Conceptualizing India’s response to the belt and road initiative: from norms to balancing strategies

IF 0.5 3区 社会学 Q3 AREA STUDIES
Prateek Joshi
{"title":"Conceptualizing India’s response to the belt and road initiative: from norms to balancing strategies","authors":"Prateek Joshi","doi":"10.1080/14736489.2021.1875698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Despite deepening economic ties between India and China, the unresolved border dispute, Sino-Pak strategic ties and India’s openness to engage with the US-led regional security structures continue to affect the bilateral relationship. The inception of China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in 2015 generated strong protests from New Delhi citing violation of its territorial sovereignty and culminated in India’s refusal to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The statements emerging from the Indian foreign office and policymakers expressed concerns about the opacity of Chinese projects, debt trap, and the sovereignty risks to smaller nations’ economies in case of their inability to repay Chinese loans. While these factors objectively sum up India’s stance on the BRI, they simultaneously speak of India’s response to the BRI on a strategic level. The article argues that India’s approach to the BRI should be examined from its Moralpolitik-driven ethical deconstruction of the project, through which it attempts to legitimize its response strategy in balance of power terms.","PeriodicalId":56338,"journal":{"name":"India Review","volume":"20 1","pages":"247 - 259"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14736489.2021.1875698","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"India Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2021.1875698","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Despite deepening economic ties between India and China, the unresolved border dispute, Sino-Pak strategic ties and India’s openness to engage with the US-led regional security structures continue to affect the bilateral relationship. The inception of China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in 2015 generated strong protests from New Delhi citing violation of its territorial sovereignty and culminated in India’s refusal to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The statements emerging from the Indian foreign office and policymakers expressed concerns about the opacity of Chinese projects, debt trap, and the sovereignty risks to smaller nations’ economies in case of their inability to repay Chinese loans. While these factors objectively sum up India’s stance on the BRI, they simultaneously speak of India’s response to the BRI on a strategic level. The article argues that India’s approach to the BRI should be examined from its Moralpolitik-driven ethical deconstruction of the project, through which it attempts to legitimize its response strategy in balance of power terms.
概念化印度对“一带一路”倡议的回应:从规范到平衡战略
尽管印度和中国之间的经济联系不断加深,但未解决的边界争端、中巴战略关系以及印度对参与美国主导的地区安全结构的开放态度继续影响着双边关系。2015年中巴经济走廊(CPEC)的启动引发了新德里的强烈抗议,理由是侵犯了其领土主权,并最终导致印度拒绝参与“一带一路”倡议。印度外交部和政策制定者发表的声明表达了对中国项目不透明、债务陷阱以及小国经济在无力偿还中国贷款的情况下面临的主权风险的担忧。这些因素客观地概括了印度对“一带一路”倡议的立场,同时也从战略层面阐述了印度对“一带一路”倡议的回应。本文认为,印度对“一带一路”的态度应该从其道德政治驱动的项目伦理解构来审视,通过这种解构,印度试图在权力平衡方面使其应对策略合法化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
India Review
India Review AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信