长安街知事 | 记者 刘晓琰 实习生 张信云
在10月18日举办的第三届“一带一路”国际协作高峰论坛智库沟通专题论坛上，印度“新南亚论坛”创始人苏廷德拉·库尔卡尼表明，他十分有决心，印度有一天肯定会参加“一带一路”主张。
理由有两点，关于印度来说，假如其西部和东部区域不好我国以及其他邦邻协作，是不或许真实顺利展开的。另一方面，南亚区域总人口一共有18亿，假如没有印度的协作，就少了许多人。
现在，印度政界、商界和学界怎么看待“一带一路”主张？在其时地缘政治布景下，印度是否有或许把与我国的一些龃龉放置一旁，在可承受的状况下参加“一带一路”？未来印度将怎么“落子”，是参加一个经济愈加强盛的东方，仍是一个政治愈加强势的西方？
印度前史学家、三大洲社会研讨所履行董事维贾伊·普拉萨德（Vijay Prashad）就“一带一路”主张和中印联络等与记者进行了共享。
“一带一路”是个破例
知事：您眼里的“一带一路”是一个什么样的主张，整体形象怎么？
维贾伊·普拉萨德：“一带一路”主张提呈现已10年了，它十分年青，正处于鼎盛时期。考虑到人类文明稀有千年的前史，或许不应对一个发生只要十年的事物点评过高，但“一带一路”是个破例。
为什么这么说？因为“一带一路”指向了人类前史上最令人兴奋的展开方向。自20世纪40年代以来，虽然许多殖民地国家从殖民统治者手中争取了独立，但一向受制于向西方借钱或为西方商场出产制成品的展开窘境。在适当长的时间里，第三国际国家不断呼吁拟定另一种展开议程——包含1974年联合国大会通过了《树立国际经济新秩序宣言》——但真实的代替方案一向未能完成。
十年来，“一带一路”主张初次在布雷顿森林系统之外，为展开我国家供给了另一种挑选，那便是出资根底设施和工业化。
巴基斯坦瓜达尔港材料图。
印度和我国的联络近年来遭受了一些波折，好像有人一向在火上浇油。这种形势阻止印度进行理性的考虑，不利于展开制作性的评论，比方说“一带一路”主张在东南亚发挥了什么效果？它怎么使那里的公民获益？印度的人们在面对事实时变得优柔寡断，相反，他们倾向于令人不安的宣传话术。
这不是印度所需求的，咱们有必要以事实为根底进行考虑。我从我国的展开成果中学到最重要的一课便是“摸着石头过河”。你得摸一下石头，理性分辩石头与水，不要企图直接越过河。
惋惜的是，在我国以外的亚洲区域，无论是对“一带一路”主张，仍是其他有价值的展开项目，严厉的学术探讨仍有缺少。我十分等待有一天，印度和我国能够放下边界争端，在理性、科学的准则根底上进行互动，脱节陈腐和令人不安的知道形态的捆绑。
知事：曩昔两年，美国和欧盟先后提出了“重建美好国际”主张、“全球根底设施和出资伙伴联络”和“全球门户”方案，本年印度也参加了美国提出的印度—中东—欧洲经济走廊（IMEC），这一新主张与“一带一路”主张竞赛的意味稠密。当咱们查找要害词时，报导频率最高的是印度媒体，印度好像热衷于这项主张。据您了解，这项主张现在有何开展？印度垂青这项基建方案吗？
维贾伊·普拉萨德：“全球南边”和第三国际里有许多无足轻重的大国，比方印度、印度尼西亚、尼日利亚、巴西等等，这些都是十分重要的经济体。每个经济体都有必要考量自己的国家利益，因而有必要拟定自己的根底设施方案。
以印尼为例，他们需求考虑什么对印尼公民有利，特别是考虑到自20世纪70年代末以来长时间施行的新自由主义方针的影响。其时许多国家的政府都没有真实本国利益或公民福祉放在首位。相反，它们专心于取悦资本商场，保证取得评级组织的正面评级。
现在，咱们正在目击的这种习尚的改变。各国政府开端诘问“什么才真实契合咱们的国家利益”，“什么才是公民的最大利益”。在研讨这种改变时，印度是一个耐人寻味的事例。至少自1991年以来，印度处在一个过渡阶段，从一开端各种问题上谨记于美国和西方，到后来才逐步清晰自己的利益。印度和我国的长时间边界争端能够追溯到20世纪50年代，并在1962年以战役方法到达高峰。至今，印度和我国之间的严重联络没有彻底处理。这便是我要讲的内容的布景。
首要，以为西方彻底有才能在经济或商业上与我国竞赛，是不精确的。因为西方政府，乃至西方企业所能调集的出资水平，远不及我国政府和其他国家政府乐意投入的资金水平。这与西方国家国内的情绪有关，那些国家的有钱人不乐意在本国出资，而是挑选将他们的钱藏在被称之为“避税天堂”的国家。事实上，高达38万亿美元的西方资金潜伏在避税天堂，以此躲避交税，也就无法用于出资。
因而，现在西方在这方面底子无法与我国这样的国家竞赛，乃至无法与具有许多主权财富基金的中东国家竞赛。它们主张一些像IMEC这样的主张，也无法真实落到实处。因为它们没有像我国公民银行或海湾区域的主权财富基金相同有才能供给许多资金，乃至不如挪威等国的主权财富基金的规划。
其次，就IMEC而言，咱们需求清晰一点，即沙特阿拉伯和阿拉伯联合酋长国是IMEC的要害参加者，它们在国际原油出产中占有重要位置。它们也深度参共建“一带一路”。在沙特王储穆罕默德·本·萨勒曼领导的“2030愿景”全面规划中，我国出资发挥着至关重要的效果。因而，IMEC不是作为“一带一路”主张或我国出资的代替呈现，二者更多是一种平行展开的联络。
事实上，当我查看IMEC地图时，我注意到列出的两个港口只要部分由“一带一路”主张赞助。所以，从本质上讲，IMEC并不是真的要代替“一带一路”。我以为“竞赛”是媒体在传达的一个松懈的概念，在我看来，二者正在按各自的节奏独立推进。
平行展开自身并没有什么错，事实上，现在假如再有相似的展开主张，它们相同应该遭到欢迎。各国都需求加大对根底设施和工业化的出资。试想，假如“一带一路”主张起到催化剂的效果，促进各国加大对绿色根底设施和工业化的出资，将到达一个活跃的成果，“一带一路”能够成为推进制作工厂、避免公民赋闲的动力。坦率地说，我不以为这里边是一场竞赛。在我看来，这种层级的竞赛需求投入巨量的资源，超出了任何一个国家的极限。
咱们不应该用暗斗思想来看待这个问题，虽然那是美国一向在做的。在亚洲，上述主张带来的前进理应被视为活跃的举动。咱们的重视要点应当聚集于怎么完成终究的方针：处理饥饿、文盲等难题以及它们带来的应战。制作引人瞩意图根底设施项目仅仅手法，这一切意图是为了消除人们遭受的磨难。
印度的中产阶级现已知道到了
知事：现在印度没有参加“一带一路”主张，它与我国在其他范畴的协作是否有开展？是否在双边协作或其他区域主张中找到了协作时机？
维贾伊·普拉萨德：印度和我国都是金砖国家和二十国集团（G20）的重要成员。在本年的G20峰会上，印度作为东道主，把会议要点放在了展开，而不是深化评论俄乌抵触等政治问题。在这些多边场合，印度和我国有满足的空间进行评论和促进协作。
中印协作的潜力和范畴也具有巨大的扩展空间。在高科技范畴，印度想尽力展开高铁，但苦于铁路系统未晋级，以及缺少技能手法。众所周知，我国的高铁技能领跑国际，印中若能携手，或许发生惊人的效果。反过来，印度在互联网技能和软件工程方面位居国际前列，我国也能从相关协作中取得巨大的互补收益。
中印两个大国的人口占国际近一半，协作潜力巨大。跟着全球重心向亚洲搬运，这种协作联络将进一步增强亚洲的影响力。
值得注意的是，直到十年前，印度在很大程度上仍是坚持西方的观念，尤其是在政治和经济问题上，根本奉行新自由主义。但近年来，印度的中产阶级现已知道到，印度与西方的密切联络并没有带来实质性的优点，西方缺少为印度经济增加进行必要出资的志愿和资源。
这种情绪的改变具有重要含义，并在金砖国家和G20中引起了共识。曾有一段时间，G20好像变成了G7对其他13个国家施加影响的渠道，更像是“G7 +”，而不是真实具有代表性的G20。
但这一状况现已发生了显着改变。现在，无论是G20仍是金砖国家，都勃发出新的生机。金砖国家扩大到11个成员国，包含埃塞俄比亚（中非协作的要害国家）和阿根廷（南美洲仅次于巴西的第二大经济体）等国。这些国家是区域经济大国，政治含义严重。
本年的G20峰会是在印度举办的，未来两年，G20峰会还将继续在两个金砖国家巴西和南非举办。“全球南边”的兴起为这些国家供给了严重的议程设定潜力，它们的优先事项不用定与西方议程共同。
9月10日，巴西正式“接槌”成为二十国集团新一任轮值主席国。
知事：您以为在其时地缘政治布景下，印度是否有或许把与我国的一些龃龉放置一旁，在可承受的状况下参加“一带一路”？
维贾伊·普拉萨德：我以为这是一个具有应战性的问题，假如要到达这一步，印度和我国都有许多作业要做。
在我国，印度被视为一个悠远的当地，印度对我国也是这么看的，但实际上咱们是邦邻。一起，坐落印度和我国之间的尼泊尔正在尽力拉近中印两国的联络。中印联络对尼泊尔、不丹和该区域的其他几个国家都发生了直接影响。
因而，中印不只要在政治上挨近，更要进行文明沟通。当我在我国游览时，我惊奇地发现我国人对印度知之甚少。相同，在印度，你也会发现人们不了解我国。中印两国的民众往往更了解欧洲和美国，而不是作为邦邻的互相。这是殖民前史导致的后果，两国公民对喜马拉雅山脉另一边五光十色的文明知道有限。
当印度中产阶级到我国游览，他们总是会惊叹于我国的高铁。这不只仅是关于火车，也是人与人之间的沟通。我深信，交际逾越政治，文明沟通的桥梁制作有必要按部就班。就像摸着石头过河相同，有些石头是政治的，有些是文明的，你不能越过这条河。
知事：我国的展开路途是当今全球热议的论题。许多国家欣赏我国的展开路途，也有些国家将我国描绘为所谓“扩张性国家”。您怎么看待我国的人物，以及我国在亚洲和在全球的形象和影响？
维贾伊·普拉萨德：西方依然主导着全球传达和媒体影响力，美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）和《纽约时报》等西方媒体在推进议程方面有着惊人的话语权，部分原因在于他们对卫星和互联网的操控。言语也起着必定的效果，即便西方媒体用法语制造内容，也会很快被翻译成英语。中文在这一方面存在必定短板，咱们常常称这种现象为“普通话长城”，但好在我国展开出了自己的交际媒体渠道，在信息传达方面取得了长足的前进。
传达的差异不只体现在媒体层面，也在于叙事自身，文明问题和树立自己的传达网络至关重要。例如，美国国务卿布林肯和美国财政部长耶伦对中非协作极尽诬蔑之能事，乃至运用“殖民主义”这样的词来诽谤我国，这种说法不只能在西方媒体上大举传达，也能在非洲媒体上传达，足见西方对全球传达的影响力之大。
彭博社曾在一篇报导中说我国在斯里兰卡汉班托塔制作的港口是一个“债款圈套”，多年来，这个说法广为流传。但是，美国学者在细心研讨了该港口的具体状况后，在《大西洋月刊》上发表文章指出，这不是“债款圈套交际”。我国曾主张斯里兰卡政府分两期承受这笔资金：首要制作港口，在港口能盈余后再用收益为其他部分供给资金。但其时斯里兰卡政府坚持一次性悉数拿走这笔钱，导致了工作的复杂化，归于斯里兰卡政府的自主决议方案
彭博社还有一篇报导诽谤称“乌干达仅有的国际机场要被我国接收了”。我自动与乌干达政府联络，并与当地公民攀谈，发现了这种说法并不精确，其实是乌干达政府对合同的细则查看不细心，我国也无意接收该机场。虽然如此，彭博社的报导现已广泛传达了，导致“我国正在接收机场”的流言继续存在。
咱们现在没有一个真实民主的全球传达系统，这对我国来说是一个应战。但这不是我国独有的问题，任何企图走不同于西方路途的国家都会面对相似的妨碍，这阻止了他们精确表达自己的主张。
即便在“一带一路”主张提出十周年之际，我也没有在西方媒体上看到一篇公正的考虑。英国广播公司（BBC）和其他媒体都未能对这一主张做出客观评价。要害问题仍未得到答复：“一带一路”主张究竟是什么？需求多少资金？是否对那些步履维艰的国家发生了活跃影响？
但西方的传达影响力也并非强壮到无孔不入。西方媒体在报导以色列轰炸加沙时，往往偏袒以方。但最近，约旦王后拉尼娅承受CNN记者克里斯蒂安·阿曼普尔采访时清晰指出，以色列对加沙地带的轰炸是“大规划残杀”，并批判以色列的粗野行为，以色列政府不应为此辩解。考虑到她身为约旦王后的位置，乃至CNN也不得不播出这一观念。这说明一旦叙说变得满足强壮，媒体就无法进行操控。
全球再平衡的开展取决于中印
知事：在东西两个国际，印度一向不肯选边站队，是否因为印度不肯做“棋子”，哪怕是决议输赢的“棋子”，而是想做“棋手”？
维贾伊·普拉萨德：这是个风趣的问题，实际上很难答复，主要是因为印度在曩昔三四十年见证了不同的政治取向。上一任总理辛格领导下的中左翼政府执政了8年多，而现任总理莫迪来自右翼民族主义政党，这自然发生了两种不同的政治风格。
在辛格任期内，他在印度参加金砖国家的进程中发挥了要害效果，并表现出对树立一种新金融结构的稠密兴趣。在与美国坚持战略联络的一起，印度也主张了与我国政府的对话，加强了与海湾国家、印度尼西亚、越南和其他国家的联络，凸显出印度不想脱离亚洲的叙事方向。
2014年莫迪就任之初，印度政府对金砖国家的议程及相关方案显着疏远。但是，俄乌抵触推进了印度交际的改变。在美国的施压下，印度发现自己进退维谷，既要保护与俄罗斯的长时间联络，又要抵抗外部的评头论足。终究，乌克兰危机催化了印度交际方针的改变，促进印度与亚洲国家树立了更严密的联络。
其时，欧洲正因俄乌抵触而深陷危机，美国行将进行总统大选，下任领导人是谁尚不明亮，这为印度供给了时机。至于印度是否会借机与其他“全球南边”国家敞开新的对话，是否会自动与拉丁美洲国家树立新的联络，还不得而知。
我想重申，全球再平衡的开展取决于印度和我国找到利益共同点，战胜长时间存在的问题。上世纪50年代，周恩来总理和印度总理尼赫鲁屡次对话，我国同印度的友好联络蓬勃展开，其时印度的标语是“Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai”——我国印度亲如兄弟。假如现在咱们能重返那种热切联络，将是两国联络的重要一步。
在两国处理这些问题之前，咱们不会跳动到新时代，而将继续处于西方主导的国际秩序和以亚洲为重心的新时代兴起之间的过渡时期。为了完成亚洲成为国际重心的未来，咱们有必要首要处理印度和我国之间的不合。
知事：前不久的G20峰会上，印度终究站在了金砖国家阵营中一起对立G7。未来，印度更倾向于参加一个经济愈加强盛的东方，仍是一个政治愈加强势的西方？
维贾伊·普拉萨德：西方的政治主导位置不会继续太久了，事实上，这种改变现已发生了。在以色列轰炸加沙地带一事上，西方现已无法让其他国家，乃至海湾国家赞同西方的态度，更不用说非洲国家领导人了。西方在全球展开我国家中失去了政治节奏，这便是其时的实际。
但是，印度政府好像对其时国际上呈现的新机遇有些犹豫不定。虽然在公共场所，印度宣称不会承受任何人的指令，但它仍坚持亲美的态度。在许多方面，当华盛顿告知印度政府该怎么做时，印度政府不会回绝。这种对外部指令的依靠需求打破。印度不应该遵从美国的指令，它应该遵从自己公民的指示，这才是现代社会的含义地点。
当地时间4日，加沙地带一名巴勒斯坦男人在以色列空袭后查看被炸毁房子。
很显着，像印度这样幅员辽阔的国家——人口现已超越我国——有必要尽力处理贫穷问题。这一应战的处理答案不会在华盛顿，美国自身的贫穷率也在上升，而非下降。印度究竟应该怎么挑选，值得细心考虑。
图源：视觉我国
以下为本次采访的英文原文：
The Vijay Prashad Interview: “India's Diplomatic Chess: Striking a Balance Between East and West”
On October 18, at a thematic forum for think tank exchanges held as part of the Third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, Sudheendra Kulkarni, the founder of India’s Forum for a New South Asia, said he was very confident that India would definitely join the “Belt and Road” initiative one day.
There are two reasons, On the one hand, for India, if its western and eastern regions do not cooperate with China and other neighboring countries, it is impossible to really successful development. On the other hand, the population of the South Asian region totals 1.8 billion, which is a lot less without India’s cooperation.
How do Indian politicians, businessmen and academics view the Belt and Road Initiative? In the current geopolitical context, is it possible for India to put aside some of the disagreements with China and participate in the “Belt and Road” under acceptable circumstances? How will India “make its move” in the future, whether to join a more economically powerful East, or a more politically powerful West?
In collaboration with RDCY, Capital News has launched the “Global Governance Forum” section. Vijay Prashad, an Indian historian and executive director of Tricontinental Institute for Social Research shared his views on the Belt and Road Initiative, China-India relations and other issues with us.
A Decade of Ambition: The Youthful Vigor of the BRI
Capital News: What is your impression of the 'Belt and Road Initiative'?
Vijay Prashad:The Belt and Road Initiative is now 10 years old. It’s very young and in its prime. One shouldn’t have too overrated assessment of something that’s only 10 years old, given that recorded human civilization is thousands of years old.
Nonetheless, it represents an exciting development in the human history. Why is that? Firstly, it’s important to put it in the context of the global events since the 1940s, when many colonized countries achieved their independence from colonial rulers. After that, the former colonial powers implemented a development agenda from the top down, primarily centered around borrowing money from the West. This was aimed at enhancing the capacity of formerly colonized nations to export raw materials.
Certainly, there was some degree of industrialization and significant infrastructure development. However, this was largely geared towards either facilitating the export of raw materials or producing finished goods for Western markets. For a considerable period, despite persistent calls from Third World countries for an alternative development agenda — including the 1974 New International Economic Order resolution at the UN General Assembly — a genuine alternative failed to materialize.
The financial crisis in the West in 2007 and 2008 served as a wake-up call. The Chinese government, having amassed substantial surpluses and finding itself somewhat constrained in producing goods solely for Western markets, made the strategic shift towards the Third World through the Belt and Road Initiative. For the first time in decades, the Belt and Road Initiative has offered an alternative to the Bretton Woods System funding, which was largely again for export of other raw materials or goods. But now, we witness investments in infrastructure and industrialization. It remains to be seen how this will unfold in practice. Once again, we are dealing with a very young yet promising project.
Capital News: Over the past two years, the U.S. and the EU have put forth initiatives like the 'Build Back Better World,' 'Global Gateway,' and 'Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership.' This year, India also joined the U.S.-proposed IMEC, which seems to be in competition with China's BRI. When we search for keywords, it seems like the Indian media is really into this initiative, as it's getting a lot of coverage. From what you know, how is IMEC progressing at the moment? Does India place significant importance on this infrastructure plan?
Vijay Prashad:Look, there are lots of immensely important and large countries in the Global South, in the Third World, such as India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, and others. These are very important economies, each with their own set of national interests. This means they must develop their own infrastructure plans. Take Indonesia, for example. They need to consider what will benefit the Indonesian people, especially given the prolonged period of neoliberalism since the late 1970s.
Still just like yesterday, many governments were not genuinely prioritizing their national interests or the well-being of their citizens. Instead, they were focused on pleasing capital markets and ensuring positive ratings from agencies. However, we're beginning to witness a shift. Governments are now starting to ask, 'What truly serves our national interest?' For those leaning towards socialism, it's about considering what's in the best interest of the people. This represents a new development.
India is an interesting case study. India has been in a transition period, shifting from a position of considerable subordination to the United States and the West on various issues since at least 1991, to gradually articulating its own interests. There's no need to be bashful about it. India and China have a longstanding border dispute dating back to the 1950s, culminating in a war in 1962. So, there is a tension between India and China that is unresolved. This is the context for what I’m going to say.
First and foremost, it’s incorrect to assume that the West is fully equipped to economically or commercially compete with China. The level of investment that Western governments, and even Western corporations, can mobilize is nowhere near what the Chinese government and other governments are willing to commit. That has something to do with the attitude within Western countries where the rich are not willing to invest in their countries. It's symptomatic of a particularly cutthroat form of capitalist enterprise, where the wealthy opt to stash their money in tax havens. In fact, a staggering thirty-eight trillion dollars of Western capitalist funds lie dormant in tax havens, evading taxation and, consequently, remaining unavailable for investment. Therefore, the initial point to acknowledge is that, at present, the West simply cannot compete with countries like China, or even Middle Eastern nations boasting substantial sovereign wealth funds.
So, there’s some of these initiatives like IMEC and so on, but they’re not really serious. Because they don’t have the volume of capital that’s available from China's People's Bank or the sovereign wealth funds in the Gulf, and even those in countries like Norway. These latter entities wield vastly larger pools of capital, making a monumental difference.
Secondly, as far as IMEC is concerned specifically, let’s be a little clear here. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are pivotal players in IMEC, and they hold significant sway in the world of crude production. They are also deeply integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative. In Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, the comprehensive plan led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Chinese investment plays a crucial role. Therefore, IMEC doesn’t serve as a substitute for the BRI or Chinese investment; it appears to be a parallel development.
In fact, when I looked at the IMEC map, I noticed that two of the ports listed are only partially funded by the BRI. So, in essence, it’s not really a substitute. I think the notion of competition was a loose concept propagated in the media. In my view, it's more akin to a parallel progression.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with parallel developments. In fact, we should welcome them. More investment in infrastructure and industrialization is needed. Consider this: if the BRI acts as a catalyst, spurring nations to invest more in greener infrastructure and industrialization, it’s a positive outcome. The key takeaway here is that the BRI could be the driving force behind building factories and preventing your people to stay idle. To be candid, I don't see it as a competition. In my opinion, no one truly possesses the capacity to compete on that scale.
Now, if there are parallel developments, they should be welcomed. We shouldn't approach this with a Cold War mentality, even if that’s the way in which the United States is talking about it. In Asia, we should view these advancements as positive steps. Our primary focus should remain on our ultimate goal: eradicating hunger, illiteracy, and similar challenges. Our aim is not to have the most impressive infrastructure project; our aim is to eliminate the indignity of human suffering.
Capital News: How is the Indian political, business, and academic community currently viewing the 'Belt and Road' initiative?
Vijay Prashad:This dynamic between India and China is interesting, marked by various unfortunate and often exacerbated tensions. It seems as though someone is constantly adding fuel to the fire, intensifying the longstanding tension between these two nations.
This tension between India and China is rather blinding. It is preventing clear thinking, all tensions of this kind of very unfortunate, robbing us of the rational assessments that we should ideally be making. For instance, what role does the Belt and Road Initiative play in Myanmar? Is it genuinely benefiting the people there? Likewise, consider Sri Lanka and its economic struggles. Sri Lanka has gone through a lot of economic problems. Is this because of BRI, is it because of the Port of Hambantota? Not at all. A rational analysis shows that the economic woes stem from Sri Lankan elites relying on advice from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which, frankly, has often been ill-advised. Asian countries, including China, India, and Indonesia, haven’t forced the International Monetary Fund to give better guidance. This pattern continues, and countries like Sri Lanka and Pakistan suffer as a result.
I just want to be completely frank with you. This rise of tension between India and China don't facilitate constructive academic discourse; they actually skew it. People become hesitant to confront the facts, and instead, they lean towards uncomfortable propaganda. That's not what we need. We must build theories based on facts. One of the crucial lessons I've learned from Chinese Marxism is the idea of crossing the river by feeling the stones. You’ve got to feel the stones and don’t try to jump across the river. If you’re not thinking rationally, you don’t know the difference between the stone and water. Without rational thinking, that distinction becomes unclear.
Regrettably, in fact, across Asia, there is a dearth of serious academic exploration into the alternatives presented not just by the Belt and Road Initiative, but also by other valuable Asian development projects. Collaborations between India and Southeast Asian countries, for instance, deserve thorough study. Are they genuinely beneficial? Is it a true win-win scenario, as the Chinese say, a win-win? Or is it a win-lose? We can only discern this if we are not blinded by the current political fervor. I’m very much looking forward to a day when India and China can go down their border dispute, and establish a relationship grounded in rational, scientific principles, free from the constraints of worn-out and uncomfortable ideologies.
The Awakening of India's Middle Class
Capital News: Even though India hasn't joined the Belt and Road, is there any progress in cooperation with China in other areas? Have India and China found opportunities for collaboration in bilateral ventures or other regional initiatives?
Vijay Prashad:Yes, first and foremost, it’s important to point out that India and China are significant members of the BRICS project. Initially comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, the alliance has now expanded to include six more countries, notably Saudi Arabia and Iran. India holds a pivotal role within BRICS. India was the host of the G20 meeting in New Delhi, during which India emphasized the focus on development without delving into political matters like Ukraine. There's ample room for India and China to engage in discussions and foster collaboration. In fact, at the BRICS meeting in Johannesburg, where the alliance was expanded, China’s President Xi Jinping and India’s Prime Minister Modi spoke and said, listen, let’s get our people to start discussing the border issues again, because really deep, robust, proper collaboration is hampered by the lack of movement on the border issue.
It's worth remembering that just a decade ago, Russia and China grappled with a longstanding border dispute dating back to the 1950s. This dispute also led to armed conflict due to compelling political and economic interests. Russia’s President Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping resolved to address the issue, recognizing the need for a timely resolution. They can’t allow it to sit for another 78 years. It’s ridiculous. Small disputes are here and there, which can be fixed. Similarly, in the case of India and China, disputes like Aksai Chinn are not insurmountable. They do not necessitate ongoing armed conflicts. Instead, a rational approach can lead to a mutually beneficial solution. They can sit down and say, what’s the best solution before us? Because there’s too much to be gained. The leadership in both countries demonstrated their motivation to transcend these disputes and collaborate during their dialogue in Johannesburg.
Now, let's consider the potential of this collaboration. It extends to high-tech sectors, but not enough, there's room for expansion. For instance, India could greatly benefit from access to China's cutting-edge technologies, especially in areas like railways. For poor country, rail is the main way of both moving people and goods. Given India's reliance on rail transport for both passengers and goods, a technological upgrade is essential.Indian rail has not been properly upgraded, even though India is trying to develop high-speed rail. India doesn’t have the extraordinary technology that China possesses. In this realm, no country has the technology China has right now, China stands unrivaled globally, with France being a notable exception in high-speed rail systems. The synergy between India and China could yield incredible results.
China, in turn, stands to gain substantially. India boasts complementary strengths, particularly in internet technology and software engineering. The collaboration potential between these two major countries, representing nearly half the world's population, is immense. As the global center of gravity shifts towards Asia, this partnership could further amplify Asia's influence. However, ongoing disputes serve as a roadblock, hindering the realization of Asia's true potential.
Capital News: Just as you said, as both India and China are members of G20 and BRICS group, how do you see the roles that these two countries play in BRICS cooperation? What impact does this cooperation have on the global economy and the governance system?
Vijay Prashad:This shift in India's stance is noteworthy. Until about a decade ago, India largely adhered to Western perspectives, particularly on political and economic matters. The country was a strong advocate for various forms of economic liberalization.
Similarly, China favored liberalization, albeit with careful capital controls in place to shield its financial markets from global speculative pressures. India too has protective measures, maintaining limits on full capital convertibility.
Until about 10 years ago, India was pretty much a champion of Neo-liberalism and globalization. However, there has been a notable shift in recent years. And it’s important. This transformation is being propelled by a new perspective within the Indian middle class, who have come to realize that India's close ties with the West haven't yielded substantial benefits. The West lacks the inclination and resources to make the investments needed for India's growth. So that change of mood is quite significant. And This shift in sentiment carries significant weight and resonates in institutions like the BRICS and the G20.
For not a long period, only around 5 or 6 years, the BRICS group was largely dormant. This dormancy is reflected in the limited progress of the New Development Bank, often referred to as the BRICS bank. Now Dilma Rousseff serves as the President of New Development Bank (NDB) based in Shanghai. For a considerable period, progress at NDB, such as the contingency reserve arrangement—an alternative to the International Monetary Fund—had stalled, almost lying dormant. Many pivotal BRICS institutions had faced setbacks, as countries like India and Brazil, under unfavorable circumstances, had largely distanced themselves from these initiatives.
The G20 had gradually morphed into a platform where the G7 wielded substantial influence over the remaining 13 nations, resembling more of a 'G7 plus' rather than a truly representative G20. However, a turning point came at the G20 meeting in Indonesia, and it's crucial to note that this year's G20 was hosted in India. For the next four years, the G20 will convene in BRICS countries, spanning from Brazil to South Africa—Indonesia, India, Brazil, and South Africa. This extended presence in the Global South provides these nations with significant agenda-setting potential, and their priorities are not necessarily aligned with those of the Western agenda.
There is a discernible shift underway. I don’t want to exaggerate this point. We must acknowledge and document this change. Both in the G20 and within the BRICS group, there's a renewed sense of vigor. The expansion of BRICS to include 11 members, bringing in countries like Ethiopia—a key country for the China-Africa initiative—and potentially Argentina, who knows what will happen in that election, but is nonetheless the second largest economy in South America after Brazil, is noteworthy. These are large economies and politically significant countries, even if they aren't originally part of the BRICS initiative. This prompts us to question: What does this transformation signify? It stems from a fresh perspective emanating from Delhi, Beijing, Pretoria, and Brazil. We must be careful in comprehending the shifts, understanding how these dynamics unfold.
Again, as you can see, I don’t like to exaggerate things. Progress is best achieved by cautiously navigating through challenges, much like feeling the stones as you cross a river. You have to go slowly, to move methodically and deliberately, rather than jumping over and proclaiming a significant change, especially when it comes to the new developments within BRICS. You can’t think as if you’re an advertising executive, you can’t just put billboards and slogans and neon lights and get excited. Instead, maintaining sober and analytical approach, scrutinizing the facts as they emerge, is of utmost importance.
Capital News: Do you think, given the current geopolitical scenario, there's a chance India might put aside its differences with China in diplomatic relations and participate in the 'Belt and Road' on terms it finds acceptable, without compromising its sovereignty?
Vijay Prashad:It’s a challenging situation, there’s a lot of work to be done both in India and China. This is not just in India, but both countries. I've written articles for Guangzhou media, and sometimes my friends read the comments, complaining that I make sense 'for an Indian' or 'this Indian blah, blah, blah.' There is a sense of distance in both countries. In China, India is seen as a faraway place, and the same goes for India regarding China. For god’s sake, it's worth noting that we actually share borders, which is precisely why there's a dispute. Additionally, we have Nepal situated in between, working diligently to bring India and China closer. The tensions between India and China have a direct impact on Nepal, Bhutan, and several other countries in the region. It impacts a lot of countries that’s sitting in between. It's imperative for both nations to not only establish political proximity, but also engage in cultural dialogues.
That’s important. And I think the meeting between China’s President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Modi was significant. They emphasized the need for a political conversation about maps, borders, and geography. However, cultural exchanges are equally vital. It’s striking to me when I travel in China, how little people in China know about India. Similarly, in India, when you travel in India, you will find that people are often uninformed about China. In both India and China, people tend to be more familiar with Europe and the United States than with each other. This is a regrettable consequence of colonial history, where there is limited awareness that just beyond the Himalayas lies a rich tapestry of civilizations. India itself is not a monolithic entity. It comprises hundreds of languages, with twenty-seven or twenty-eight recognized as official, alongside two main national languages, each with its own wealth of cultures, traditions, and history.
China, too, possesses a wealth of history, encompassing not only ancient times but also the revolutionary era. For instance, details about the Long March to Yunnan or the Jiangxi Soviet are often inaccessible to people in India due to cultural barriers. Overcoming this cultural divide is crucial. I contend that it's not solely about political leaders understanding the practical benefits of sharing complementarity, which is economically advantageous for both nations. There's a deep-seated cultural need that must be addressed. People won't truly welcome each other until there are cultural exchanges, more travel from China to India and vice versa.
When members of the Indian middle class visit China and experience the high-speed train from Shanghai to Beijing, they are invariably amazed. It's not just about the trains; it's also about the exchange between people. People need to get to know one another. I firmly believe that diplomacy extends beyond politics; it's about understanding each other. When a Chinese diplomat meets me, I recognize that they approach interactions from a different perspective. While I may speak candidly, others may exercise caution, seeking to build trust through understanding. This cultural bridge must be constructed gradually, much like feeling the stones while crossing a river. Some of these stones are in our politics, while others are cultural. You can’t jump over the river.
Therefore, I'm hesitant to make claims like 'in six months, we can resolve the border dispute and everything will be fine.' We may indeed reach some form of understanding or memorandum of understanding regarding the border dispute, hopefully within three, six, or twelve months. I can't say for certain if diplomats are currently engaged in discussions behind closed doors, but I sincerely hope that's the case.
While such progress is welcome, it's not the end-all-be-all. India boasts extraordinary people. Where do they go for holidays? Often, the Indian middle class aspires to visit Europe or Thailand, but they may not immediately consider a trip to China. Similarly, it would be intriguing to examine the numbers of tourists from China visiting India and vice versa. I suspect the figures may not be very high, though I can't say for certain.
Capital News: China's development path is a topic of global discussion today. Many countries appreciate China's development approach, while some portray it as a so-called "expansionist nation." How do you perceive China's role? What is your perspective on China's image and influence in Asia and globally?
Vijay Prashad:One thing I can say for sure is that in terms of global communication, and media influence, the West continues to hold a dominant position. Nobody really is able to contest. CNN, for instance, can effectively challenge the New York Times. Their capacity to drive an agenda is remarkable, partly due to their control over satellites and the internet. A significant portion of the web is essentially owned by Western entities. Language plays a role as well. Even when Western media produces content in languages like French, it quickly finds its way into English. On the Chinese side, we often refer to the 'Great Wall of Mandarin.' China has indeed made strides by developing its own social media platforms like Weibo and WeChat.
This disparity extends not only to official media outlets, which boast large viewerships, but also to the narrative itself. CNN's viewership far surpasses that of international channels like CGTN or RT. The West has been remarkably successful in constructing hardware and networks to dominate the communication landscape. An interesting fact is that Elon Musk, through his company, personally owns more satellites than the entire government of China. This raises pertinent questions that deserve examination.
Moreover, the issue of culture and building one's own networks is crucial. For example, a statement by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken or Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen regarding Chinese expansion in Africa, even using inappropriate terms like 'colonialism,' can resonate not just in Western media but also in African outlets. This highlights the magnitude of Western influence over global communication.
One aspect that warrants serious consideration in understanding global affairs is this communication shortfall. It's intriguing to observe instances where Western media companies, faced with situations like the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, struggle to maintain a narrative favoring one side. Recently, Queen Rania of Jordan spoke with Christiane Amanpour on CNN, unequivocally stating that the situation amounts to apartheid and criticizing Israel's barbaric actions. The Israeli government should not be defended on this. Even CNN had to air this perspective, given her position as the Queen of Jordan. It illustrates that sometimes, the narrative becomes too challenging to control.
On the other hand, that’s the reason why countries like China, Indonesia and India, whatever tries to build their own communications networks. Granted, there are internal challenges. I understand that. When private Chinese businesses invest in regions like Africa, misinformation sometimes prevails. Terms like 'private investment,' 'parastatal investment,' or even 'government investment' can be misleading. There are various players involved, including provincial investments. An isolated incident, like a poorly managed ceramics factory, can unjustly taint the perception of all Chinese investments. It’s very unfair. The way things are portrayed that has to do with this grip over communications. Addressing this narrative gap is crucial. We don't currently have a truly democratic global communication system. Whether it can be easily rectified remains uncertain.
During my visit to some media Beijing, enormous building is huge, with thousands of people working there, I was struck by the sheer scale of the operation. However, it’s not a question of numbers of people working there, how many satellites you have? it's about the story being told. What is the story that you're telling? Is it unbelievable story?
For years, there were claims circulating about the Chinese-built port in Hambantota, Sri Lanka, being a 'debt trap.' However, US-based academics published an article in the Atlantic Magazine after conducting a careful examination of the situation. They reviewed all the evidence and concluded that it wasn't a case of debt trap diplomacy. The Chinese had advised the Sri Lankan government to take the money in two installments: first, to build part of the port and generate a profit from it, then use those earnings to fund the remainder.
Unfortunately, at that time, the Sri Lankan government insisted on taking the entire sum at once, which led to complications. This incident was not an example of Chinese debt trap diplomacy, but rather a result of poor judgment on the part of the Sri Lankan government.
I remember another story from Bloomberg that claimed Chinese loans to build airports in Delhi and Uganda were causing financial difficulties for the respective governments. Bloomberg suggested that China might seize Uganda's only international airport. I took it upon myself to contact the Ugandan government and speak to people in Uganda. In my subsequent piece, I clarified that this narrative was not accurate. According to the Ugandan government, they hadn't scrutinized the contract closely enough. Furthermore, there was no intention on China's part to take over the airport. Instead, it was an unfavorable deal that Uganda had entered into. The question arose: why did they agree to such terms? No one had coerced them. As they explained, they hadn't paid sufficient attention to the specifics of the loan, which stipulated repayment in China rather than Uganda. They could have insisted on an arrangement more favorable to their own country. The responsibility for this lapse lay with Uganda, not China. Despite this, Bloomberg's story had already spread widely, perpetuating the misconception that China was seizing the airport.
This lack of a democratic communication system in the world makes it challenging for countries like China, and it's not an issue exclusive to China alone. Any country attempting to pursue a different path faces similar obstacles. This hinders their ability to present their initiatives accurately, as the Western narrative often prevails due to its dominant position in global communication. The West can shape narratives to suit their agenda, as seen in instances like the so-called “China taking away an airport ” and “debt trap diplomacy” in Sri Lanka and so on. While there may be elements of truth in these stories, such as the bad deal in Uganda, they are often blown out of proportion.
Even on the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative, I have yet to come across a balanced reflection in Western press. Both the BBC and other outlets failed to provide an objective assessment of the initiative. Crucial questions remain unanswered: What exactly is the Belt and Road Initiative? How much money is involved? Is it benefiting countries in Central Asia, such as Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan? Has it made a positive impact on these struggling nations?
Moreover, what impact could the Belt and Road Initiative have on Afghanistan? Could it potentially influence the Taliban's policies if infrastructure like a train link were established? A nuanced evaluation of the Belt and Road Initiative is essential. Every human-made agenda has its flaws, but a balanced, rational assessment is imperative. Exaggerating issues or misrepresenting them only serves to hinder productive dialogue.
At present, we do not have an effective global communications order in place. The current news landscape often falls short, lacking the necessary depth and intelligence. Those who dominate the airwaves are more inclined to incite emotions rather than educate. Communication should be about enlightenment. It doesn't have to be dull, but it should serve as a platform for learning, discussion, and the exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, that's often not the case.
Global Rebalancing Hinges on the Progress of China and India
Capital News: In the world of East and West, India has always been hesitant to take sides. Is it because India doesn't want to be a pawn, even if it means being the decisive one, but rather desires to be the player?
Vijay Prashad:That’s an interesting question. It’s actually difficult to answer, primarily due to the diverse political orientations India has witnessed over the last 30 to 40 years. Before the current government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which is positioned on the right end of the political spectrum, India had a center-left government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for over 8 years. This naturally gave rise to a different governmental ethos. During Manmohan Singh's tenure, he played a pivotal role in India's engagement with the BRICS process and demonstrated a keen interest in establishing an alternative financial framework.
Manmohan Singh's involvement in these initiatives can be traced back to his time as the Secretary of the South Commission, based in Geneva, Switzerland, under the leadership of figures like Julius Nyerere. Together, they authored a significant report contemplating how the Global South could navigate beyond the setbacks of the development agenda. During this period, India was actually quite indeed in the creation of the BRICS and so on.
Simultaneously, India maintained strategic ties with the United States. However, Dr. Manmohan Singh also initiated dialogues with the Chinese government, fostering connections with Gulf nations, Indonesia, Vietnam, and others. This underscores that India wasn't detached from the broader Asian narrative. When Narendra Modi assumed office in 2014, there was initially a noticeable detachment from the BRICS agenda and related initiatives.
Recent events, particularly the conflict in Ukraine, have accelerated shifts in Indian diplomacy. When the conflict in Ukraine arose, the United States pressed countries like India to support their stance on Ukraine, back NATO, and provide arms to Ukraine. India found itself in a quandary, asserting its longstanding relationship with Russia and resisting external directives. You can’t tell us what to do. India's Foreign Minister, Jaishankar, was pretty straightforward about this. Thus, the Ukraine crisis catalyzed changes in Indian foreign policy, prompting closer ties with Asian nations. This period has witnessed an interesting phase of readjustment.
To answer your question, it's imperative to consider historical developments. Moreover, the future remains uncertain. With Western countries beginning to withdraw, the outcome of the next U.S. presidential election could be pivotal. What if Trump returns to power? What if Ron DeSantis wins the election? A shift to the right in the U.S. could lead to a partial withdrawal. Europe, anyway, is in deep crisis over the war in Ukraine, NATO countries are in deep crisis. This provides an opportunity for India. Will India open up a new dialogue with other Global South countries? Will India take initiative in order to create a new linkage with countries in Latin America? We don’t know. We have to see what I think I’m looking forward to.
Allow me to reiterate, the progress of global rebalancing hinges on India and China finding common ground and overcoming longstanding issues. Since the dialogue between Zhou Enlai and Nehru in the 1950s, the nature of the India-China relationship has been a critical question. Back then, the slogan in India was “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai” — Indians and Chinese are brothers. This sentiment held in the 1950s. Even if we can return to a semblance of that sentiment, it would be a significant step. It's about opening doors. But I really want to emphasize, especially for our friends in China, that until India and China settle these issues, we won't transition into the new era. We'll remain in this interim period between a Western-dominated world order and the potential emergence of a new era centered around Asia. To realize a future where Asia is the center of gravity of the world, we must first resolve these disputes between India and China.
Capital News: We’ve noticed that in the recent G20 summit, India ultimately stood with the BRICS nations against the G7. Looking ahead, how will 'Player India' make its move? Will it join a more economically powerful East, or a politically dominant West?
Vijay Prashad:I think the question itself is quite interesting, because I think it appears that the West's political dominance may not be long-lasting. In fact, I believe that this shift has already occurred. When it comes to the egregious Israeli bombardment of the Palestinians, the west is not able to get countries, even Gulf Arab countries to agree with the western position. While figures like Giorgia Meloni and Joe Biden may align themselves with Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, it's unlikely that we'll witness African leaders echoing this stance. The west has lost its political tempo in the global south, and that's simply the current reality. So, India doesn't find itself compelled to make a binary choice. Instead, it should chart its own course.
Right now, I’m afraid to say there’s a little bit of confusion. The current Indian government appears somewhat unsure about the new opportunities unfolding in the world. It's holding on to a pro-US disposition, despite asserting that it won't take directives from anyone.
And in many ways, this Indian government is pretty happy when Washington tells it what to do. This reliance on external guidance needs to be broken. India shouldn't be taking orders from the United States, shouldn't be taking orders from Japan, shouldn't be taking orders from China, it should be taking its cues from its own people. That’s the point of having a modern society. China doesn’t pick up the phone and ask other country what should I do? China’s government looks to the Chinese people to discern their wants and needs. China has to be driven by the Chinese people, not some outside power.
The Indian government, to some extent, still seems to defer to the West to determine what's deemed appropriate. Sometimes in public, they say we are not with you, but largely this government doesn’t have the courage to hang the foreigner and look out of the window, to see what your people need. There's a reluctance to wholeheartedly prioritize the aspirations of their own populace. It's abundantly clear that a country as vast as India—with a population now surpassing China's—must grapple with the issue of poverty. The solution to this challenge isn't going to be handed down from Washington, D.C. Frankly, the United States itself is witnessing a rise in poverty rates, not a decrease. This is a point that I believe warrants careful consideration.