Press Conference with China’s Foreign Minister

by Suelin Low Chew Tung

On Tuesday, 7 March, at 10 am, our group of 60+ journalists gathered to hear Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang begin his press conference at the Media Centre in Beijing.

This was his first press conference since assuming the position of Foreign Minister, held during the ‘Two Sessions’ — the main annual meetings of China’s government to discuss domestic matters and foreign policies. Many in our group anticipated our questions being answered, given that we were encouraged to submit them before the meeting, and we all wanted answers.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is China’s flagship cooperation platform with no strings or political gains. It is so important that it was incorporated into its constitution in 2017.

The time limit of just under 2 hours was adequate to assure us of BRI benefits, China’s commitment to countries of different cultures and needs, and our legitimate concerns going forward. We were disappointed that given our group was expected at the event, Qin could have addressed the impacts and expectations of China’s foreign policy to 50+ country representatives there rather than prefer the mainstream media gathered teeth and jowl in that space. 

Since 2005 when Grenada and the People’s Republic of China resumed diplomatic relations, Grenada has benefitted from many of China’s programmes and people-to-people exchanges. How does Grenada reciprocate for true mutual benefit? My submitted question: “China works with the Caribbean in collective cooperation and donates many resources. How does China benefit, how does that fit into the BRI, and what can the smaller countries do to maximise cooperation for mutual benefit, given that the Caribbean is not as resource-rich as China?” went unanswered.

As it was, Qin underscored that China’s foreign policy is to “be a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development and a defender of the international order.” He covered China–Russia ties and China–US relations, the Taiwan ‘question,’ and the Ukraine crisis which he termed an avoidable tragedy. Of Chinese modernisation offering solutions to human development challenges, including China’s 1.4 billion people, Qin declared it would be “an unprecedented feat in human history.” Rooted in Chinese culture and with Chinese characteristics is a term I heard repeated, and I took that to mean devoid of external influence and reflecting the various Chinese cultures, ethnicities, etc.

China’s most important foreign policy tool over the last 10 years has gained China new friends on almost every continent. Our group was of a similar mind as to concerns surrounding the initiative in our countries. While, according to Qin, the BRI has attracted the participation of over ¾ of the world’s countries and helped lift nearly 40 million people out of poverty over the past 10 years, our group was there to present concrete concerns, internal perceptions and fears of sustainability and long-term impact in our respective countries, external fearmongering concerning debt-traps, and navigating invitations by other initiatives touting better transparency. 

As with most things popular and successful, alternatives have emerged. These alternatives extend investment programmes targetting developing countries with presumably better transparency and lending practices. Prompted by China’s success in opening new markets and making new friends, major countries do not want to miss the boat. The United States’ Build Back Better World initiative — familiar name post-Hurricane Ivan — the European Union’s Global Gateway, and the United Kingdom’s Clean Green Initiative, these countries seek to regain their foothold on the global landscape.

Democracy, friendship, cooperation and shared outcomes is the language China uses as part of its global BRI diplomacy. For a country as small as Grenada, with negligible natural resources of global value, and overly dependent on tourism as our economy driver, we require infrastructure investment programmes with a minimum of bureaucracy and quick implementation. Over the years, we have received various forms of assistance at the leisure of international lending agencies, with resultant belt-tightening and homegrown projects adversely affecting our citizens. Small Island Developing States in the Caribbean are subject to economic and environmental vulnerability and often denied full access to concessional development financing, restricted by traditional criteria imposed by lending agencies supported by these international blocs. While China’s BRI investment infrastructure programme has provided breathing space and helped address some poverty issues, there are always concerns about a free lunch.

In China’s national beautification agenda, urban beautification and a greener economy are main objectives. Grenada must insist project developers keep to China’s philosophy of ‘oneness of nature and human beings’ incorporating nature-dominated elements and sound environmental protection to balance our need for infrastructure.

China is willing to help address developing countries’ socioeconomic needs through the BRI, without strings or political gains, while carrying out its national mandate. Grenada already accepts help with conditions from the US, UK, and other countries that are also investing in their own national agendas. The question of who has more global leadership bragging rights matters little when Grenada needs short-term and long-term infrastructure, and its people need gainful, sustainable employment to break the cycles of social problems exacerbated by poverty.

Unless/until Grenada comes up with a radical idea that does not involve external investment or finds gold, oil or some resource of global value, we are not in a position to scoff at infrastructure investments that drive our economy.