Abacus | What could be worse than Belt and Road? A copy of Belt and Road
With Australia, the United States, Japan and India joining the fray, it seems the heyday for transportation hubs is well on its way, whether there is yet any economic reason for them or not
Suddenly everyone wants to build roads, bridges, power plants and ports all over Asia. Last Monday, Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop revealed that Australia, the United States, Japan and India have got together to plan a joint infrastructure development scheme for the Asia-Pacific region. “There is an enormous need for infrastructure,” she said.
Many of the Belt and Road Initiative’s most ardent supporters were quick to condemn the Quad’s move to set up a similar scheme.
And many of the Quad’s backers are sceptical about the merits of China’s efforts. Just last month, Bishop’s colleague, Australian international development minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells slammed the Chinese infrastructure initiative as “useless”.
These attitudes make little sense. If you believe, as the Belt and Road Initiative’s backers claim, that the scheme is a good thing because it will generate economic benefits by removing development bottlenecks and encouraging trade, then the second one backed by the Quad must also be a good thing.