Artyom Lukin: Will the New Silk Road Run via Bucharest?

On September 26-28, 2013, I took part in Bucharest Forum. The event was organized by Aspen Institute Romania and German Marshall Fund of the United States, with the support of Romanian Government.[1] The Forum brought together prominent political leaders, diplomats, officials, journalists, experts and scholars from different countries. The gathering’s main theme was the New Silk Road.

According to Bucharest Forum’s organizers, the New Silk Road is to become a grand Eurasian corridor, closely linking the Three Seas region – Caspian, Black Sea and the Adriatic. Straddling Europe, Asia and the Middle East (Levant), the Three Seas area is, as the authors of the concept put it, “Eurasia’s hinge.”

The New Silk Road project was not invented in Romania. It was first formulated by the US State Department under Hilary Clinton. The idea is to establish an extensive network of transportation, economic, trade, and institutional linkages that would securely tie up the South Caucasus, Caspian and Central Asian countries with the Euro-Atlantic area.

To be sure, the original Silk Road used to connect the Occident with China, passing through Central Asia. However, in the Bucharest version of the Silk Road China does not feature in any prominent way. In essence, it is about providing the West with an unimpeded access to South Caucasus, Caspian Sea and Central Asia. In this regard, the New Silk Road can be viewed as one element in the big geopolitical game over prevailing influence in Central Asia. In this game, the principal contenders are the West (the US plus the EU), Russia, and China, with Turkey, Iran, India and the Gulf states being the lesser players.

The basic contours of this game were outlined as early as the mid-1990s by Zbigniew Brzezinski’s famous book “The Grand Chessboard.” The American strategist predicted rivalry for “Eurasian Balkans” – an area made up of weak states, with Central Asia and the Caspian as its geographical core. Brzezinski argued that the West needed to establish as many routes of access to Central Asia as possible, which should also reduce the region’s dependency on Russia. It is hard not to notice that the New Silk Road concept very much follows Brzezinski’s geopolitical reasoning.

By the way, the Romanian designers of the New Silk Road believe that Russia “is losing slowly but inevitably its economic and political predominance in the region.” Still, they add that the European Union should “create the strategic space for it (Russia) without sacrificing its (the EU’s) fundamental objectives.”

The New Silk Road can also be seen in an even bigger, global, context. At Bucharest Forum, there were a lot of discussions, mostly in an optimistic light, on the coming Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the US and the EU. In conjunction with the other planned free trade mega-deal, Trans-Pacific Partnership, these two geo-economic pacts are to guarantee America’s pivotal position in global political economy. The New Silk Road, if, of course, it ever materializes, will allow the US-led Trans-Atlantic bloc to gain access to the very heart of continental Eurasia and pull Central Asian and Caspian states into its orbit.

Bucharest Forum was remarkable not only for its grand geo-economic designs, but also in that it demonstrated  Romania’s rising ambitions. Bucharest wants to be a leader not only in its immediate neighborhood of Southeast Europe, but also in the wider area of the Caspian, Black Sea and the Adriatic. It appears that Romania seeks to become a pro-active force, similar to what Poland has been in Eastern Europe. To be sure, this leadership has its boundaries, just because it is exercised on behalf and within Trans-Atlantic community, where the most important decisions are made not in Bucharest and Warsaw, nor even in Brussels, but rather in Washington. It remains to be seen whether Romania, given its relatively modest economic and strategic capabilities, is up to a confident regional leadership. However, its aspirations to be an active and constructive international player at least deserve respect.

How should Russia respond to the New Silk Road project? Although its geopolitical thrust clearly runs counter to Russia’s traditional interests, Moscow should not make much fuss about it. At any rate, the Kremlin cannot block this project, even if it wished to do so. Central Asian states, as well as Azerbaijan, have been keen to pursue “multidirectional” foreign policies, strengthening relations with different power centers. There is not much Russia can do about that. The only effective way for Moscow to exercise major, and sustainable, influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus is to be an attractive economic, and political, partner for the regional countries.

Another Russian response to the New Silk Road should be the more energetic development of Trans-Eurasian corridors passing through Russia, especially the Trans-Siberian railway and, over the longer term, the Northern Sea Route. Eurasia has enough room, as well as commercial cargos, for multiple “silk roads.” Yet it is vital to ensure that their competition does not degenerate into confrontation.  

Artyom Lukin is Associate Professor of International Relations and Deputy Director for Research at the School of Regional and International Studies, Far Eastern Federal University (Vladivostok, Russia). Email: artlukin@mail.ru