Need for ‘due diligence’ on the Belt and Road Initiative

A new report from the New Zealand Contemporary China Research Centre (NZCCRC) emphasises the need for New Zealand to do “due diligence” when engaging with China on the Belt and Road Initiative. 

The report, The Belt and Road Initiative: A New Zealand Appraisal, says New Zealand should be very clear about which aspects of the initiative it engages with “by carefully selecting projects that are in New Zealand's interest and that adhere to clearly signalled principles of external engagement”.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a Chinese government initiative to connect China to its neighbouring countries and beyond. In March 2017, New Zealand became one of the first Western economies to sign a Memorandum of Arrangement (MoA) with China on the initiative. 

The NZCCRC report comes several months after a substantial report published in May by the New Zealand China Council. That report, Belt and Road: A Strategic Pathway, was produced by PwC and identifies the BRI’s potential benefits for New Zealand. The Asia New Zealand Foundation was one of the sponsors of that report. 

The new NZCCRC report makes a series of recommendations for the New Zealand Government when engaging on the BRI. These include entering into “limited and contained BRI engagement to test the water”; promoting multilateral governance structures; and being clear on language related to BRI to avoid misinterpretation.

“Great power rivalry and criticism of China's political system and external development activities underscore the importance of New Zealand doing its due diligence on any BRI involvement,” write authors Jason Young (Victoria University of Wellington) and Jake Lin (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies).

The report was presented at the “New Zealand, China and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Conference” hosted by Victoria University of Wellington on 8 August. That conference was jointly organised by the NZCCRC and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and featured presentations by experts across New Zealand.

The Asia Media Centre asked Jason Young, the director of the NZCCRC, about the new report and about the discussions that took place between New Zealand and Chinese experts at the conference.

* * *

Why did the NZCCRC decide to write the ‘appraisal paper’ on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)?

Jason Young: The NZCCRC felt the debate in New Zealand about China’s proposed Belt and Road Initiative lacked reference to the underlying drivers of the initiative in China, and lacked recognition of the international commentary on the BRI. We wanted to put existing BRI agreements and commentary from New Zealand on record, and to summarise a series of recommendations around the principles we think New Zealand should consider in any potential involvement in BRI projects.

What were the drivers for bringing Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) scholars and New Zealand academics together to talk about BRI at a workshop? Were there any particular outcomes from the discussion?

Jason Young: The NZCCRC wanted to create the opportunity to share concerns and discuss areas of ambiguity around the BRI. We wanted the CASS to gain a good understanding of New Zealand thinking on the BRI, and to provide some of China’s leading scholars with the opportunity to put forth their own assessment of the BRI in response to these concerns.

The discussions presented the CASS scholars with a series of key messages to take back to Beijing. New Zealand participants also had the opportunity to hear frank discussions of the challenges the BRI faces from a Chinese perspective, and to learn more about the areas of current focus.

How would you summarise the messaging from the Chinese side?

Jason Young: The CASS framed the BRI as a platform for promoting bilateral co-operation in a broad range of areas. They highlighted the types of potential BRI engagement and underscored the domestic drivers of the initiative. They were keen to let us know they were here to listen to our concerns, and to seek areas of potential co-operation, but were less interested in defining what New Zealand-China co-operation should be.

They reiterated the invitation for New Zealand to participate, and suggested New Zealand should put forth ideas.

Do you think China and New Zealand will continue to talk about generalisations in relation to the BRI for the foreseeable future? Or do you expect to see some specific announcements? 

Jason Young: The agreement signed between New Zealand and China in March 2017 had an 18-month joint work programme to formalise concrete projects. That period is coming to a conclusion. I imagine we will continue to talk generally about the BRI and its impact on regional development, but we may also have more concrete co-operation projects between New Zealand and China to discuss.

– Asia Media Centre