家加入，这将显示出华盛顿和北京能够克服彼此的巨大差异，携手应对全球挑战。而对于中东和北非地区以及广大发展中国家的人们，这将是一个利好消息：帮助马上就到。
编辑 | 许成之
校对 | 闫建军
设计 | 大 米