Skip to main content

Managing Allied Expectations

This month, the European Union’s vision for global connectivity took an important step forward. The EU Council called for operationalizing existing partnerships with Japan and India, establishing new partnerships with ASEAN and the United States, and identifying “high impact and visible projects” by early 2022. Reading between the lines, the EU is grappling with a challenge that all allied alternatives to China’s Belt and Road must confront: international politics and infrastructure projects have fundamentally different timelines.

The political clock is what matters to most decision makers in the places where the European Union, United States, and others are trying to become more competitive. Electoral calendars always provide pressure, and in the aftermath of Covid-19, even unelected leaders are more desperate to deliver tangible improvements. The announcement of any foreign effort to provide higher quality projects will mean little unless it comes with real money to pursue real projects—real soon.

Managing expectations is key because allied objectives will extend project timelines. The emphasis on delivering higher quality projects means conducting more rigorous risk assessments before a project can begin. An EU environmental impact assessment, for example, can range from half a year to over two years. Addressing climate change should be a competitive advantage for allied approaches to infrastructure. But like most things worth doing, getting it right takes time.

Mobilizing private finance, which is vital for allied efforts to scale, takes time as well. There is no magical tree of shovel-ready projects just waiting for investors. If anything, the low-hanging fruit was thoroughly picked over by 2016-2017, the peak years of China’s Belt and Road. Even then, some of what looked attractive turned out to be rotten, underscoring the risks of moving too fast.

Doing the hard work of preparing projects is unavoidable. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s Project Preparation Facility is one successful example that the United States and its partners can learn from as they consider how to develop project pipelines. It began operations in 2016 and is now seeing its first wave of projects come to market. Naturally, doing all of this with an emphasis on transparency, including holding open tenders and public consultations, adds time as well.

So does coordinating these efforts with allies, as the United States is doing with Japan and Australia through the Blue Dot Network. Expanding that effort to include partners from Europe, something I’ve also supported, will increase resources and global adoption of standards, but it will also add coordination costs. The Blue Dot Network is breaking new analytical ground by attempting to establish a global certification process for projects. But will it matter if they wait too long to break actual ground?

Clearly, there’s a balance to strike. Allied objectives — ensuring project quality, mobilizing private sector finance, increasing transparency, and coordinating with partners — are all worthwhile. But meanwhile, China is moving ahead, bilaterally and opaquely, with ample state financing and a higher tolerance for risk.

To compete in the international political arena, the United States and its allies need to look for quick wins that build credibility and demonstrate progress as they get longer-term efforts like the Blue Dot Network and Build Back Better World (B3W) partnership up and running.

Three actions would help. First, the United States and its allies should announce a credible financial commitment for global infrastructure. This could involve additional resources above current commitments, as well as taking credit for current levels of relevant development assistance and adding a target for mobilizing private sector finance. This commitment could be a collective announcement over a medium-term horizon, such as five years.

Second, they should allocate a fraction of that commitment toward more immediate use (ex. over the next 18 months). This could be easily justified as part of the global response to Covid-19. It would also help get some pilot projects off the ground that have already been identified. In addition to signaling seriousness, these projects would allow partners to learn while working together and potentially lower future coordination costs.

Third, they should secure statements of support from leaders in developing countries and the private sector. They don’t need to replicate China’s approach of signing mountains of empty MOUs. But statements from leaders involved with pilot projects, and those courting or considering making future investments, would add legitimacy to these efforts.

Collectively, these steps would help buy political time for setting up the systems and processes to deliver significant numbers of quality projects in the years ahead. Of course, that will require a sustained commitment and strategic patience from U.S. and allied policymakers, who face their own political pressures. But as the list of successful projects grows, so too will the attraction and political power of allied connectivity efforts.

Jonathan E. Hillman is a senior fellow with the CSIS Economics Program, director of the Reconnecting Asia Project, and author of The Emperor’s New Road.


Popular posts from this blog

Menon meets Karzai, discusses security of Indians

Kabul/New Delhi/Washington, March 5 (IANS) India Friday said that the Feb 26 terror attack in Kabul will not deter it from helping rebuild Afghanistan as National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon met Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul to review the security of around 4,000 Indians working in that country. Menon, who arrived here Friday morning on a two-day visit, discussed with Karzai some proposals to bolster security of Indians engaged in a wide array of reconstruction activities, ranging from building roads, bridges and power stations to social sector projects. The Indian government is contemplating a slew of steps to secure Indians in Afghanistan, including setting up protected venues where the Indians working on various reconstruction projects will be based. Deploying dedicated security personnel at places where Indians work is also being considered. Menon also met his Afghan counterpart Rangin Dadfar Spanta and enquired about the progress in the probe into the Kabul atta

Iran is losing the game to regional actors in its strategic depth

Rethink before It’s Too Late Iran is losing the game to regional actors in its strategic depth –Afghanistan. By Houman Dolati It is no more a surprise to see Iran absent in Afghanistan affairs. Nowadays, the Bonn Conference and Iran’s contributions to Afghanistan look more like a fading memory. Iran, which had promised of loans and credit worth five-hundred million dollars for Afghanistan, and tried to serve a key role, more than many other countries, for reconstruction and stabilization of Afghanistan, is now trying to efface that memory, saying it is a wrong path, even for the international community. Iran’s empty seat in the Rome Conference was another step backward for Afghanistan’s influential neighbor. Many other countries were surprised with Iran’s absence. Finding out the vanity of its efforts to justify absence in Rome, Iran tried to start its

Pakistani firm whose chemicals were used to kill US troops seeks subsidy for Indiana plant

By Jennifer Griffin, Justin Fishel Published March 22, 2013   A Pakistani fertilizer maker whose chemicals have been used in 80 percent of the roadside bombs that have killed and maimed American troops in Afghanistan is now seeking U.S. taxpayer subsidies in order to open a factory in Indiana.  The request appears to be on hold pending further review, but the situation has stirred outrage in Congress, where some accuse the Pakistani government of halting efforts to clamp down on the bomb-making.  For the past seven years, the U.S. government has known that the raw material calcium ammonium nitrate, or CAN, is making its way across the border into Afghanistan where the Taliban use it to fuel their most deadly weapons, namely the improvised explosive device. IEDs have long been the number one killer of U.S. and coalition troops.  The material largely comes from Pakistani fertilizer maker the Fatima Group. But the Pakistani government has stymied attempts by the Pentagon to stop the