专访维贾伊·普拉萨德：印度想做“棋子”，还是“棋手”？（全文）

在10月18日举行的第三届“一带一路”国际合作高峰论坛智库交流专题论坛上，印度“新南亚论坛”创始人苏廷德拉·库尔卡尼表示，他非常有信心，印度有一天肯定会加入“一带一路”倡议。 理由有两点，对于印度来说，如果其西部和东部地区不和中国以及其他邻国合作，是不可能真正顺利发展的。另一方面，南亚地区总人口一共有18亿，如果没有印度的合作，就少了很多人。 目前，印度政界、商界和学界如何看待“一带一路”倡议？在当前地缘政治背景下，印度是否有可能把与中国的一些龃龉搁置一旁，在可接受的情况下参与“一带一路”？未来印度将如何“落子”，是加入一个经济更加强盛的东方，还是一个政治更加强势的西方？ 长安街知事（微信ID：Capitalnews）联合中国人民大学重阳金融研究院（微信公众号：人大重阳）推出“全球治理大家谈”栏目。印度历史学家、三大洲社会研究所执行董事维贾伊·普拉萨德（Vijay Prashad）就“一带一路”倡议和中印关系等与记者进行了分享。 “一带一路”是个例外 知事：您眼里的“一带一路”是一个什么样的倡议，总体印象如何？ 维贾伊·普拉萨德：“一带一路”倡议提出已经10年了，它非常年轻，正处于鼎盛时期。考虑到人类文明有数千年的历史，或许不该对一个产生只有十年的事物评价过高，但“一带一路”是个例外。 为什么这么说？因为“一带一路”指向了人类历史上最令人兴奋的发展方向。自20世纪40年代以来，虽然许多殖民地国家从殖民统治者手中争取了独立，但始终受制于向西方借钱或为西方市场生产制成品的发展困境。在相当长的时间里，第三世界国家不断呼吁制定另一种发展议程——包括1974年联合国大会通过了《建立国际经济新秩序宣言》——但真正的替代方案一直未能实现。 十年来，“一带一路”倡议首次在布雷顿森林体系之外，为发展中国家提供了另一种选择，那就是投资基础设施和工业化。 巴基斯坦瓜达尔港资料图。 印度和中国的关系近年来遭遇了一些挫折，似乎有人一直在火上浇油。这种局势阻碍印度进行理性的思考，不利于开展建设性的讨论，比如说“一带一路”倡议在东南亚发挥了什么作用？它如何使那里的人民受益？印度的人们在面对事实时变得犹豫不决，相反，他们倾向于令人不安的宣传话术。 这不是印度所需要的，我们必须以事实为基础进行思考。我从中国的发展成就中学到最重要的一课就是“摸着石头过河”。你得摸一下石头，理性分辨石头与水，不要试图直接跳过河。 遗憾的是，在中国以外的亚洲地区，无论是对“一带一路”倡议，还是其他有价值的发展项目，严肃的学术探讨仍有不足。我非常期待有一天，印度和中国能够放下边界争端，在理性、科学的原则基础上进行互动，摆脱陈旧和令人不安的意识形态的束缚。 知事：过去两年，美国和欧盟先后提出了“重建美好世界”倡议、“全球基础设施和投资伙伴关系”和“全球门户”计划，今年印度也参与了美国提出的印度—中东—欧洲经济走廊（IMEC），这一新倡议与“一带一路”倡议竞争的意味浓厚。当我们搜索关键词时，报道频率最高的是印度媒体，印度似乎热衷于这项倡议。据您了解，这项倡议目前有何进展？印度看重这项基建计划吗？ 维贾伊·普拉萨德：“全球南方”和第三世界里有很多举足轻重的大国，比如印度、印度尼西亚、尼日利亚、巴西等等，这些都是非常重要的经济体。每个经济体都必须考量自己的国家利益，因此必须制定自己的基础设施计划。 以印尼为例，他们需要思考什么对印尼人民有利，特别是考虑到自20世纪70年代末以来长期实施的新自由主义政策的影响。当时许多国家的政府都没有真正本国利益或公民福祉放在首位。相反，它们专注于取悦资本市场，确保获得评级机构的正面评级。 如今，我们正在目睹的这种风气的转变。各国政府开始追问“什么才真正符合我们的国家利益”，“什么才是人民的最大利益”。在研究这种转变时，印度是一个耐人寻味的案例。至少自1991年以来，印度处在一个过渡阶段，从一开始各种问题上服膺于美国和西方，到后来才逐渐明确自己的利益。印度和中国的长期边界争端可以追溯到20世纪50年代，并在1962年以战争方式达到顶峰。至今，印度和中国之间的紧张关系尚未完全解决。这就是我要讲的内容的背景。 首先，认为西方完全有能力在经济或商业上与中国竞争，是不准确的。因为西方政府，甚至西方企业所能调动的投资水平，远不及中国政府和其他国家政府愿意投入的资金水平。这与西方国家国内的态度有关，那些国家的富人不愿意在本国投资，而是选择将他们的钱藏在被称之为“避税天堂”的国家。事实上，高达38万亿美元的西方资金潜伏在避税天堂，以此逃避纳税，也就无法用于投资。 因此，目前西方在这方面根本无法与中国这样的国家竞争，甚至无法与拥有大量主权财富基金的中东国家竞争。它们发起一些像IMEC这样的倡议，也无法真正落到实处。因为它们没有像中国人民银行或海湾地区的主权财富基金一样有能力提供大量资金，甚至不如挪威等国的主权财富基金的规模。 其次，就IMEC而言，我们需要明确一点，即沙特阿拉伯和阿拉伯联合酋长国是IMEC的关键参与者，它们在世界原油生产中占有重要地位。它们也深度参共建“一带一路”。在沙特王储穆罕默德·本·萨勒曼领导的“2030愿景”全面规划中，中国投资发挥着至关重要的作用。因此，IMEC不是作为“一带一路”倡议或中国投资的替代出现，二者更多是一种平行发展的关系。 事实上，当我查看IMEC地图时，我注意到列出的两个港口只有部分由“一带一路”倡议资助。所以，从本质上讲，IMEC并不是真的要替代“一带一路”。我认为“竞争”是媒体在传播的一个松散的概念，在我看来，二者正在按各自的节奏独立推进。 平行发展本身并没有什么错，事实上，现在如果再有类似的发展倡议，它们同样应该受到欢迎。各国都需要加大对基础设施和工业化的投资。试想，如果“一带一路”倡议起到催化剂的作用，促使各国加大对绿色基础设施和工业化的投资，将达到一个积极的结果，“一带一路”可以成为推动建设工厂、防止人民失业的动力。坦率地说，我不认为这里面是一场竞争。在我看来，这种层级的竞争需要投入巨量的资源，超出了任何一个国家的极限。 我们不应该用冷战思维来看待这个问题，虽然那是美国一直在做的。在亚洲，上述倡议带来的进步理应被视为积极的行动。我们的关注重点应当聚焦于如何实现最终的目标：解决饥饿、文盲等难题以及它们带来的挑战。建设引人瞩目的基础设施项目只是手段，这一切目的是为了消除人们蒙受的苦难。 印度的中产阶级已经意识到了 知事：目前印度没有加入“一带一路”倡议，它与中国在其他领域的合作是否有进展？是否在双边合作或其他区域倡议中找到了合作机会？ 维贾伊·普拉萨德：印度和中国都是金砖国家和二十国集团（G20）的重要成员。在今年的G20峰会上，印度作为东道主，把会议重点放在了发展，而不是深入讨论俄乌冲突等政治问题。在这些多边场合，印度和中国有足够的空间进行讨论和促进合作。 中印合作的潜力和领域也拥有巨大的扩展空间。在高科技领域，印度想努力发展高铁，但苦于铁路系统未升级，以及缺乏技术手段。众所周知，中国的高铁技术领跑世界，印中若能携手，可能产生惊人的效果。反过来，印度在互联网技术和软件工程方面位居世界前列，中国也能从相关合作中获得巨大的互补收益。 中印两个大国的人口占世界近一半，合作潜力巨大。随着全球重心向亚洲转移，这种合作关系将进一步增强亚洲的影响力。 值得注意的是，直到十年前，印度在很大程度上还是坚持西方的观点，尤其是在政治和经济问题上，基本奉行新自由主义。但近年来，印度的中产阶级已经意识到，印度与西方的密切关系并没有带来实质性的好处，西方缺乏为印度经济增长进行必要投资的意愿和资源。 这种态度的变化具有重要意义，并在金砖国家和G20中引起了共鸣。曾有一段时间，G20似乎变成了G7对其余13个国家施加影响的平台，更像是“G7 +”，而不是真正具有代表性的G20。 但这一情况已经发生了明显转变。如今，无论是G20还是金砖国家，都焕发出新的活力。金砖国家扩大到11个成员国，包括埃塞俄比亚（中非合作的关键国家）和阿根廷（南美洲仅次于巴西的第二大经济体）等国。这些国家是地区经济大国，政治意义重大。 今年的G20峰会是在印度举办的，未来两年，G20峰会还将继续在两个金砖国家巴西和南非举行。“全球南方”的崛起为这些国家提供了重大的议程设定潜力，它们的优先事项不一定与西方议程一致。 9月10日，巴西正式“接槌”成为二十国集团新一任轮值主席国。 知事：您认为在当前地缘政治背景下，印度是否有可能把与中国的一些龃龉搁置一旁，在可接受的情况下参与“一带一路”？ 维贾伊·普拉萨德：我认为这是一个具有挑战性的问题，如果要达到这一步，印度和中国都有很多工作要做。 在中国，印度被视为一个遥远的地方，印度对中国也是这么看的，但实际上我们是邻国。同时，位于印度和中国之间的尼泊尔正在努力拉近中印两国的关系。中印关系对尼泊尔、不丹和该地区的其他几个国家都产生了直接影响。 因此，中印不仅要在政治上接近，更要进行文化交流。当我在中国旅行时，我惊讶地发现中国人对印度知之甚少。同样，在印度，你也会发现人们不了解中国。中印两国的民众往往更熟悉欧洲和美国，而不是作为邻国的彼此。这是殖民历史导致的恶果，两国人民对喜马拉雅山脉另一边丰富多彩的文明认识有限。 当印度中产阶级到中国旅行，他们总是会惊叹于中国的高铁。这不仅仅是关于火车，也是人与人之间的交流。我坚信，外交超越政治，文化交流的桥梁建设必须循序渐进。就像摸着石头过河一样，有些石头是政治的，有些是文化的，你不能跳过这条河。 知事：中国的发展道路是当今全球热议的话题。很多国家赞赏中国的发展道路，也有些国家将中国描绘为所谓“扩张性国家”。您如何看待中国的角色，以及中国在亚洲和在全球的形象和影响？ 维贾伊·普拉萨德：西方仍然主导着全球传播和媒体影响力，美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）和《纽约时报》等西方媒体在推动议程方面有着惊人的话语权，部分原因在于他们对卫星和互联网的控制。语言也起着一定的作用，即使西方媒体用法语制作内容，也会很快被翻译成英语。中文在这一方面存在一定短板，我们经常称这种现象为“普通话长城”，但好在中国发展出了自己的社交媒体平台，在信息传播方面取得了长足的进步。 传播的差异不仅体现在媒体层面，也在于叙事本身，文化问题和建立自己的传播网络至关重要。例如，美国国务卿布林肯和美国财政部长耶伦对中非合作极尽污蔑之能事，甚至使用“殖民主义”这样的词来诋毁中国，这种说法不仅能在西方媒体上大肆传播，也能在非洲媒体上传播，足见西方对全球传播的影响力之大。 彭博社曾在一篇报道中说中国在斯里兰卡汉班托塔建造的港口是一个“债务陷阱”，多年来，这个说法广为流传。然而，美国学者在仔细研究了该港口的具体情况后，在《大西洋月刊》上发表文章指出，这不是“债务陷阱外交”。中国曾建议斯里兰卡政府分两期接受这笔资金：首先建设港口，在港口能盈利后再用收益为其余部分提供资金。但当时斯里兰卡政府坚持一次性全部拿走这笔钱，导致了事情的复杂化，属于斯里兰卡政府的自主决策 彭博社还有一篇报道造谣称“乌干达唯一的国际机场要被中国接管了”。我主动与乌干达政府联系，并与当地人民交谈，发现了这种说法并不准确，其实是乌干达政府对合同的细则审查不仔细，中国也无意接管该机场。尽管如此，彭博社的报道已经广泛传播了，导致“中国正在接管机场”的谣言持续存在。 我们目前没有一个真正民主的全球传播体系，这对中国来说是一个挑战。但这不是中国独有的问题，任何试图走不同于西方道路的国家都会面临类似的障碍，这阻碍了他们准确表达自己的倡议。 即使在“一带一路”倡议提出十周年之际，我也没有在西方媒体上看到一篇公平的思考。英国广播公司（BBC）和其他媒体都未能对这一倡议做出客观评估。关键问题仍未得到解答：“一带一路”倡议到底是什么？需要多少资金？是否对那些步履维艰的国家产生了积极影响？ 但西方的传播影响力也并非强大到无孔不入。西方媒体在报道以色列轰炸加沙时，往往偏袒以方。但最近，约旦王后拉尼娅接受CNN记者克里斯蒂安·阿曼普尔采访时明确指出，以色列对加沙地带的轰炸是“大规模屠杀”，并批评以色列的野蛮行为，以色列政府不该为此辩护。考虑到她身为约旦王后的地位，甚至CNN也不得不播出这一观点。这说明一旦叙述变得足够强大，媒体就无法进行控制。 全球再平衡的进展取决于中印 知事：在东西两个世界，印度始终不愿选边站队，是否因为印度不愿做“棋子”，哪怕是决定胜负的“棋子”，而是想做“棋手”？ 维贾伊·普拉萨德：这是个有趣的问题，实际上很难回答，主要是由于印度在过去三四十年见证了不同的政治取向。前任总理辛格领导下的中左翼政府执政了8年多，而现任总理莫迪来自右翼民族主义政党，这自然产生了两种不同的政治风格。 在辛格任期内，他在印度参与金砖国家的进程中发挥了关键作用，并表现出对建立一种新金融框架的浓厚兴趣。在与美国保持战略关系的同时，印度也发起了与中国政府的对话，加强了与海湾国家、印度尼西亚、越南和其他国家的联系，凸显出印度不想脱离亚洲的叙事方向。 2014年莫迪上任之初，印度政府对金砖国家的议程及相关计划明显疏远。然而，俄乌冲突推动了印度外交的转变。在美国的施压下，印度发现自己进退两难，既要维护与俄罗斯的长期关系，又要抵制外部的指手画脚。最终，乌克兰危机催化了印度外交政策的变化，促使印度与亚洲国家建立了更紧密的关系。 当前，欧洲正因俄乌冲突而深陷危机，美国即将进行总统大选，下任领导人是谁尚不明朗，这为印度提供了机会。至于印度是否会借机与其他“全球南方”国家开启新的对话，是否会主动与拉丁美洲国家建立新的联系，还不得而知。 我想重申，全球再平衡的进展取决于印度和中国找到利益共同点，克服长期存在的问题。上世纪50年代，周恩来总理和印度总理尼赫鲁多次对话，中国同印度的友好关系蓬勃发展，当时印度的口号是“Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai”——中国印度亲如兄弟。如果现在我们能重返那种热切联系，将是两国关系的重要一步。 在两国解决这些问题之前，我们不会跳跃到新时代，而将继续处于西方主导的世界秩序和以亚洲为重心的新时代崛起之间的过渡时期。为了实现亚洲成为世界重心的未来，我们必须首先解决印度和中国之间的分歧。 知事：前不久的G20峰会上，印度最终站在了金砖国家阵营中一起对抗G7。未来，印度更倾向于加入一个经济更加强盛的东方，还是一个政治更加强势的西方？ 维贾伊·普拉萨德：西方的政治主导地位不会持续太久了，事实上，这种转变已经发生了。在以色列轰炸加沙地带一事上，西方已经无法让其他国家，甚至海湾国家同意西方的立场，更不必说非洲国家领导人了。西方在全球发展中国家中失去了政治节奏，这就是当前的现实。 然而，印度政府似乎对当前世界上出现的新机遇有些犹豫不定。尽管在公开场合，印度声称不会接受任何人的指令，但它仍坚持亲美的立场。在很多方面，当华盛顿告诉印度政府该怎么做时，印度政府不会拒绝。这种对外部指令的依赖需要打破。印度不应该听从美国的命令，它应该听从自己人民的指示，这才是现代社会的意义所在。 当地时间4日，加沙地带一名巴勒斯坦男子在以色列空袭后检查被摧毁房屋。 很明显，像印度这样幅员辽阔的国家——人口已经超过中国——必须努力解决贫困问题。这一挑战的解决答案不会在华盛顿，美国本身的贫困率也在上升，而非下降。印度到底应该如何选择，值得仔细思考。 图源：视觉中国 以下为本次采访的英文原文： The Vijay Prashad Interview: “India's Diplomatic Chess: Striking a Balance Between East and West” On October 18, at a thematic forum for think tank exchanges held as part of the Third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, Sudheendra Kulkarni, the founder of India’s Forum for a New South Asia, said he was very confident that India would definitely join the “Belt and Road” initiative one day. There are two reasons, On the one hand, for India, if its western and eastern regions do not cooperate with China and other neighboring countries, it is impossible to really successful development. On the other hand, the population of the South Asian region totals 1.8 billion, which is a lot less without India’s cooperation. How do Indian politicians, businessmen and academics view the Belt and Road Initiative? In the current geopolitical context, is it possible for India to put aside some of the disagreements with China and participate in the “Belt and Road” under acceptable circumstances? How will India “make its move” in the future, whether to join a more economically powerful East, or a more politically powerful West? In collaboration with RDCY, Capital News has launched the “Global Governance Forum” section. Vijay Prashad, an Indian historian and executive director of Tricontinental Institute for Social Research shared his views on the Belt and Road Initiative, China-India relations and other issues with us. A Decade of Ambition: The Youthful Vigor of the BRI Capital News: What is your impression of the 'Belt and Road Initiative'? Vijay Prashad: The Belt and Road Initiative is now 10 years old. It’s very young and in its prime. One shouldn’t have too overrated assessment of something that’s only 10 years old, given that recorded human civilization is thousands of years old. Nonetheless, it represents an exciting development in the human history. Why is that? Firstly, it’s important to put it in the context of the global events since the 1940s, when many colonized countries achieved their independence from colonial rulers. After that, the former colonial powers implemented a development agenda from the top down, primarily centered around borrowing money from the West. This was aimed at enhancing the capacity of formerly colonized nations to export raw materials. Certainly, there was some degree of industrialization and significant infrastructure development. However, this was largely geared towards either facilitating the export of raw materials or producing finished goods for Western markets. For a considerable period, despite persistent calls from Third World countries for an alternative development agenda — including the 1974 New International Economic Order resolution at the UN General Assembly — a genuine alternative failed to materialize. The financial crisis in the West in 2007 and 2008 served as a wake-up call. The Chinese government, having amassed substantial surpluses and finding itself somewhat constrained in producing goods solely for Western markets, made the strategic shift towards the Third World through the Belt and Road Initiative. For the first time in decades, the Belt and Road Initiative has offered an alternative to the Bretton Woods System funding, which was largely again for export of other raw materials or goods. But now, we witness investments in infrastructure and industrialization. It remains to be seen how this will unfold in practice. Once again, we are dealing with a very young yet promising project. Capital News: Over the past two years, the U.S. and the EU have put forth initiatives like the 'Build Back Better World,' 'Global Gateway,' and 'Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership.' This year, India also joined the U.S.-proposed IMEC, which seems to be in competition with China's BRI. When we search for keywords, it seems like the Indian media is really into this initiative, as it's getting a lot of coverage. From what you know, how is IMEC progressing at the moment? Does India place significant importance on this infrastructure plan? Vijay Prashad: Look, there are lots of immensely important and large countries in the Global South, in the Third World, such as India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, and others. These are very important economies, each with their own set of national interests. This means they must develop their own infrastructure plans. Take Indonesia, for example. They need to consider what will benefit the Indonesian people, especially given the prolonged period of neoliberalism since the late 1970s. Still just like yesterday, many governments were not genuinely prioritizing their national interests or the well-being of their citizens. Instead, they were focused on pleasing capital markets and ensuring positive ratings from agencies. However, we're beginning to witness a shift. Governments are now starting to ask, 'What truly serves our national interest?' For those leaning towards socialism, it's about considering what's in the best interest of the people. This represents a new development. India is an interesting case study. India has been in a transition period, shifting from a position of considerable subordination to the United States and the West on various issues since at least 1991, to gradually articulating its own interests. There's no need to be bashful about it. India and China have a longstanding border dispute dating back to the 1950s, culminating in a war in 1962. So, there is a tension between India and China that is unresolved. This is the context for what I’m going to say. First and foremost, it’s incorrect to assume that the West is fully equipped to economically or commercially compete with China. The level of investment that Western governments, and even Western corporations, can mobilize is nowhere near what the Chinese government and other governments are willing to commit. That has something to do with the attitude within Western countries where the rich are not willing to invest in their countries. It's symptomatic of a particularly cutthroat form of capitalist enterprise, where the wealthy opt to stash their money in tax havens. In fact, a staggering thirty-eight trillion dollars of Western capitalist funds lie dormant in tax havens, evading taxation and, consequently, remaining unavailable for investment. Therefore, the initial point to acknowledge is that, at present, the West simply cannot compete with countries like China, or even Middle Eastern nations boasting substantial sovereign wealth funds. So, there’s some of these initiatives like IMEC and so on, but they’re not really serious. Because they don’t have the volume of capital that’s available from China's People's Bank or the sovereign wealth funds in the Gulf, and even those in countries like Norway. These latter entities wield vastly larger pools of capital, making a monumental difference. Secondly, as far as IMEC is concerned specifically, let’s be a little clear here. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are pivotal players in IMEC, and they hold significant sway in the world of crude production. They are also deeply integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative. In Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, the comprehensive plan led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Chinese investment plays a crucial role. Therefore, IMEC doesn’t serve as a substitute for the BRI or Chinese investment; it appears to be a parallel development. In fact, when I looked at the IMEC map, I noticed that two of the ports listed are only partially funded by the BRI. So, in essence, it’s not really a substitute. I think the notion of competition was a loose concept propagated in the media. In my view, it's more akin to a parallel progression. There’s nothing inherently wrong with parallel developments. In fact, we should welcome them. More investment in infrastructure and industrialization is needed. Consider this: if the BRI acts as a catalyst, spurring nations to invest more in greener infrastructure and industrialization, it’s a positive outcome. The key takeaway here is that the BRI could be the driving force behind building factories and preventing your people to stay idle. To be candid, I don't see it as a competition. In my opinion, no one truly possesses the capacity to compete on that scale. Now, if there are parallel developments, they should be welcomed. We shouldn't approach this with a Cold War mentality, even if that’s the way in which the United States is talking about it. In Asia, we should view these advancements as positive steps. Our primary focus should remain on our ultimate goal: eradicating hunger, illiteracy, and similar challenges. Our aim is not to have the most impressive infrastructure project; our aim is to eliminate the indignity of human suffering. Capital News: How is the Indian political, business, and academic community currently viewing the 'Belt and Road' initiative? Vijay Prashad: This dynamic between India and China is interesting, marked by various unfortunate and often exacerbated tensions. It seems as though someone is constantly adding fuel to the fire, intensifying the longstanding tension between these two nations. This tension between India and China is rather blinding. It is preventing clear thinking, all tensions of this kind of very unfortunate, robbing us of the rational assessments that we should ideally be making. For instance, what role does the Belt and Road Initiative play in Myanmar? Is it genuinely benefiting the people there? Likewise, consider Sri Lanka and its economic struggles. Sri Lanka has gone through a lot of economic problems. Is this because of BRI, is it because of the Port of Hambantota? Not at all. A rational analysis shows that the economic woes stem from Sri Lankan elites relying on advice from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which, frankly, has often been ill-advised. Asian countries, including China, India, and Indonesia, haven’t forced the International Monetary Fund to give better guidance. This pattern continues, and countries like Sri Lanka and Pakistan suffer as a result. I just want to be completely frank with you. This rise of tension between India and China don't facilitate constructive academic discourse; they actually skew it. People become hesitant to confront the facts, and instead, they lean towards uncomfortable propaganda. That's not what we need. We must build theories based on facts. One of the crucial lessons I've learned from Chinese Marxism is the idea of crossing the river by feeling the stones. You’ve got to feel the stones and don’t try to jump across the river. If you’re not thinking rationally, you don’t know the difference between the stone and water. Without rational thinking, that distinction becomes unclear. Regrettably, in fact, across Asia, there is a dearth of serious academic exploration into the alternatives presented not just by the Belt and Road Initiative, but also by other valuable Asian development projects. Collaborations between India and Southeast Asian countries, for instance, deserve thorough study. Are they genuinely beneficial? Is it a true win-win scenario, as the Chinese say, a win-win? Or is it a win-lose? We can only discern this if we are not blinded by the current political fervor. I’m very much looking forward to a day when India and China can go down their border dispute, and establish a relationship grounded in rational, scientific principles, free from the constraints of worn-out and uncomfortable ideologies. The Awakening of India's Middle Class Capital News: Even though India hasn't joined the Belt and Road, is there any progress in cooperation with China in other areas? Have India and China found opportunities for collaboration in bilateral ventures or other regional initiatives? Vijay Prashad: Yes, first and foremost, it’s important to point out that India and China are significant members of the BRICS project. Initially comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, the alliance has now expanded to include six more countries, notably Saudi Arabia and Iran. India holds a pivotal role within BRICS. India was the host of the G20 meeting in New Delhi, during which India emphasized the focus on development without delving into political matters like Ukraine. There's ample room for India and China to engage in discussions and foster collaboration. In fact, at the BRICS meeting in Johannesburg, where the alliance was expanded, China’s President Xi Jinping and India’s Prime Minister Modi spoke and said, listen, let’s get our people to start discussing the border issues again, because really deep, robust, proper collaboration is hampered by the lack of movement on the border issue. It's worth remembering that just a decade ago, Russia and China grappled with a longstanding border dispute dating back to the 1950s. This dispute also led to armed conflict due to compelling political and economic interests. Russia’s President Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping resolved to address the issue, recognizing the need for a timely resolution. They can’t allow it to sit for another 78 years. It’s ridiculous. Small disputes are here and there, which can be fixed. Similarly, in the case of India and China, disputes like Aksai Chinn are not insurmountable. They do not necessitate ongoing armed conflicts. Instead, a rational approach can lead to a mutually beneficial solution. They can sit down and say, what’s the best solution before us? Because there’s too much to be gained. The leadership in both countries demonstrated their motivation to transcend these disputes and collaborate during their dialogue in Johannesburg. Now, let's consider the potential of this collaboration. It extends to high-tech sectors, but not enough, there's room for expansion. For instance, India could greatly benefit from access to China's cutting-edge technologies, especially in areas like railways. For poor country, rail is the main way of both moving people and goods. Given India's reliance on rail transport for both passengers and goods, a technological upgrade is essential.Indian rail has not been properly upgraded, even though India is trying to develop high-speed rail. India doesn’t have the extraordinary technology that China possesses. In this realm, no country has the technology China has right now, China stands unrivaled globally, with France being a notable exception in high-speed rail systems. The synergy between India and China could yield incredible results. China, in turn, stands to gain substantially. India boasts complementary strengths, particularly in internet technology and software engineering. The collaboration potential between these two major countries, representing nearly half the world's population, is immense. As the global center of gravity shifts towards Asia, this partnership could further amplify Asia's influence. However, ongoing disputes serve as a roadblock, hindering the realization of Asia's true potential. Capital News: Just as you said, as both India and China are members of G20 and BRICS group, how do you see the roles that these two countries play in BRICS cooperation? What impact does this cooperation have on the global economy and the governance system? Vijay Prashad: This shift in India's stance is noteworthy. Until about a decade ago, India largely adhered to Western perspectives, particularly on political and economic matters. The country was a strong advocate for various forms of economic liberalization. Similarly, China favored liberalization, albeit with careful capital controls in place to shield its financial markets from global speculative pressures. India too has protective measures, maintaining limits on full capital convertibility. Until about 10 years ago, India was pretty much a champion of Neo-liberalism and globalization. However, there has been a notable shift in recent years. And it’s important. This transformation is being propelled by a new perspective within the Indian middle class, who have come to realize that India's close ties with the West haven't yielded substantial benefits. The West lacks the inclination and resources to make the investments needed for India's growth. So that change of mood is quite significant. And This shift in sentiment carries significant weight and resonates in institutions like the BRICS and the G20. For not a long period, only around 5 or 6 years, the BRICS group was largely dormant. This dormancy is reflected in the limited progress of the New Development Bank, often referred to as the BRICS bank. Now Dilma Rousseff serves as the President of New Development Bank (NDB) based in Shanghai. For a considerable period, progress at NDB, such as the contingency reserve arrangement—an alternative to the International Monetary Fund—had stalled, almost lying dormant. Many pivotal BRICS institutions had faced setbacks, as countries like India and Brazil, under unfavorable circumstances, had largely distanced themselves from these initiatives. The G20 had gradually morphed into a platform where the G7 wielded substantial influence over the remaining 13 nations, resembling more of a 'G7 plus' rather than a truly representative G20. However, a turning point came at the G20 meeting in Indonesia, and it's crucial to note that this year's G20 was hosted in India. For the next four years, the G20 will convene in BRICS countries, spanning from Brazil to South Africa—Indonesia, India, Brazil, and South Africa. This extended presence in the Global South provides these nations with significant agenda-setting potential, and their priorities are not necessarily aligned with those of the Western agenda. There is a discernible shift underway. I don’t want to exaggerate this point. We must acknowledge and document this change. Both in the G20 and within the BRICS group, there's a renewed sense of vigor. The expansion of BRICS to include 11 members, bringing in countries like Ethiopia—a key country for the China-Africa initiative—and potentially Argentina, who knows what will happen in that election, but is nonetheless the second largest economy in South America after Brazil, is noteworthy. These are large economies and politically significant countries, even if they aren't originally part of the BRICS initiative. This prompts us to question: What does this transformation signify? It stems from a fresh perspective emanating from Delhi, Beijing, Pretoria, and Brazil. We must be careful in comprehending the shifts, understanding how these dynamics unfold. Again, as you can see, I don’t like to exaggerate things. Progress is best achieved by cautiously navigating through challenges, much like feeling the stones as you cross a river. You have to go slowly, to move methodically and deliberately, rather than jumping over and proclaiming a significant change, especially when it comes to the new developments within BRICS. You can’t think as if you’re an advertising executive, you can’t just put billboards and slogans and neon lights and get excited. Instead, maintaining sober and analytical approach, scrutinizing the facts as they emerge, is of utmost importance. Capital News: Do you think, given the current geopolitical scenario, there's a chance India might put aside its differences with China in diplomatic relations and participate in the 'Belt and Road' on terms it finds acceptable, without compromising its sovereignty? Vijay Prashad: It’s a challenging situation, there’s a lot of work to be done both in India and China. This is not just in India, but both countries. I've written articles for Guangzhou media, and sometimes my friends read the comments, complaining that I make sense 'for an Indian' or 'this Indian blah, blah, blah.' There is a sense of distance in both countries. In China, India is seen as a faraway place, and the same goes for India regarding China. For god’s sake, it's worth noting that we actually share borders, which is precisely why there's a dispute. Additionally, we have Nepal situated in between, working diligently to bring India and China closer. The tensions between India and China have a direct impact on Nepal, Bhutan, and several other countries in the region. It impacts a lot of countries that’s sitting in between. It's imperative for both nations to not only establish political proximity, but also engage in cultural dialogues. That’s important. And I think the meeting between China’s President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Modi was significant. They emphasized the need for a political conversation about maps, borders, and geography. However, cultural exchanges are equally vital. It’s striking to me when I travel in China, how little people in China know about India. Similarly, in India, when you travel in India, you will find that people are often uninformed about China. In both India and China, people tend to be more familiar with Europe and the United States than with each other. This is a regrettable consequence of colonial history, where there is limited awareness that just beyond the Himalayas lies a rich tapestry of civilizations. India itself is not a monolithic entity. It comprises hundreds of languages, with twenty-seven or twenty-eight recognized as official, alongside two main national languages, each with its own wealth of cultures, traditions, and history. China, too, possesses a wealth of history, encompassing not only ancient times but also the revolutionary era. For instance, details about the Long March to Yunnan or the Jiangxi Soviet are often inaccessible to people in India due to cultural barriers. Overcoming this cultural divide is crucial. I contend that it's not solely about political leaders understanding the practical benefits of sharing complementarity, which is economically advantageous for both nations. There's a deep-seated cultural need that must be addressed. People won't truly welcome each other until there are cultural exchanges, more travel from China to India and vice versa. When members of the Indian middle class visit China and experience the high-speed train from Shanghai to Beijing, they are invariably amazed. It's not just about the trains; it's also about the exchange between people. People need to get to know one another. I firmly believe that diplomacy extends beyond politics; it's about understanding each other. When a Chinese diplomat meets me, I recognize that they approach interactions from a different perspective. While I may speak candidly, others may exercise caution, seeking to build trust through understanding. This cultural bridge must be constructed gradually, much like feeling the stones while crossing a river. Some of these stones are in our politics, while others are cultural. You can’t jump over the river. Therefore, I'm hesitant to make claims like 'in six months, we can resolve the border dispute and everything will be fine.' We may indeed reach some form of understanding or memorandum of understanding regarding the border dispute, hopefully within three, six, or twelve months. I can't say for certain if diplomats are currently engaged in discussions behind closed doors, but I sincerely hope that's the case. While such progress is welcome, it's not the end-all-be-all. India boasts extraordinary people. Where do they go for holidays? Often, the Indian middle class aspires to visit Europe or Thailand, but they may not immediately consider a trip to China. Similarly, it would be intriguing to examine the numbers of tourists from China visiting India and vice versa. I suspect the figures may not be very high, though I can't say for certain. Capital News: China's development path is a topic of global discussion today. Many countries appreciate China's development approach, while some portray it as a so-called "expansionist nation." How do you perceive China's role? What is your perspective on China's image and influence in Asia and globally? Vijay Prashad: One thing I can say for sure is that in terms of global communication, and media influence, the West continues to hold a dominant position. Nobody really is able to contest. CNN, for instance, can effectively challenge the New York Times. Their capacity to drive an agenda is remarkable, partly due to their control over satellites and the internet. A significant portion of the web is essentially owned by Western entities. Language plays a role as well. Even when Western media produces content in languages like French, it quickly finds its way into English. On the Chinese side, we often refer to the 'Great Wall of Mandarin.' China has indeed made strides by developing its own social media platforms like Weibo and WeChat. This disparity extends not only to official media outlets, which boast large viewerships, but also to the narrative itself. CNN's viewership far surpasses that of international channels like CGTN or RT. The West has been remarkably successful in constructing hardware and networks to dominate the communication landscape. An interesting fact is that Elon Musk, through his company, personally owns more satellites than the entire government of China. This raises pertinent questions that deserve examination. Moreover, the issue of culture and building one's own networks is crucial. For example, a statement by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken or Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen regarding Chinese expansion in Africa, even using inappropriate terms like 'colonialism,' can resonate not just in Western media but also in African outlets. This highlights the magnitude of Western influence over global communication. One aspect that warrants serious consideration in understanding global affairs is this communication shortfall. It's intriguing to observe instances where Western media companies, faced with situations like the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, struggle to maintain a narrative favoring one side. Recently, Queen Rania of Jordan spoke with Christiane Amanpour on CNN, unequivocally stating that the situation amounts to apartheid and criticizing Israel's barbaric actions. The Israeli government should not be defended on this. Even CNN had to air this perspective, given her position as the Queen of Jordan. It illustrates that sometimes, the narrative becomes too challenging to control. On the other hand, that’s the reason why countries like China, Indonesia and India, whatever tries to build their own communications networks. Granted, there are internal challenges. I understand that. When private Chinese businesses invest in regions like Africa, misinformation sometimes prevails. Terms like 'private investment,' 'parastatal investment,' or even 'government investment' can be misleading. There are various players involved, including provincial investments. An isolated incident, like a poorly managed ceramics factory, can unjustly taint the perception of all Chinese investments. It’s very unfair. The way things are portrayed that has to do with this grip over communications. Addressing this narrative gap is crucial. We don't currently have a truly democratic global communication system. Whether it can be easily rectified remains uncertain. During my visit to some media Beijing, enormous building is huge, with thousands of people working there, I was struck by the sheer scale of the operation. However, it’s not a question of numbers of people working there, how many satellites you have? it's about the story being told. What is the story that you're telling? Is it unbelievable story? For years, there were claims circulating about the Chinese-built port in Hambantota, Sri Lanka, being a 'debt trap.' However, US-based academics published an article in the Atlantic Magazine after conducting a careful examination of the situation. They reviewed all the evidence and concluded that it wasn't a case of debt trap diplomacy. The Chinese had advised the Sri Lankan government to take the money in two installments: first, to build part of the port and generate a profit from it, then use those earnings to fund the remainder. Unfortunately, at that time, the Sri Lankan government insisted on taking the entire sum at once, which led to complications. This incident was not an example of Chinese debt trap diplomacy, but rather a result of poor judgment on the part of the Sri Lankan government. I remember another story from Bloomberg that claimed Chinese loans to build airports in Delhi and Uganda were causing financial difficulties for the respective governments. Bloomberg suggested that China might seize Uganda's only international airport. I took it upon myself to contact the Ugandan government and speak to people in Uganda. In my subsequent piece, I clarified that this narrative was not accurate. According to the Ugandan government, they hadn't scrutinized the contract closely enough. Furthermore, there was no intention on China's part to take over the airport. Instead, it was an unfavorable deal that Uganda had entered into. The question arose: why did they agree to such terms? No one had coerced them. As they explained, they hadn't paid sufficient attention to the specifics of the loan, which stipulated repayment in China rather than Uganda. They could have insisted on an arrangement more favorable to their own country. The responsibility for this lapse lay with Uganda, not China. Despite this, Bloomberg's story had already spread widely, perpetuating the misconception that China was seizing the airport. This lack of a democratic communication system in the world makes it challenging for countries like China, and it's not an issue exclusive to China alone. Any country attempting to pursue a different path faces similar obstacles. This hinders their ability to present their initiatives accurately, as the Western narrative often prevails due to its dominant position in global communication. The West can shape narratives to suit their agenda, as seen in instances like the so-called “China taking away an airport ” and “debt trap diplomacy” in Sri Lanka and so on. While there may be elements of truth in these stories, such as the bad deal in Uganda, they are often blown out of proportion. Even on the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative, I have yet to come across a balanced reflection in Western press. Both the BBC and other outlets failed to provide an objective assessment of the initiative. Crucial questions remain unanswered: What exactly is the Belt and Road Initiative? How much money is involved? Is it benefiting countries in Central Asia, such as Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan? Has it made a positive impact on these struggling nations? Moreover, what impact could the Belt and Road Initiative have on Afghanistan? Could it potentially influence the Taliban's policies if infrastructure like a train link were established? A nuanced evaluation of the Belt and Road Initiative is essential. Every human-made agenda has its flaws, but a balanced, rational assessment is imperative. Exaggerating issues or misrepresenting them only serves to hinder productive dialogue. At present, we do not have an effective global communications order in place. The current news landscape often falls short, lacking the necessary depth and intelligence. Those who dominate the airwaves are more inclined to incite emotions rather than educate. Communication should be about enlightenment. It doesn't have to be dull, but it should serve as a platform for learning, discussion, and the exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, that's often not the case. Global Rebalancing Hinges on the Progress of China and India Capital News: In the world of East and West, India has always been hesitant to take sides. Is it because India doesn't want to be a pawn, even if it means being the decisive one, but rather desires to be the player? Vijay Prashad: That’s an interesting question. It’s actually difficult to answer, primarily due to the diverse political orientations India has witnessed over the last 30 to 40 years. Before the current government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which is positioned on the right end of the political spectrum, India had a center-left government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for over 8 years. This naturally gave rise to a different governmental ethos. During Manmohan Singh's tenure, he played a pivotal role in India's engagement with the BRICS process and demonstrated a keen interest in establishing an alternative financial framework. Manmohan Singh's involvement in these initiatives can be traced back to his time as the Secretary of the South Commission, based in Geneva, Switzerland, under the leadership of figures like Julius Nyerere. Together, they authored a significant report contemplating how the Global South could navigate beyond the setbacks of the development agenda. During this period, India was actually quite indeed in the creation of the BRICS and so on. Simultaneously, India maintained strategic ties with the United States. However, Dr. Manmohan Singh also initiated dialogues with the Chinese government, fostering connections with Gulf nations, Indonesia, Vietnam, and others. This underscores that India wasn't detached from the broader Asian narrative. When Narendra Modi assumed office in 2014, there was initially a noticeable detachment from the BRICS agenda and related initiatives. Recent events, particularly the conflict in Ukraine, have accelerated shifts in Indian diplomacy. When the conflict in Ukraine arose, the United States pressed countries like India to support their stance on Ukraine, back NATO, and provide arms to Ukraine. India found itself in a quandary, asserting its longstanding relationship with Russia and resisting external directives. You can’t tell us what to do. India's Foreign Minister, Jaishankar, was pretty straightforward about this. Thus, the Ukraine crisis catalyzed changes in Indian foreign policy, prompting closer ties with Asian nations. This period has witnessed an interesting phase of readjustment. To answer your question, it's imperative to consider historical developments. Moreover, the future remains uncertain. With Western countries beginning to withdraw, the outcome of the next U.S. presidential election could be pivotal. What if Trump returns to power? What if Ron DeSantis wins the election? A shift to the right in the U.S. could lead to a partial withdrawal. Europe, anyway, is in deep crisis over the war in Ukraine, NATO countries are in deep crisis. This provides an opportunity for India. Will India open up a new dialogue with other Global South countries? Will India take initiative in order to create a new linkage with countries in Latin America? We don’t know. We have to see what I think I’m looking forward to. Allow me to reiterate, the progress of global rebalancing hinges on India and China finding common ground and overcoming longstanding issues. Since the dialogue between Zhou Enlai and Nehru in the 1950s, the nature of the India-China relationship has been a critical question. Back then, the slogan in India was “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai” — Indians and Chinese are brothers. This sentiment held in the 1950s. Even if we can return to a semblance of that sentiment, it would be a significant step. It's about opening doors. But I really want to emphasize, especially for our friends in China, that until India and China settle these issues, we won't transition into the new era. We'll remain in this interim period between a Western-dominated world order and the potential emergence of a new era centered around Asia. To realize a future where Asia is the center of gravity of the world, we must first resolve these disputes between India and China. Capital News: We’ve noticed that in the recent G20 summit, India ultimately stood with the BRICS nations against the G7. Looking ahead, how will 'Player India' make its move? Will it join a more economically powerful East, or a politically dominant West? Vijay Prashad: I think the question itself is quite interesting, because I think it appears that the West's political dominance may not be long-lasting. In fact, I believe that this shift has already occurred. When it comes to the egregious Israeli bombardment of the Palestinians, the west is not able to get countries, even Gulf Arab countries to agree with the western position. While figures like Giorgia Meloni and Joe Biden may align themselves with Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, it's unlikely that we'll witness African leaders echoing this stance. The west has lost its political tempo in the global south, and that's simply the current reality. So, India doesn't find itself compelled to make a binary choice. Instead, it should chart its own course. Right now, I’m afraid to say there’s a little bit of confusion. The current Indian government appears somewhat unsure about the new opportunities unfolding in the world. It's holding on to a pro-US disposition, despite asserting that it won't take directives from anyone. And in many ways, this Indian government is pretty happy when Washington tells it what to do. This reliance on external guidance needs to be broken. India shouldn't be taking orders from the United States, shouldn't be taking orders from Japan, shouldn't be taking orders from China, it should be taking its cues from its own people. That’s the point of having a modern society. China doesn’t pick up the phone and ask other country what should I do? China’s government looks to the Chinese people to discern their wants and needs. China has to be driven by the Chinese people, not some outside power. The Indian government, to some extent, still seems to defer to the West to determine what's deemed appropriate. Sometimes in public, they say we are not with you, but largely this government doesn’t have the courage to hang the foreigner and look out of the window, to see what your people need. There's a reluctance to wholeheartedly prioritize the aspirations of their own populace. It's abundantly clear that a country as vast as India—with a population now surpassing China's—must grapple with the issue of poverty. The solution to this challenge isn't going to be handed down from Washington, D.C. Frankly, the United States itself is witnessing a rise in poverty rates, not a decrease. This is a point that I believe warrants careful consideration. 来源：长安街知事 记者：刘晓琰 如遇作品内容、版权等问题，请在相关文章刊发之日起30日内与本网联系。版权侵权联系电话：010-85202353