In autumn 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping presented his Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe play an important role in this ambitious infrastructure and connectivity project. The analysis of the 16+1 cooperation format, established by Beijing in 2012, shows that Beijing is able to establish new regional groupings that have the potential to undermine the unity of a larger regional bloc. Yet, it also demonstrates that China lacks a coherent BRI master plan. Rather, it pragmatically adapts its strategies to challenges and external criticism. The European Union (EU), notably the European Parliament (EP), became since 2015 more critical of the strategic impacts of BRI on Europe. Austria, which recognised the economic opportunities offered by BRI only recently, supports a common EU position. While Austria plays a strong-if not a leading-role in two Central and Eastern European cooperation mechanisms that may in the future also address BRI, that is, the Salzburg Forum and the Central European Defense Cooperation (CEDC), 16+1 remains the key institution for multi- and bilateral agreements on the New Silk Roads in this region. Austria, however, will remain only an observer and thus an ‘X’ in the 16+1+X format, reducing Vienna’s influence.
To mitigate the risks and maximise the opportunities arising from China’s great power behaviour, Malaysia employed a hedging strategy during Mahathir Mohamad’s second term as prime minister. From 2018 until 2020, the middle power Malaysia applied direct engagement and elements of limited balancing and limited bandwagoning in a flexible yet consistent manner. Neither China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) nor its actions in the South China Sea caused a sea change in Malaysia’s hedging strategy. Crucially, the policies towards China were embedded in omnidirectional, friendly, and well-balanced relations with the United States, Japan, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Theoretically, this contribution applies an updated concept of hedging, initially introduced by Cheng-Chwee Kuik. As an important innovation, it adds a specific component to assess the perceptions of the political leader(s) of risks and opportunities related to the hedging target as well as the strategic value of potential balancing partners.
In September 2021, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia entered into a new security partnership, that is, a trilateral security pact called for short: "AUKUS". Having already cooperated closely together in various political and security formats, the AUKUS deepens the maritime component of their collaboration. This contribution discusses the strategic motives behind the establishment of the AUKUS and its potential implications for the security architecture in the Indo-Pacific, including possible new flexible partnerships. Geographically, the focus rests on the situation in the South China Sea. The South China Sea is a critical hotspot where China is acting increasingly assertive. Securing freedom of navigation and trade in the South China Sea is a vital national interest for the US, Australia, and the UK. This contribution will examine the maritime power potentials of the AUKUS members vis-à-vis China, discussing the importance of nuclear-powered submarines for power projection in the Indo-Pacific. Last but not least, it will address the fact that the announcement of the AUKUS and the cancellation of Australia's previous submarine deal with France not only surprised the European Union but demonstrated the lack of geostrategic importance of this economically strong but in the Indo-Pacific militarily irrelevant actor.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.