This initiative claims to raise US$600 billion over the next five years to provide developing countries with funds to develop infrastructure. Analysts from many countries believe that this initiative has nothing new and is just a repackaging of past related initiatives. It faces

Xinhua News Agency Beijing, June 30th US President Biden recently announced the launch of the "Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership" during his attendance at the Group of Seven (G7) Summit. This initiative claims to raise US$600 billion over the next five years to provide developing countries with funds to develop infrastructure.

Analysts from many countries believe that this initiative is nothing new and is just a repackaging of past related initiatives. It faces great difficulties in raising funds and may be another attempt to "paint the pie". In addition, the current commitment of developed industrial countries to help developing countries with infrastructure construction when their own infrastructure is in dire straits implies geopolitical agendas.

html On March 24, at the NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, the logo of the G7 Summit was displayed on a screen. (Photo by Xinhua News Agency reporter Zheng Huansong)

Old wine in new bottles

According to the White House 's description of the "Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership", investments in this initiative will involve climate, digital technology , gender equality, health, etc. field. Funding sources are mainly divided into three parts: the US government has raised US$200 billion through grants, federal government financing and private sector investment; and the EU have raised 300 billion euros (approximately 31.3 billion euros) through the "Global Gateway" initiative proposed in December last year. billion); other G7 members have committed to raising part of the funds. These funds total US$600 billion. In addition, the G7 also plans to seek cooperation with other multilateral banks and financial institutions. The

initiative seems ambitious, but a closer look at the specific content reveals nothing new. At the G7 Summit held in June last year, U.S. President Biden proposed the "Build Back a Better World" initiative, pledging to provide $40 trillion by 2035 to "meet the huge needs for infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries." Compared with this initiative, the investment areas of "Building a Better World" are almost the same, and the amount of committed investment is larger. Some analysts lamented that the shrinkage from US$40 trillion to US$600 billion is really not small.

The implementation of the “Build Back a Better World” initiative is dismal. An article on the website of the bimonthly magazine "Foreign Affairs" pointed out that about a year since Biden announced the "Build Back a Better World" initiative, the U.S. government has invested only about US$6 million in global infrastructure, far less than its original commitment.

Many analysts believe that the United States’ proposal of the “Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership” is intended to repair and repackage the “Building a Better World” initiative that has produced few results. The British " Guardian " even directly used the word "restart" to explain the relationship between the old and new initiatives.

Painting cakes is difficult to satisfy hunger.

Many media and analysts pointed out that the "Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership" faces multiple insurmountable difficulties. The first is the difficulty in raising funds.

Greek international relations scholar Pelagia Capacciotaki said that the G7 countries are currently facing huge economic challenges, and it is difficult to mobilize national resources to invest in this initiative. Therefore, most of the initiatives must rely on private sector investment, and the private sector Capital pursues profits and is more difficult to mobilize.

Secondly, this initiative involves many countries, and policy coordination may be lengthy and complicated. Kenyan international affairs scholar Cavins Adheer believes that there are many participants in this initiative, with US investment accounting for only one-third. The initiative also nests funds from the "Global Gateway" initiative proposed by the European Union, and investment Projects may overlap. Historical experience shows that under such a structure, the implementation of initiatives will take a long time in the communication process alone, which will not only delay the opportunity, but may also end up being nothing.

Chairman of the Asian Innovation Research Center, an Indonesian think tank, and Chairman of the Indonesia-ASEAN Nanyang Foundation, Bambang Suryono believes that Western aid often goes through a long decision-making and approval process, and it takes a lot of time and manpower from planning, negotiation, evaluation to implementation. The material cost has led to the slow implementation of many aids, and even reduced to "salvation aid".

The US "Politics" website quoted comments from members of the European Parliament as saying that the Biden administration has promised to raise US$200 billion for the initiative, but has no idea whether Congress is willing to allocate funds for it. This is simply a "painting" for other countries.

Elias Javor, associate professor at the School of Economics at the State University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, believes that it may be difficult for the G7 to truly implement this initiative. The reason is that some G7 countries have excessive financialization of their economies and have not even been able to solve their own infrastructure problems, such as the United States. The situation of infrastructure and is a "tragedy".

html On March 24, at the NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, a man watched the group photo of the leaders of the G7 summit on the screen. (Photo by Xinhua News Agency reporter Zheng Huansong)

There are many political calculations

At present, due to the combined effects of the United States interest rate hikes , geopolitical tensions, recurring epidemics and other factors, the uncertainty of the world economy has increased. The international community is looking forward to seeing real benefits to all countries. People’s initiatives and projects. Many analysts have expressed doubts about the "Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership" proposed by the United States, believing that the initiative also contains geopolitical game calculations.

Adhill said that the purpose of this initiative proposed by the United States may only be to create new opportunities for American workers and enterprises, rather than to meet the actual needs of the vast number of developing countries. In the final analysis, it is a political tool of the United States.

Suryono believes that loans or aid promised by the West often come with many additional conditions, including fiscal reforms, economic privatization and market reforms, and sometimes even human rights issues. This kind of Western aid with additional conditions lacks Inclusiveness and stability. The White House describes the "Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership" as a "values-driven" partnership. It can be seen that "this initiative is a sugar-coated shell for the United States to promote Western values."

Some analysts also pointed out that global infrastructure construction requires the cooperation, mutual support and mutual complementation of all countries, rather than confrontation or substitution. What the world needs is building bridges, not tearing them down; interconnection, not decoupling and building walls; and mutual benefit and win-win, not isolation and exclusion. Any calculation to advance geopolitics in the name of infrastructure construction is unpopular and will not succeed. (Participating reporters: Deng Xianlai, Ren Ke, Zhang Yirong, Yu Qianliang, Zheng Shibo, Yu Shuaishuai, Li Zhuoqun, Bai Lin, Xie Zhao, Wang Tiancong)