Formerly known as the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative, President Biden has finally unveiled a plan called Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) worth $600 billion to ‘counter’ China. The plan aims to help developing countries overhaul infrastructure in four key areas: climate, health, digital technology, and gender equity. The rationale behind this initiative, i.e to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), seems a bit problematic in an increasingly uncertain international scenario and has created a situation called ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ in Game theory.
In international relations, a prisoner’s dilemma occurs when two different parties (G-7 and China) conduct independent actions (PGII & BRI) and decide to further their interests (China aims to overhaul infrastructure in developing countries, and G-7 wants to counter China) at the expense of the other party while carrying out those actions. As a result, neither party ends up in a better situation than they would have if they had worked together to reach a compromise.
Read more: Pakistan ‘blocked’ out of China-hosted event: Has Beijing dumped Islamabad?
According to this matrix, cooperation appears to be the best course of action because it benefits China and the G-7. When both of them turn against each other, they fare worse than when they work together. When one party breaks the rules, it receives points at the other side’s expense; for example, the defecting party gets 5 points while the cooperating party gets 0. Due to the security dilemma that results, both sides ultimately experience less than ideal outcomes.
In this security dilemma, both parties prefer defection over cooperation
The question is: Why would G-7 prefer defection over cooperation? It’s because of the perception of Party B (China) in the mind of Party A (G-7). The Belt and Road Initiative is seen as predatory by the G-7, something China is pursuing to trap developing nations in a web of debt to secure political and economic concessions. The debt trap narrative owes its existence to the Western Media, which has become the mouthpiece of politicians there. Many articles have been written to refute this narrative.
For instance, China is frequently held accountable for adding debt to Sri Lanka’s economy. However, at a webinar last week titled “Big Power competition in the post-pandemic World Order and the Belt and Road Initiative,” Jayanath Colombage, a former commander of the Sri Lankan navy disproved the notion of the Chinese debt trap. Less than 10% of Sri Lanka’s foreign debt, according to him, is owed to China, and that 10% has benefited Sri Lanka much because it has opened up tremendous economic opportunities for the nation’s inhabitants.
It is not the first time a project has started to directly compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative without making that claim clear. For instance, on November 4, 2019, U.S. Under Secretary of State, Keith Krach officially unveiled the Blue Dot Network. In line with this endeavor, governments, businesses, and civil society organizations sought to encourage the adoption of reliable standards for developing top-notch, global infrastructure in a welcoming atmosphere. Like this, President Barack Obama launched the “Power Africa Initiative” in Tanzania during his July 2013 tour to Africa to foster economic growth and development by enhancing access to a dependable, affordable, and environmentally friendly power.
Read more: Geo-economics and geopolitics of US-China competition
Even so, is it in the U.S. and its allies’ best interests to defect?
The response is a big “No,” as the United States is less competitive than China in the infrastructure sector, partly because most Chinese enterprises engaged in BRI infrastructure development are state-owned and receive substantial government subsidies. Therefore, it appears to be a political, economic, and strategic non-starter to try to compete with China by imitating China.
If the United States has concerns about openness, it should leave these concerns to the World Bank and concentrate on areas where its competitiveness is stronger. In an article titled ‘America Shouldn’t Copy China’s Belt and Road Initiative,’ Charles Kenny and Scott Morris have suggested the U.S. invest in multilateral institutions rather than competing with China in infrastructure development worldwide.
Has China made any indication that it wants to compete with the West? Is it in the best interest of China to resort to the zero-sum game? Not, since it is the nature of globalization to punish the defectors. China has, on various occasions, called for a shunning cold war mentality and advocated for multilateralism and high-quality development of projects.
Read more: China & Pakistan to introduce Green CPEC
Both parties must come up with confidence-building measures to aid in solving the prisoner’s dilemma. This will send a positive message to the other party, fostering trust and promoting cooperation.
The writer is working as a researcher in an Islamabad-based think tank, Pakistan-China Institute. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.