6月7日，由紫荆文化集团主办、集友银行联合主办的“‘一带一路’十年成果和愿景——紫荆文化论坛”在香港君悦酒店举行。论坛共邀请了来自印度尼西亚、英国、美国、哈萨克斯坦、阿联酋、马来西亚、塞尔维亚和中国香港等地的16位国际知名专家学者、政商领袖亲临现场，回顾总结“一带一路”十周年的成就和经验，为“一带一路”的发展提出建议。英国著名学者、剑桥大学前资深研究员马丁·雅克出席并发表英文致辞，致辞全文中英文如下：

十年前，在“一带一路”倡议首次提出时，曾引发诸多疑惑。“它是什么？”是最常被问到的问题，这也在情理之中。因为，“一带一路”是我们前所未见的，它既不是有明确日期的计划，也不存在具体方针、界限、截止日期。从任何意义上讲，它都是一项开放性的倡议。它是一个想法、一种概念，更是一种全新的独创项目思考方式。此外，“一带一路”的规模极其庞大，涵盖世界绝大多数人口，这是前所未见的。美国在1947年至1952年期间推出的马歇尔援助计划与之最为接近，但其相比之下仍显得微不足道。

“一带一路”理念的出发点是中国对自身转型的思考。发展中国家可以从中吸取哪些经验？发展中国家能够从中学到什么？中国转型的核心是由国家主导的大规模基建投资。如果在中国可行，对其他国家又何尝不可？欧亚大陆，以及非洲和拉丁美洲的大部分地区，都面临基础设施不足的问题。“一带一路”将试图改变这种情况。中国将是该项目的核心。该项目将包括中国和发展中国家之间签订大量双边协议，中国通常将以贷款的形式提供资金。“一带一路”反响热烈，现已有147个国家加入其中。

如果说“一带一路”在宣布之初引发许多人的困惑，那么现在情况早已改变。现在，人们对它已有不同程度的了解。在短短十年间，它已对全球地缘经济格局产生重要影响，其影响力不亚于国际货币基金组织和世界银行。让我们回顾中国在2013年刚推出倡议时的情景。当时中国正逐步走出邓小平时代，在邓小平时代，中国的首要任务是发展自身经济；当时的中国“韬光养晦”，在全球舞台上保持低调，遵循规则而不是制定规则，以其非凡的经济增速而闻名，而非其试图避免的国际倡议。当时我们并不知晓，“一带一路”的推出标志着中国与世界的关系发生重大转变，它为中国走出国门创造了契机。事实证明，它取得了巨大成功。毫不夸张地说，在倡议发展的十年中，它改变了世界。

从哪些方面？

首先，“一带一路”推动了发展问题在全球舞台上的基本中心地位。西方对发展中世界一直是口惠而实不至，以剥削和家长式作风对待，蔑视发展中世界。“一带一路”为发展中国家提供了一种新的解决方案。在此过程中，发展中世界在全球舞台上占据着越来越重要的地位。

第二，“一带一路”在中国与发展中世界之间构筑了一种新的关系。中国被视为发展中国家的捍卫者，它不仅通过语言，更重要的是通过实际行动，代表发展中国家发出强有力的声音。

第三，“一带一路”为新式的全球联盟铺平道路，进而形成一种新的全球政治。中国与发展中世界的关系并非基于相同的政治观点或意识形态，亦非军事联盟，而是基于绝大多数世界人口面临的最重要问题——发展。这与西方采取的方法截然不同。“一带一路”一直是这种转变的推动者和舞台，我们看到这种转变体现在不同方面，包括全球南方国家对乌克兰冲突的不同态度。“一带一路”预示着地缘经济的崛起，成为了地缘政治的新力量。

第四，“一带一路”首次将中国哲学的核心思想推向更广阔的世界。两个多世纪以来，国际政治的语言和理念完全是西式的，但现在那个时代已经彻底结束。“一带一路”带来了新的思维方式：发展本质上是一个全球性问题，因而应具备真正从全球化视角思考问题的能力；这是一种截然不同的时间观念，该倡议发展的时间轴大幅延长，远非西方认为的几年或者最多十年，就“一带一路”而言，我们必须从半个世纪的时间跨度来考虑，甚至完全摆脱任何时间限制，这就是发展面临的挑战。然后我们产生了双赢的想法，而并非零和思维。“一带一路”无疑是中国命运共同体理念的生动体现。“一带一路”就像中国哲学速成班。

第五，“一带一路”是一种全新的国际机制。国际体系一直由国际货币基金组织和世界银行等美式机构主导，其显著特征是代表一小部分人并为之代言。相比之下，“一带一路”作为一种新型国际机制，旨在代表占世界人口85%的发展中国家。换言之，“一带一路”让我们得以窥见一种截然不同的国际体系，以多数人而非少数人的利益为主导地位。

“一带一路”涵盖世界上绝大多数国家，包括欧亚大陆（包括中亚、东南亚、南亚、中东和欧洲部分地区）以及非洲和拉丁美洲国家。自2013年以来，中国在“一带一路”上的累计支出高达9,320 亿美元，作出了巨大的贡献。我们应该将“一带一路”视作一个随着世界的变化而不断发展变化的活跃机制。在初始阶段，“一带一路”主要注重超大规模的基础设施项目，但与此同时，中小企业、环境和气候需求以及绿色项目也变得越来越重要。疫情持续期间，不可避免地导致中国投资大幅减少。乌克兰冲突也意味着新的重心转移到海上路线而非陆上路线，因为在可预见的未来当中一两条陆上路线将无法实现。

最后一点是西方的态度。美国最初认为“一带一路”无关紧要。但随着越来越多的国家签署加入“一带一路”，该倡议已不容忽视，因此美国试图进行破坏，指责其推行“债务陷阱”外交。但事实恰恰相反，中国竭尽全力帮助各国避免陷入沉重的债务。2008年至2021年间，中国已向20个陷入困境的国家资助2,400亿美元。在必要时，中国亦会重新谈判协议，以减轻此类国家的负担。西方最终总算意识到其需要提供“一带一路”的替代方案。但几乎没有或根本没有迹象表明，西方（无论是美国还是欧盟或是两者）承诺、提供资源或具有政治信念来提出一个可行的替代方案。这需要西方对发展中国家的态度发生巨大转变，显然近期无法实现这种转变。十年过去了，西方并未提供任何方案。“一带一路”仍是唯一的选择。

When the Belt and Road Initiative was first launched ten years ago, there was much puzzlement. ‘What is it?’ was a widely asked question. And quite reasonably so. Because Belt and Road was like nothing we had seen before. This was not a plan with fixed dates. There was nothing concrete. There were no boundaries. There was no end date. In every sense it was open-ended. It was an idea, a concept. It was a totally new and original way of thinking about a project. Furthermore, it was on the hugest of scales, encompassing the great majority of the world’s population. We have never seen anything like this before. The nearest was the America’s Marshall Aid plan between 1947 and 1952, but that was puny in comparison.

The point of departure for the idea of Belt and Road was a reflection on China’s own transformation. What lessons might be drawn from it for the developing world? What could the developing countries learn from it? At the heart of China’s transformation was state-led, large-scale investment in infrastructure. If it worked for China, then why not for others? Most of the Eurasian land mass, together with Africa and Latin America, suffered from a disabling shortage of infrastructure. Belt and Road would seek to change that. China would be the hub of the project. It would consist of a multitude of bilateral agreements between China and the developing countries, with China providing the funding, typically in the form of loans. The response has been enormous with 147 countries now part of Belt and Road.

If many scratched their heads in puzzlement about Belt and Road when it was first announced, this has long ceased to be the case. Everyone now knows in varying degrees what it is about. In ten short years, it has become part of the global geo-economic firmament, no less than the IMF and the World Bank. Let’s remind ourselves where China was in 2013 when it was launched. It was in the process of emerging from the Deng era during which the overriding priority had been China’s own economic development; it was quiescent on the global stage, seeking to keep a low profile, a rule-taker not a rule-maker, famous for its extraordinary economic growth rate but not for its international initiatives, which it sought to avoid. Little did we know at the time, but the launch of Belt and Road was to signal a huge shift in China’s relationship with the world. It marked the moment of China’s coming out. And it was to prove remarkably successful. It is not an exaggeration to argue that over the decade of its existence it has changed the world.

In what ways?

First, Belt and Road promoted the question of development to a position of fundamental centrality on the global stage. The West had always paid little more than lip-service to the developing world, which it looked down upon and treated in an exploitative and paternalistic manner. Belt and Road offered a new kind of solution for the developing countries. And in the process the developing world came to occupy an increasingly important position on the global stage.

Second, Belt and Road forged a new kind of relationship between China and the developing world. China came to be seen as the champion of the developing countries. It became a powerful voice on behalf of the developing countries, not just by word but crucially by deed.

Third, Belt and Road paved the way for a new kind of global alignment and, as a result, a new kind of global politics. The relationship between China and the developing world is not based on a shared view of politics or ideology, nor military alliances, but on the most important issue facing the great majority of the world’s population, that of development. This is entirely different from the West’s approach. Belt and Road has been the agency and stage for this shift, which we see expressed in many different ways, including the very independent attitude of the Global South towards the Ukraine war. Belt and Road has heralded the rise of geo-economics as a new force in geo-politics.

Fourth, Belt and Road has introduced, for the first time, key tenets of Chinese philosophy to the wider world. For over two centuries the language and concepts of international politics have been exclusively Western. That era is now well and truly over. With Belt and Road has come new ways of thinking: the ability to think in truly global terms because development is quintessentially a global issue; a very different idea of time, in which timescales are hugely longer – far from being limited to a few years, or at most a decade as in the Western mind, in the case of Belt and Road we must think in terms of half a century, or even without any time limits at all, such is the challenge of development. Then we have the idea of win-win relationships rather than zero-sum thinking. And Belt and Road, of course, is the living embodiment of China’s Concept of a Community of Shared Destiny. Belt and Road is like a crash course in Chinese philosophy.

Fifth, Belt and Road is an entirely new kind of international institution. The international system has been dominated by US-style institutions, like the IMF and the World Bank, whose distinctive characteristic is that they represent and speak on behalf of a small minority of humanity. Belt and Road, in contrast, is a new kind of international institution that seeks to represent 85% of the world who live in the developing world. In other words, it offers a glimpse of a very different kind of international system in which the interests of the majority rather than the minority predominate.

Belt and Road comprises the great majority of the world’s nations. They are drawn from across Eurasia – including Central Asia, South East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Europe – together with Africa and Latin America. China’s cumulative expenditure on Belt and Road since 2013 amounts to a huge $932bn, a colossal contribution. It is important to see Belt and Road as a dynamic institution, one that is constantly moving and changing as the world itself changes. In the initial phase, the main emphasis was on very large-scale infrastructural projects, but alongside these, SMEs, environmental and climatic needs, and green projects have been acquiring growing significance. The pandemic for a period inevitably led to significantly reduced Chinese investment. The Ukraine war means a new emphasis on maritime rather than land routes, one or two of which will for the foreseeable future be impossible.

What then, finally, of the Western response. The US initially dismissed Belt and Road as irrelevant. But, as a growing number of countries signed up to it, it could no longer be ignored, so the US sought to undermine it, accusing it of debt diplomacy. The contrary is the case. China has gone to great lengths to help countries avoid into getting into deep debt. Between 2008 and 2021, it gave $240bn to 20 distressed countries. Where necessary it has renegotiated deals to make them less burdensome. Belatedly, the West has finally recognised that it needs to offer an alternative to Belt and Road. But there is little or no sign that the West, be it the US or EU, or the two combined, has the commitment, the resources, or the political conviction to come up with a viable alternative. It would require a huge shift in the West’s attitude towards the developing world, one which is patently not forthcoming. After ten years, the West has nothing to offer. Belt and Road is the only show in town.