The Belt and Road Initiative
nation cannot repay its project, it defaults on the loans, leaving half-finished airports and stadiums. After the dust has settled, China approaches the recipient with a second offer it cannot refuse; either the nation declares bankruptcy or China forgives the loan in return for concessions, usually a piece of sovereign territory. This territory can then be used to station the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to extend China's military outreach and enhance its power projection (TRT World, 2017). This is where the string of pearls theory enters. Advocates of this theory claim that China is using the BRI in order to encircle its regional rival, India, militarily. The ’ string of pearls ’ theory suggests that the Belt and Road initiative is linked to the seizure of assets using debt-trap and is used to show where territory will be seized. This is done with the ultimate goal of encircling India by controlling the seized ports and assets as part of a larger geopolitical strategy. Many people believe this to be a form of neocolonialism. They believe that the deployment of troops and ships can serve as a deterrent against actions that Beijing may disapprove of by recipient nations. On the surface, debt-trap diplomacy does seem to be an accurate assessment of the intentions of the BRI. After all, it provides a clear political explanation, with supposedly clear evidence used to back it up. One example cited would be the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. This port started construction in January 2008, 100 miles northwest of the world's 24th-ranked port at the time, Colombo (Hillman, 2020). Therefore, it appears unreasonable that such a port should be built, as there was already capacity to handle incoming ships. Furthermore, the project had multiple issues and disagreements, including questions about its financial sustainability and potential environmental effects, suggesting the port opened primarily for political reasons. Despite these obstacles, the port opened for business in 2010 (Staff, 2021). As experts predicted, Hambantota Port eventually experienced difficulties, drawing substantial commercial and maritime traffic, which has resulted in financial losses and problems for Sri Lanka with debt payments. This meant that by 2016, the port began experiencing a loss of $230 billion (Staff, 2021). By 2017, Sri Lanka was forced to give the port and around 15000 acres to China as a 'special economic zone' after defaulting on its debts (Staff, 2021). Moreover, Sri Lanka could be considered a crucial pearl in the string of pearls theory because it is strategically located along one of the most significant shipping lanes that connect Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. China's substantial contribution to the development of Hambantota Port is also consistent with the string of pearls strategy's overarching goals of encircling India. Concerns regarding China's ambitions and expanding influence in the Indian Ocean region have been expressed by China’s rivals in response to Chinese financing and building of port facilities. The string of pearls theory's detractors contend that China's participation in initiatives like Hambantota Port may result in heavy military build-up and the construction of naval installations, which would upset the geopolitical equilibrium in the area. And is surely a political intention. Beijing also claims that political intentions are a serious motivator of the BRI. However, it does not depict its intentions as benevolent rather than malicious. It claims that BRI projects will encourage transparency, clear and humanitarian development, a political motivation that mixes regulation with unchecked economic development. The CCP frequently states that the BRI will ’ Operate in the sun and fight corruption together with zero tolerance ’ and that this will be achieved through the Beijing initiative for a clean Silk Road to ensure their 'commitment to transparency and clean governance' (Xi,
164
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker