China needs to be transparent

Save
Governor-General Sir Jerry Mateparae, second from left, listens as Chinese president Xi Jinping, second from right, speaks during a bilateral meeting in Beijing. Photo / Getty
Businesses and governments around the world are watching as China grows, innovates and extends its influence. We explore how the country got to where it is and what might be in store for its future in our series Understanding China's Influence.

By Alice de Jonge, Monash University

The Chinese government will have to balance its desire to build quickly with the often-conflicting demands of transparency, politics, public consultation and accountability if it wants to achieve its economic development goals in Asia.

One clear example of this is the overlapping interests involved in China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) initiative, and its One Belt, One Road (OBOR) plan.

China's OBOR initiative, announced by Xi Jinping during a 2013 visit to Kazakhstan, aims to build a network of infrastructure connecting 65 countries following the land and maritime routes of the ancient Silk Road. Across land this is from China to the Mediterranean via the north and an ocean route connecting Europe with the Middle East, African and Southeast Asia.

A map depicting the 'Silk Road Economic Belt' in red and the '21st Century Maritime Silk Road' in blue that make up China's One Belt, One Road plan.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is an important avenue for financing the OBOR and began operations in January 2016.

Its 57-country founding membership largely (but not completely) overlaps with the OBOR map.

The Bank's Articles of Association states one of its core purposes is to "improve infrastructure connectivity in Asia by investing in infrastructure and other productive sectors" - the essence of what OBOR is all about.

OBOR is also backed by two other recent development finance initiatives - the Silk Road Investment Fund - funded from Chinese foreign exchange reserves, and the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) New Development Bank established in 2014.

Building the infrastructure needed for a prosperous and sustainable regional future is an aim shared by all parties to both OBOR and AIIB. But this does not mean there will not be tensions and conflicts on the way.

For example, obvious potential for conflicts exist when OBOR extends into sensitive areas with projects that are also funded (wholly or partly) by the AIIB. However the first four infrastructure projects financed by the AIIB are based in countries that generally close to China geopolitically.

Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, for example, are all members of the China-centred Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and all three states have benefitted from AIIB funding. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan benefit from the AIIB financed expressway extending from Dushanbe (capital of Tajikistan) to the Uzbek border. Pakistan benefits from the M4 highway project comprises 64 kilometres of tarmac stretching from Shorkot to Khanewal in Punjab province.

Continued below.

Related Content

Pakistan is also India's nuclear neighbour and frequent adversary. This M4 highway is a concern for the Indian government as it worries about the strategic implications of plans for a China-Pakistan economic corridor.

However the fact that early AIIB-financed projects have been based in countries closely aligned to China doesn't mean that China can control infrastructure development in Asia through its role in the AIIB. In particular, all except one of the first four AIIB-financed projects are co-financed with other international development banks.

In Pakistan, the Asian Development Bank is the lead financier for the M4 highway project on behalf of AIIB and the UK Department for International Development. In Tajikistan, the AIIB works with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. A third project, a slum improvement project in Indonesia, is co-financed by AIIB and the World Bank.

China is still feeling its way towards being able to facilitate an infrastructure framework for the region.

AIIB framework agreements tie the bank into a network of global alliances, guidelines and principles governing development finance, project assessment and management. These include not only fiduciary principles and standards, but also standards for reporting and transparency, for meeting environmental guidelines in project management and for internal governance. This includes integrity and anti-corruption measures, which the AIIB will need to absorb and respect.

AIIB is currently building a set of internal operational policies that are largely in line with those of other development banks. These include an Operational Policy on International Relations to address potentially complex issues arising in connection with politically sensitive projects, including those based in a disputed land area or an international waterway.

Just like its international peers, the AIIB has been criticised for its lack of transparency and willingness to consult. Civil society representatives at the first AIIB AGMs held in June 2016 were offered little more than a chance to listen to two 90-minute seminars on a Sunday morning by way of access.

What remains to be seen is whether and how the AIIB will honour the commitments made in its own Public Information Interim Policy (January 2016) to "enhancing transparency and accountability in all its activities".

The rounds of public consultation on an Energy Strategy Issue Note recently issued by the AIIB are promising. Cause for concern is the scope of the various exemption clause provisions in the Public Information Interim Policy. These allow third parties, including project partners and member countries, to provide information to the AIIB on condition that the information will not be publicly disclosed.

Together with its AIIB partners, China is still feeling its way towards being able to facilitate an infrastructure framework for the region. What can be said is that neither the AIIB nor OBOR can be seen as simply a tool for furthering China's geopolitical strategic interests. Both provide additional forums where China can engage with regional neighbours and forge international infrastructure linkages.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Alice de Jonge is a senior lecturer, international law; Asian business law, at Monash University.

Share this article

5 Comments

of The old sage

- New Zealand
11:44 am Sunday 06 November 2016
Under its new leader China is becoming 'Putinised' where distrust of a fictional west is fomented and heavy state control and purging of dissenters is commonplace. China will become more and more of a threat as it pours more and more money into the military and steps up its bullying of smaller surrounding countries.

I note that Tibet is no longer mentioned and even our government cowtows to Chinese politics. Russia has waved a new terrifying nuclear missile at the world. The left are strangely silent. China is attempting to strangle the South China Sea and, again, silence.

manchot

-
11:44 am Sunday 06 November 2016
China is a dictatorship and dictatorships are never transparent. Its aim is world dominance, no argument possible on that , so simply rolling over as NZ does is just going to make them worse. Dictators only respect strength so it will pay to be strong, seen to be strong and refuse to give in which would be a complete reversal of Key's current policy. You don't want to look around in fifty years and wonder where your freedom went: I'll be dead by then, probably, but my granddaughters will be alive in NZ and I'd prefer them to be free.

Yes I realise it's nice to have cheap underpants (thanks Joe Bennett) but mine aren't Chinese, I make sure before I buy. Hard to believe that anyone is deceived by all this posturing and a senior lecturer in international law ought to be ashamed of writing such drivel!

jockeyboy

- New Zealand
11:43 am Sunday 06 November 2016
Transparency first, then contract out infrastructure maybe? Have a close look at the unbelieveably shoddy infrastructure carried out by Chinese contractors in West Africa. Let's not be too quick to sell out.

Andrew P Nichols

- Australia
11:43 am Sunday 06 November 2016
For all its flaws it is at least a beneficial investment in people and their propserity. In contrast Washington offers only military endeavours with the anti China Pivot to Asia that benefits noone in Asia.

This is why the Filipinos are bailing on it and engaging with the Chinese. They understand that China vandalised that reef in the South China Sea to protect its sea lanes from potential closure by the US in the PTA strategy. Manila might not agree with it or like it but clearly think being used by Washington in this dispute is a mugs game with no benefit.

Gandalf

- St Heliers
11:42 am Sunday 06 November 2016
So you appear to be worried whether Chinese government and business is transparent and open.

Are you seriously suggesting western government and business is transparent? I hear the words commercial confidentiality / sensitivity virtually on a daily basis, regularly used as a weak excuse to hide all sorts of things.

Shame on all their houses.

More Business