Truong Minh Vu
新加坡东南亚研究所访问学者
Since its announcement, backers of the Master Plan for ASEAN Connectivity 2025 (MPAC 2025) have called for cooperation between it and China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (MSR). The ASEAN Ports Network, a facet of MPAC 2025 intended to connect 47 ports across the 10 ASEAN nations, would seem to be a perfect point of infrastructural cooperation between China and ASEAN. But the shift in geopolitical calculations resulting from such a partnership could cost ASEAN more than it bargained for.
ASEAN has not yet promoted transportation infrastructure projects as part of the MPAC 2025 because of a lack of funding. During the ASEAN summit in November 2016, experts estimated that the region would require up to $110 billion in infrastructure investment yearly in order to bridge the infrastructure gap between developed and developing economies in the region. This figure was twice the amount put forward by the Asia Development Bank (ADB) in 2015, which was about $60 billion per year.
Under such circumstances, the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative of China, together with financial institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Silk Road Fund, breathes new life into ASEAN’s connectivity hopes. During the 17th ASEAN – China Summit in 2014, ASEAN officials said they “appreciated China’s continued support” in realizing MPAC, while at the same time “expect[ing] AIIB to provide financial support to regional infrastructure projects, with an emphasis on supporting the implementation of the MPAC.”
Although the argument for Beijing’s investment in the ASEAN Ports Network may have a solid financial foundation, it lacks a strategic understanding of the MSR. China has its own calculations in connecting infrastructure that ASEAN strategists should carefully consider. There are two motives underpinning Beijing’s infrastructure politics.
The first is unifying different types of infrastructure, including roads, railways, ports, waterways, as well as manufacturing, logistic, and storage zones for Chinese enterprises in the region. Beijing has carried out similar models in Africa, and the recent proposal for the “East Coast Rail Line” in Malaysia follows this blueprint. According to a Straits Times report, the construction of new roads and flyovers from the port complex to a nearby industrial park is almost complete, and the East Coast Rail Line project will connect ports on both coasts of peninsular Malaysia to Kuantan Port.
The second motive is building secondary trade routes that avoid the major bottleneck of the Strait of Malacca. Currently, China has as many as 29 of its 39 maritime routes, around 60 percent of exported and imported goods, and 80 percent of its imported oil going through this strait. Leaders in Beijing have long wrestled with this security dilemma – describing Malacca as a “knot at the top of a neck” without any easy solution. With this strategic weakness in mind, China does not want any roadways or waterways they develop to lead to ports around the South China Sea, necessitating transit through the Straits of Malacca. Instead, China is making efforts to build alternative routes that connect to the Indian Ocean over land, bypassing the bottleneck.
China has promoted the construction of several railways across Southeast Asia since 2010, including two routes in Thailand and Laos (which did not start until the end of 2015), and a planned railway connecting China to the Indian Ocean through Myanmar. That intended railway route, which would carry oil, gas, and goods between Kyaukpyu Port on the west coast of Myanmar and Kunming in southern China, will connect to the Bangladesh, China, India, and Myanmar Economic Corridor and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. At that point, China would have three routes bypassing the Straits of Malacca. These three routes will not only be shorter, but also much more secure for China.
Connected infrastructure can function as a tool of power. Dominant powers will try to reshape regional infrastructure to meet their self-interests. The Suez and Panama Canals and their tumultuous histories are clear evidence of the import placed on transportation and trade infrastructure. Their importance as transportation hubs for the hegemonic power projection of the United Kingdom and the United States also cannot be overstated.
ASEAN’s hopes for transportation connectivity with China leading to increased profit for all fail to take into account China’s wider strategic view. Though China’s statements about OBOR align with ASEAN financial aspirations, these infrastructure systems hold a very different strategic weight for Beijing than they do for ASEAN. If strategists in Southeast Asia do not take this into account, the new infrastructural connections—which would tie Southeast Asian nations individually to China, rather than connecting China with ASEAN as a whole—would pose a threat to ASEAN connectivity, a key principle in the strength of the organization. By dividing and conquering, China will exert a powerful influence over each ASEAN country.
自其公布的东盟,连接2025主计划的支持者(MPAC 2025)呼吁与中国的第二十一世纪海上丝绸之路的合作(MSR)。东盟港口网络,一方面连接47端口MPAC 2025打算在东盟10国,似乎是一个中国与东盟之间的基础设施合作完美点。但转变地缘政治考量从这种伙伴关系产生的成本可能比预料的东盟。
东盟尚未推进交通基础设施项目作为MPAC的2025部分是因为缺乏资金。在2016十一月举行的东盟峰会期间,专家估计,该地区每年将需要高达1100亿美元的基础设施投资,以弥补该地区发达国家和发展中国家之间的基础设施差距。这个数字是亚洲发展银行(ADB)在2015年度的两倍,约为每年600亿美元。
在这种情况下,一个带一路(OBOR)倡议中国,加上金融机构如亚洲基础设施投资银行(AIIB)和丝绸之路基金,注入新的生命希望东盟连通性。在第十七东盟?2014中国峰会,东盟官员说他们“赞赏中国继续支持“在实现MPAC,同时“希望[和] AIIB提供金融支持区域基础设施建设项目,以支持MPAC的实施的一个重点。”
虽然北京在东盟港口网络投资的说法可能有一个坚实的财政基础,它缺乏的MSR的战略认识。中国在基础设施建设,连接东盟战略家应仔细考虑,有它自己的计算。北京基础设施政治有两种动机。
首先是统一不同类型的基础设施,包括道路,铁路,港口,水路,以及制造,物流和存储区为中国企业在该地区。北京在非洲进行了类似的模式,最近提出的“东海岸铁路线”在这一蓝图如下在马来西亚。据海峡时报报道,从港口复杂的新的道路和立交桥附近的一个工业园区的建设几乎是完整的,和东海岸铁路线工程将连接两岸的马来西亚半岛关丹港港口。
第二个动机是建立次要贸易路线,以避免马六甲海峡的主要瓶颈。目前,中国有多达29的39的海上航线,大约百分之60的出口和进口的商品,而进口石油的百分之80要通过这一海峡。北京的领导人一直在与这种安全困境?形容马六甲为“死结”,没有任何简单的解决办法。在这个战略弱点,中国不希望任何道路或水路发展导致环南海港口,需要通过马六甲海峡。相反,中国正在努力建设的替代路线,连接在陆地上的印度洋,绕过瓶颈。
中国推动了整个南洋的几个铁路建设自2010以来,包括在泰国和Laos两条航线(不到2015年底开始),并计划通过中国铁路连接缅甸到印度洋。预期铁路路线,将进行油、气、和商品之间的皎漂港,在西海岸的缅甸和昆明华南,将连接到孟加拉,中国,印度,缅甸经济走廊和中国吗?巴基斯坦经济走廊。在这一点上,中国将有三条航线绕过马六甲海峡。这三条航线不仅将更短,也更安全的中国。
连接基础设施可以作为一种权力工具。主导力量将重塑区域基础设施以满足自身利益。苏伊士和巴拿马运河和动荡的历史是明确的证据进口放在交通和贸易基础设施。他们对于英国的霸权力量投射和美国交通枢纽的重要性也不能被夸大。
东盟希望与中国领先的为所有没有考虑到中国更广泛的战略观的利润增加的交通连接。虽然中国的言论奥博尔配合东盟金融的愿望,这些基础设施系统拥有一个非常不同的战略重北京比他们做的东盟。如果战略家在南洋不考虑到这一点,新的基础设施的连接,将东南亚国家单独的中国,而不是连接中国与东盟作为一个整体将对东盟连通性的威胁,在该组织的强度的一个重要原则。采用分治,中国将对东盟各国有着强大的影响。