Search

The paper provides an alternative framework to identify the compulsions and contradictions arising out of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as voluminous literature, stemming from the perspectives of realism and liberalism are either marred in assertive dogmatization or excessive apprehensions or non-feasible (lack of) solutions. Taking into such inadequacies of existing approaches into account, the paper also attempts to chalk out elements for a new form of cooperation under the BRI. Using Bangladesh as a case study, it suggests for integration of production network, transfer of technology and sharing of risk of capital as necessary condition as well as alignment of domestic political settlement and normative legitimacy as sufficient condition to achieve mutual stability and growth outcomes.

The paper presents a new framework in explaining the geostrategic compulsions arising out of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with particular emphasis on finding the implications on Bangladesh amidst a translation of erstwhile pacifist Indo-Pacific region to a point of strategic importance. The framework, on the contrary to the exuberances of voluminous literature by liberals and realists, analyzes the internal compulsions stemming from a particular political settlement of the countries involved. While most available accounts typically urge to strike a “delicate balance”, but hardly any exercise has been carried out on how to achieve such balance. The paper makes an attempt to work out the balancing mechanism. The paper also identifies the conditions for mutual stability and growth by outlining equiangular development diplomacy — the optimal outcome that can be reached if there is an alignment of necessary, sufficient and sustainability conditions amongst the collaborating and/or contending partners. The sustenance of such partnership is dependent upon normative legitimacy arising from broad-based social approval along the lines of particular political settlement.