{"title":"‘We Don’t Drown our Partners in a Sea of Debt’: U.S. Policy Responses to China’s Belt and Road Initiative","authors":"Edward Ashbee","doi":"10.1163/18765610-27040004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nWhereas the Obama administration had equivocated, the Trump White House declared its vehement opposition to the Belt and Road Initiative (bri). This shift went together with the Trump administration’s designation of the People’s Republic of China (prc) as a strategic competitor and a broader deterioration in bilateral relations. However, as it began to posit alternatives to the bri, the Trump administration fell back on the policy thinking of the established foreign policy community. In doing this, it tacitly accepted the importance of soft power and the adoption of strategies requiring close cooperation with allies and partners so as to develop regional infrastructural “connectivity” projects. The White House thereby stepped back from the unilateralism, “principled realism,” and reliance upon hard power that had defined Donald J. Trump’s 2015–2016 presidential campaign. Nonetheless, U.S. efforts to develop policy alternatives to the bri were limited, unstable, and variegated. The Trump administration’s actions in other policy arenas often stymied efforts to counter the prc and initiatives such as the build Act and “Prosper Africa” received scant resources. On the basis of this policy pattern, the article argues that policy communities at times can “harness” other counter-positioned, political currents, but ongoing ideational stresses and abrasion will inevitably characterize the process.","PeriodicalId":158942,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of American-East Asian Relations","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of American-East Asian Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18765610-27040004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Whereas the Obama administration had equivocated, the Trump White House declared its vehement opposition to the Belt and Road Initiative (bri). This shift went together with the Trump administration’s designation of the People’s Republic of China (prc) as a strategic competitor and a broader deterioration in bilateral relations. However, as it began to posit alternatives to the bri, the Trump administration fell back on the policy thinking of the established foreign policy community. In doing this, it tacitly accepted the importance of soft power and the adoption of strategies requiring close cooperation with allies and partners so as to develop regional infrastructural “connectivity” projects. The White House thereby stepped back from the unilateralism, “principled realism,” and reliance upon hard power that had defined Donald J. Trump’s 2015–2016 presidential campaign. Nonetheless, U.S. efforts to develop policy alternatives to the bri were limited, unstable, and variegated. The Trump administration’s actions in other policy arenas often stymied efforts to counter the prc and initiatives such as the build Act and “Prosper Africa” received scant resources. On the basis of this policy pattern, the article argues that policy communities at times can “harness” other counter-positioned, political currents, but ongoing ideational stresses and abrasion will inevitably characterize the process.
奥巴马政府含糊其辞,而特朗普政府则宣布强烈反对“一带一路”倡议。与此同时,特朗普政府将中华人民共和国列为战略竞争对手,双边关系也出现了更广泛的恶化。然而,当特朗普政府开始提出“一带一路”的替代方案时,它又回到了既定外交政策界的政策思维上。在这样做的过程中,它默认了软实力的重要性,并采取了需要与盟友和伙伴密切合作的战略,以发展区域基础设施“互联互通”项目。因此,白宫放弃了单边主义、“有原则的现实主义”和对硬实力的依赖,而这些正是唐纳德·j·特朗普(Donald J. Trump) 2015-2016年总统竞选的特点。尽管如此,美国制定替代“一带一路”政策的努力是有限的、不稳定的和多样化的。特朗普政府在其他政策领域的行动往往阻碍了对抗中国的努力,《建设法案》和“繁荣非洲”等倡议获得的资源很少。在这种政策模式的基础上,本文认为,政策团体有时可以“驾驭”其他对立的政治潮流,但持续的观念压力和磨损将不可避免地成为这一过程的特征。