Thread by @RushDoshi

Excited to share our report from @CNASdc on China's Belt and Road!

We go beyond the usual cases (Sri Lanka, Maldives) to focus on 10 PRC projects across 7 regions & 6 sectors, from facial recognition in Zimbabwe to a wharf in Vanuatu. bit.ly/2Vw46BB

Some takeaways: 1/

FAIR STANDARDS: To assess BRI projects fairly, we used standards most would endorse. Projects should be:

1) Sovereignty-upholding
2) Transparent
3) Financially sustainable
4) Locally engaged
5) Geopolitically prudent
6) Environmentally sustainable
7) Corruption-resistant

2/

BROAD CASE SELECTION: Do PRC projects meet these standards? To find out, we focused on projects across Latin America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, SE Asia, & the Pacific Islands. We looked at dams, railways, surveillance tools, ports, energy, & even space. 3/

SCORING CHINA: So how do Chinese projects do? We had detailed criteria for each standard and refrained from making assessments if we lacked adequate information.

Even using this conservative approach, we found PRC projects scored poorly in most cases. 4/

ERODING SOVEREIGNTY: In some cases, the PRC has obtained control over select infrastructure projects through equity arrangements, long-term leases, or multi-decade operating contracts -- Ecuador, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Israel, Pakistan, & Myanmar are examples. 5/

LACKING TRANSPARENCY: Projects often featured opaque bidding processes for contracts & financial terms not subject to public scrutiny. We found this true in Ecuador, Argentina, Hungary, Zimbabwe, Israel, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Burma, Indonesia, & Vanuatu -- all ten cases. 6/

FINANCIALLY UNSUSTAINABLE: In most cases, PRC lending increased the risk of default or would cause repayment difficulties, and projects are unable to generate enough revenue to justify costs. See Ecuador, Argentina, Hungary, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Burma, Indonesia, & Vanuatu 7/

LOCALLY DISENGAGED: Many projects used Chinese firms and labor for construction, doing little to transfer skills to local workers, and sometimes involving inequitable profit-sharing arrangements. We found this true in Ecuador, Argentina, Hungary, Tajikistan, Burma, & Vanuatu 8/

GEOPOLITICALLY RISKY: About half the projects placed the country at the center of strategic competition between Beijing and other great powers or compromised the recipient state’s telecom infrastructure. These included Argentina, Zimbabwe, Israel, Burma, & Vanuatu. 9/

ENVIRONMENTALLY HARMFUL: Projects in some instances have proceeded without adequate environmental assessments or have caused severe environmental damage. This was clearly the case in Ecuador, Pakistan, Burma, & Indonesia. 10/

CORRUPTION PRONE: Especially in countries that already have a high level of kleptocracy, PRC projects involved payoffs to politicians and bureaucrats. See Ecuador, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Burma as examples. 11/

FOCUS ON THE PROJECT: Some analysts dismiss the Belt and Road as a brand that means all things at all times, and therefore means nothing. But incoherence isn't irrelevance. Projects are the unit of analysis, they are real, and they don't meet reasonable standards. 12/

IMPLICATIONS MATTER: Projects have important strategic implications even if we make charitable assumptions about PRC intentions. Liabilities for host countries – loss of control, opacity, debt, dual-use potential, and corruption – can become strategic assets for Beijing. 13/

IN SUM: The BRI challenges often documented in Asian projects clearly show up around the world & across sectors. These shortcomings are likely products of the PRC's interests, system, and approach - they aren't likely to disappear even after the upcoming Belt and Road Summit. 14/

It was a privilege to work with @dankliman and @ZackCooper as well as @kristinejlee27 and many others at @CNADdc on this comprehensive project! 15/