On August 31st, the latest chapter of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative opened near the Danube. A 28-kilometer expressway built by China’s Shandong Hi-Speed Group opened in Serbia, designed to connect Golubac with the E-75 motorway. Although seemingly just an infrastructure project, the corridor strengthens the economic and geopolitical ties binding Serbia to China.

This corridor is the latest project in a long line of investments by the Chinese state through its Belt and Road initiative. The Belt and Road initiative (BRI) is China’s flagship international investment program, designed to facilitate policy coordination, unimpeded trade, and financial integration. Beyond these stated goals, the initiative has also become a means of expanding Chinese geopolitical influence.

As China rapidly outpaces American foreign investment, governments facing significant infrastructure gaps have turned to Chinese financing as an alternative to the World Bank and traditional Western sources of funding. From 2013 to 2021, China provided 679 billion dollars worth of infrastructure projects in major sectors; the United States’ contribution of 76 billion pales in comparison. These projects have taken the form of power plants, railways, highways, ports, stadiums, and other infrastructure. This creates new Chinese trade links and grows China’s global footprint as Beijing embeds deeply in economies with dire need of infrastructure and investment.

This initiative works as a means to reduce transportation and trade costs, thus encouraging countries to become more economically connected. According to World Bank research, the BRI could reduce travel times along key economic corridors by up to 12% and increase trade in BRI corridor economies by roughly 2.8 to 9.7%. The BRI could also create distinct benefits for low-income economies, potentially lifting 7.6 million out of extreme poverty and 32 million out of moderate poverty. These gains reveal why infrastructure is so crucial to statecraft: as one country invests in another nation’s economic future, their economic and political relationship deepens.

The BRI is not without fault; according to AidData analysis, 35% of BRI infrastructure projects experienced major implementation problems. These projects have faced corruption scandals, labor violations, environmental hazards, and public protest; infrastructure is being built at a distinct cost to the local population. Governments are faced with more than just physical issues; they are faced with the economic cost of financing these projects. Large and sometimes unreported payment obligations create debt vulnerability and a reliance on Beijing, potentially undermining the geopolitical independence that developed domestic infrastructure can provide.

These failures do not invalidate the strategic value behind the BRI; instead, they represent a guide for what an American alternative must do differently. The lesson for Washington is not to replicate the Belt and Road but to pursue a model of economic investment that encourages development and expands national influence. The United States does not have to engage in opaque lending or foster political dependence; it has the tools to invest strategically at a scale few countries can match.

America cannot hope to compete on the world stage through tariffs and isolationism alone. It must also invest in a global future increasingly interconnected through global trade. This is not without precedent. Following WWII, the United States invested in Western Europe through the Marshall Plan, providing foreign aid and encouraging economic recovery following the devastation of WWII. Today's circumstances are dramatically different, but the strategic lesson remains: overseas investment can advance American interests as well as local development.