4 | BRI Country Strategies Mitigating the harm stemming from the BRI starts with the countries hosting BRI projects. Concerns over debt sustainability and lacking environmental and social protections fueled global outrage over the BRI’s first iteration. Beijing alleged it would address those real and perceived harms associated with the BRI at its second Belt and Road Forum in April 2019, but it still remains to be seen whether China will actually make any meaningful progress. For example, Chinese policy documents regarding green investments and ecological protections are as broad, nonbinding, and aspirational as ever. The ambiguity caused by the lack of clarity surrounding what is a BRI project and the numerous private actors who have adopted it as a label further compounds these issues. As it stands, Chinese rhetoric regarding the BRI remains divorced from the reality on the ground. The United States would strongly benefit if BRI countries could strengthen their resilience to the negative aspects of the BRI. It is unlikely that the United States can convince developing countries to forswear BRI investments, but those countries should nonetheless work toward minimizing the associated harm for the sake of their own longterm macroeconomic development and political stability. In turn, the United States can support these efforts in many ways which also benefit U.S. strategic interests. Specifically, BRI countries should improve regulatory oversight regarding environmental and social governance, highlight Chinese economic malpractice, actively monitor the implications of increasing foreign investment, strengthen small and medium enterprises that can participate in mega-projects as subcontractors, and promoting independent civil society and media to provide oversight and offset Chinese propaganda and local governmentcontrolled media. These policies can help BRI countries seek high-quality infrastructure investments while holding China accountable if its investments are harmful.
Improving Regulatory and Governance Strength The standards of BRI investments are generally low, matching those existing within host countries. Chinese foreign policy puts a strong emphasis on sovereignty and non-interference, so Beijing does not compel firms to adhere to standards higher than those of host countries. Public reporting and in-country analysis underscore this approach’s inadequacy and the harm arising from it.49 BRI recipient countries should make a sincere effort to raise their own regulatory and governance standards and increase enforcement so Chinese firms comply with these local standards. Increased pressure could help convince Beijing to raise its standards of development assistance. Lawmakers, academics, and members of civil society in BRI recipient countries widely shared this view.
49
31
Beech, “‘Our River Was Like a God.’”
