It has been two years since Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed the “Belt-and-Road Initiative” (B&R) in 2013. The implications and overall framework of B&R have become increasingly clear through progress made in so called “early harvest” programs in the Mongolia-Russia economic corridor and Sino-Pakistan economic corridor. Nonetheless, the United States has maintained a strategic suspicion towards B&R, and its mistrust has only increased with the prospect of more infrastructure projects throughout Southeast Asia. The perception gap regarding the meaning of Chinese development in Asia can be attributed to the two countries’ different perspectives on economic development, national security and culture.

Many in the US believe that B&R is primarily a strategic tool for China to increase its political influence in the region. As a result, whether they view B&R from macro, strategic level or micro, project level, their perceptions are framed by this preconceived notion. Specifically, Americans tend to ascribe three strategic motivations to China in its pursuit of B&R. First, they often view B&R as China’s strategy to expand its national influence westward through land routes—through Central Asia, South Asia and eastern and western Europe—and to extend its strategic influence through sea routes—through the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific. Second, many Americans see China aiming to strengthen economic cooperation with countries along B&R routes in order to offset the adverse impacts resulting from the US-led TPP—in short, to counteract the United States’ “rebalance” policy. At the same time, they view China as seeking to gradually expand political and military cooperation with countries along the routes to counteract to the US military deployment and strategic deterrence in Asia. Finally, Americans tend to see China as seeking to obtain regional dominance and to participate in global rule-making, thereby challenging the global hegemonic status of the US. Especially with the establishment of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that will financially support B&R projects and includes the participation of advanced economies like the UK, France and Australia, Americans view the US-led global financial order as being challenged by Chinese activities.

In truth, China views B&R as a transitional strategy for the country to deal with the coming structural changes in its economy and slowing growth, and to digest the impact of its previous economic stimulus. This is a sound economic strategy given the current weak international economy. China aims to improve economic and human development—for both itself and the countries along B&R routes—through investments such as infrastructure development and trade and industry cooperation. It proposes that neighboring countries jointly build, develop and share the “new silk road” without any intention to seek regional dominance. In short, B&R is neither a concrete mechanism nor a security strategy. It is a comprehensive goal for development and a framework for economic cooperation. Therefore, existing joint projects and joint mechanisms like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization can be incorporated into this framework and play a role. On the other hand, B&R can also instill new energy into existing joint projects and joint mechanisms. Therefore, B&R conforms to typical Chinese foreign policy doctrine, namely that China is committed to maintaining an international system led by the United Nations with a view towards participating but also facilitating the improvement and reform of its cooperative mechanisms.

There are evident differences between China’s and United States’ perceptions of B&R. When exploring the underlying logic used by each country, Henry Kissinger’s observations spring to mind: Chinese tend to seek others’ understanding while Americans seek others’ conformity; the US tends to treat problems in terms of rules whereas China tends to regard problems in the context of history. From my perspective, there are two further reasons. On the one hand, confronted with the rapid rise of China, the US as the global hegemon becomes increasingly cautious and anxious, becoming suspicious of any proposals or plans that could affect the current international order. From this perspective, even if the current international order suffers obvious defects or inadequacies, the US would nonetheless avoid confronting these problems. On the other hand, the US in its role of security guarantor has important influence in security matters in many parts of the world, yet its economic influence in certain regions (such as Southeast Asia) is relatively weak. As a result, it is easy to see that in considering B&R’s impact on its regional influence, the US automatically frames the initiative in terms of security and seeks to respond accordingly.

Disagreements between the two countries with regard to B&R are not irreconcilable. China and the US are highly dependent on one another as economic partners. The bilateral relationship benefits from both deep shared experience and an effective communication platform in the form of the Strategic & Economic Dialogue. That being said, in all honesty what both counties currently lack is the right attitude for mutual dialogue. In the future, if China and the US can take the opportunity to build a “new model of major power relationship” and jointly explore a new model for global governance, the two parties’ disagreements regarding B&R will naturally disappear.

Lin Yongxin is the deputy director at the Research Center for the Maritime Silk Road at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Hainan.