The Strategy and Co-opetition of
Beijing’s New Eurasian Landbridge
Chun-kuang Wu
Associate Professor, Director of MS Program in Technology Management, Fu Jen Catholic University
Abstract
Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed a strategy of an economic belt of the Silk Road in 2013. This has already caused the external world to pay close attention. Beijing is looking to the New Eurasian landbridge of transportation routes from the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea to become the network of communications and transportation connecting East Asia, West Asia, and South Asia to Europe. Meanwhile, the European Union has established the Intergovernmental Commission (IGC) TRACECA in 1998. Since the European Union, China, South Caucasus countries, and Central Asian states have the same strategic goal for construction of the New Eurasian landbridge, this paper expects the New Eurasian landbridge, which is not controlled by Russia, will be set up gradually in the future. Nevertheless, even if China and the European Union set up the New Eurasian landbridge, they will be unable to control the New Eurasian landbridge.
Keywords: “One Belt, One Road”, Geo-strategy, New Eurasian
I. Introduction
Since Beijing proposed its strategy of the economic belt of the Silk Road and the Marine Silk Road (also called “One Belt, One Road”, OBOR) in 2013, lots of plans have been put out for it. When Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Nazarbayev University of Ka-zakhstan in September of 2013,1he proposed the initiative of jointly building the Silk Road Economic Belt. China is looking forward to being in ancient Silk Road area, and on the concept of interconnection, constructs and appears and is well versed in the potential development of an Asian-European economic zone. The leadership in Beijing is utilizing the convenient protocol of the infrastructure of Communi-cations and transportation via the Shanghai Co-operation Organization. They are looking forward to getting through the large landbridge for transportation from the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea in order to become the network of communications and transportation connecting East Asia, West Asia, and South Asia to Europe. So, understanding why this strategic plan was proposed by Beijing, assessing its geo-strategic meaning and challenge, and understanding the reaction of the surrounding countries along the Silk Road Economic Belt is the purpose of this paper.
II. Geo-strategy meaning of the New Eurasian Land
Bri-dge
1. The Eurasian players and chessboard
In 1904, Halford Mackinder, who is one of the fathers of geo-politics and geo-strategy, presented a paper on “The Geographical
Jing-Wen Wang,〈習近平提戰略構想：“一帶一路”打開“築夢空間”〉, China
Economic, August 18, 2015, <http://www.ce.cn/xwzx/gnsz/szyw/201408/11/
Pivot of History” at the Royal Geographical Society, which advanced his Heartland Theory.2 He divided the Earth’s land surface into the world-island, offshore islands, and outlying islands. The world-island was the largest and the most populated, and it linked the continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The offshore islands included the islands of Britain and Japan. The outlying islands included the continents of North America, South America, and Australia. Central Asia was the geographical pivot point of history on the world island. A few years later, Mackinder summarized his theory as:
Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the
World-Island commands the world3.
Saul Cohen divides the geopolitics unit into three levels of hi-erarchy; the upper most layer is that of the geostrategic realm, the middle layer is the geopolitical region, and the lowest level is the national country, semi-country, and autonomous region. He thinks that the U.S., Russia, European Union, China, and Japan are the key countries of the geostrategic realm.4 Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver list the political, military, and economic power key elements as de-termining whether the country is a superpower, great power, or regional power. The U.S. and Soviet Union were the superpowers in the Cold War. Only the U.S. has been a superpower since the Cold War. The European Union, Russia, China, and Japan have been
Halford Mackinder, “The geographical pivot of history,” Geographical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1904, pp. 421-437.
Halford Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of
Reconstruction (New York: Holt, 1919), p. 50.
Saul B. Cohen, Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations (London and New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009), pp. 35-47.
regional powers.5So, the geopolitics of Eurasia has five main players, one superpower and four great powers.
Eurasia is the largest global landmass, so, controlling Eurasia makes Africa submit to the rule of Eurasia and causes the Western Hemisphere and Oceania to turn into a border area of geopolitics. It decides Eurasia to be superpower, can three area most advanced and productivity in economy control two area. For over 500 years, the leading world affairs of big country of Eurasia, the mutual fight of the people of various countries becomes great power, then strive to chase the superpower status of the world even more.6 The Soviet Union controlled Eastern Europe and Central Asia after World War II. On the other hand, the American troops dispose three surrounding areas at the Eurasia directly, cause strong influence in Eurasia. There-fore, the U.S. and the Soviet Union became the two superpowers after World War II. How long the U.S. keeps superpower status after cold war is directly dependent on its preponderance on the Eurasian landmass.7 Brzezinski thinks that:
If the middle space rebuffs the West, becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor, then America’s pri-macy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. The same would be the case if the two major Eastern players were somehow to unite. Finally, any ejection of America by its Western partners from
Barry Buzan & Ole Wæver, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International
Security (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 34-37.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its
Ge-ostrategic Imperative (New York: Basic Books, 1997), pp. 30-31.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its
its perch on the western periphery would automatically spell the end of America’s participation in the game on the Eurasian chessboard, even though that would probably also mean the eventual subordination of the western extremity to a revived
player occupying the middle space.8
Brzezinski expanded on the views of Mackinder. He said that it is not the issue of controlling marine power or land power in geopolitics at present. The issue of the geopolitics has already been transferred from the regional to the global system. Eurasia is the center of the global hegemony. Therefore, the U.S. can regard North America as not belonging to Eurasia, so extending power to Asia and Europe from left and right is a key factor in the U.S. remaining the leader of the world and the global superpower. In addition, it is for controlling the Heartland that the U.S. is fighting in Afghanistan, and it is also for controlling the gateway to the Heartland that it is fighting in Iraq.
2. The international traffic route in Eurasia
In a global system, the geopolitics unit that can control the strategic traffic under the system could become a superpower. The strategic value of the international traffic route must satisfy the following conditions: (1)connects the geostrategic realm and geo-political region; (2)transports a large amount of goods and materials, and (3) provides military strength projection ability. The aforemen-tioned conditions only apply to land route and marine transportation lines. The top four marine transportation lines based on maximum traffic volume are: (1)the Trans-Atlantic Ocean marine routes between
Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its
North America and Western Europe; (2)the Trans-Pacific Ocean marine routes between North America and Northeast Asia; (3)the marine petroleum routes to Northeast Asia and Europe separately from the Middle East, and (4)the marine transportation lines of Australia via Southeast Asia from Northeast Asia. On the other hand, the strategic transportation lines of land routes are mainly in Eurasia. Figure 1 illustrates th e first and second strategic landbridges in Eurasian at the present time. The first Eurasian landbridge is the Si-berian Landbridge (SLB), from Vladivostok to Novosibirsk, Moscow, Minsk, changing the train gauge of 1,520mm to the European standard gauge of 1,435mm at the border of Poland, and then to Warsaw, Berlin, and finally to Rotterdam, with a total length of about 13,000 kilometers. SLB began to offer international transportation service in 1965.9The second Eurasian landbridge is the New Eurasian Land Bridge, which begins with the Lanzhou-Lianyungang Railway, Lan-zhou-Xinjiang railway, and North Xinjiang railway from Lianyungang city, reaches Alataw Pass at the border of China, enters Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany, and finally goes to Rotterdam, with a total length of about 10,900 kilometers. The north route of New Eurasian Land Bridge began to offer international transportation service in December 1992. China, Nepal, and the European Union will cooperate, and build a third railway of Eurasian landbridge. This railway, from Shenzhen to Kunming, Burma, Bangladesh, India, Pa-kistan, Iran, Turkey, Poland, and finally to Rotterdam, will have a total length of about 15,000 kilometers.10
YaLong Li & LiKun Wu,〈歐亞國際運輸走廊問題及中國的應對之策〉,
Rus-sian Study, Vol. 1, No. 6, June 2011, pp. 50-63.
Xiangyang City Business office, 〈歐亞大陸橋情況介紹〉, Xiangyang City
Business office, August 1, 2011, <http://www.xiangyang.gov.cn/resources/
Figure 1: Main Routes of the Eurasian Landbridge
Data source: Haiyun Ma , I-wei Jennifer Chang, “China’s New Silk Road Strategy,”
Middle East Research and Information, March 20, 2014, <http://www.
merip.org/chinas-new-silk-road-strategy>.
III. Performance and challenges of the New Eurasian
Landbridge
1. North, central, and south routes
The New Eurasian Land Bridge enters Kazakhstan and is divided into north, central, and south routes from Aktau city (see Figure 2). The north route goes north with the Trans-Siberian Railroad from Aktau through Russia, Belarus, Poland, and enters Western Europe and Northern Europe. The central route goes from Aktau to Russia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, to the coast of the English Channel of France or goes down south from Aktau through Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, past the Caspian
Sea to reach Baku of Azerbaijan, and then to Georgia, crossing the Black Sea to Bulgaria, and enters Romania and Hungary on the way to Central Europe. The south route enters Iran southwards via Turk-menistan, then enters Turkey, crosses the Bosphorus strait to Bulgaria, and continues to Central Europe, Western Europe, and Southern Europe.11
The Siberian Land-Bridge (SLB)
The New Eurasian Land-Bridge
North Route Central Route
South Route
Figure 2: North, Central, and South Routes of the New Eurasian Landbridge
Data source: Australia Asia Projects Architecture Constructor (AAPAC) Group, “China and Kazakhstan open new second rail link - renaissance of ancient Silk Road and opening to Eurasian economic boom,” AAPAC
Group, December 6, 2012,
<http://www.aapacgroup.com/china-ka-zakhstan-second-rail-link.html>.
2. Transportation, Problems, and challenges Economic problem
The New Eurasian Land Bridge began to offer international transportation service in December of 1992. In 2014, Central Europe only accepted 26,000 containers for carriage together.12At the Yabuli China Entrepreneurs Forum 2015 Summer Summit, Chongqing mayor Huang Qifan mentioned the transportation volume this year will reach 7,500 containers from Chongqing to Alataw Pass, Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Dewisburg (Germany). He said that China can send 250 special trains to Europe in 2015, and the freight charges will drop to 0.55 dollars per kilometer for a container. A special train has 50 containers, so 12,500 containers will run to Europe. The total distance from Chongqing to Europe is 11,179 kilometers. This is equivalent to 6,148 dollars of freight charges for a container from Chongqing to Dewisburg, Germany. Even so, the Chinese railway head office said this line loses money.13
China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Germany signed the customs and examination mutual recognition and approval arrangement in 2010. This shortens the time of transportation to 12-13 days.14 Nevertheless, it only costs 3,000 dollars to transport from Guangzhou to Rotterdam by sea. So, the freight charge of the New Eurasian Land Bridge is more than double the sea transport expenses. Moreover, the train gauge of China is 1,435mm, the CIS is 1,520mm, and Europe is 1,435mm, so the goods sent from China to Europe need to change train gauges 2 times. This may cause damage to goods
〈上半年我國集裝箱輸送量微增6.1%〉, Land Bridge Net, August 10, 2015, <http://www.landbridgenet.com/landbridgeshipping/2015-08-10/22155.html>. 〈重慶崛起密碼：銜接“一帶一路”，渝新歐輸送量衝刺百億級〉, Land
Bri-dge Net, September 9, 2015, <http://www.landbriBri-dgenet.com/yaowen/
2015-09-09/22978.html>.
and result in increasing the freight charges, so the ability of changing the railway company cannot catch up to result in accumulating a large number of goods on the way and the changing outfit fee once needs to be about 300 dollars,15so enterprises mostly choose trans-porting by sea or via the first Eurasian landbridge. The other problem is the existence of empty containers adds to the transportation cost; an empty container coming back costs five or six thousand RMB. Therefore, after the goods are unloaded at the destination, many times, they will abandon the empty containers. Wu JingYu, the director of the Coordination Central-Landbridge Branch of China Communi-cations and Transportation Association, said that Kazakhstan has ex-ported goods, such as ferroalloys and high-quality wheat, to Japan and Korea in recent years, but the majority makes a detour via SLB to Vladivostok. For a 40-foot container to set out from Kazakhstan by SLB to Vladivostok only requires 2,000 dollars. Nevertheless, it costs more than 3,000 dollars if a container travels via Alataw Pass to the Huanghai Seaport.16The north line of the New Eurasian Land Bridge is not more efficient than the SLB or sea shipment.
3. Geopolitical problems
China has been hoping to build a new strategic landbridge towards Europe in order to get rid of the SLB that Russia controls. So, the central line of the New Eurasian Land Bridge is China’s real purpose. Therefore, “The medium and long-term railway network plan” issued in 2004, which resulted in the railway being planned, includes the China and Pakistan railway, China-Kyrgyz-Uzbekistan railway (from China to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan), and
China-〈新亞歐大陸橋擁堵暫時緩解 國際通道仍然脆弱〉, Sina Finance, July 24, 2015, <http://finance.sina.com.cn/china/20150724/101922781691.shtml>. 〈大陸橋運輸的返空箱問題困擾〉, Land Bridge Net, April 20, 2014, <http:// www.landbridgenet.com/wenku/2014-04-20/12624.html>.
Kyrgyz-Tajikistan railway (China to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).17 The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Party Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, “The decisions of several important issues about deepening the reforms in an all-round way of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China,” also proposed in November 2013 to accelerate cooperation with surrounding countries and regional infrastructure interconnection construction, and recommended OBOR construction.18 Nevertheless, the China and Pakistan railway, Kyrgyz-Uzbekistan railway, and China-Kyrgyz-Tajikistan railway are difficult to realize because of Russia and the U.S..
Moreover, the route of the north line of the New Eurasian Land Bridge also enters the SLB of Russia in Kazakhstan. This will get back to the basic point, where the Eurasia landbridge transportation is controlled by Russia. On the other hand, the central line and south line of the New Eurasian Land Bridge is the modern Silk Road and is intended to disperse the SLB risk controlled by Russia. Nevertheless, the central line and south line of the New Eurasian Land Bridge still has geopolitical problems. It includes the threat of the terrorists of the Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIS terrorist threats in Central Asia and the Middle East, and conflict in India and Palestine causing instability in South Asia and West Asia, respectively. The above factors of the geopolitics have rendered the central line and south line of the New Eurasian Land Bridge unable to open until now.
〈新亞歐大陸橋擁堵暫時緩解 國際通道仍然脆弱〉.
The Communist Party of China, 〈授權發布︰中共中央關於全面深化改革若 干重大問題的決定〉, Xinhua, November 15, 2013, <http://news.xinhuanet. com/politics/2013-11/15/c_118164235.htm>.
IV. The main geopolitics unit’s responses and Co-opetition
1. Geo-strategy of China
The strategic goal of China is more transportation routes to choose from in the Eurasian landbridge and to build a train gauge of 1,435mm from China to the European Union. So, Xi Jinping proposed “One belt, One road,” which is not only the marine and land rebalancing strategy of China against the Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy of the U.S. but also is a great transition of China’s geo-strategy from the geopolitical region to the geostrategic realm. China has changed its foreign policy from Deng Xiaoping’s “hide one’s talent and live in obscurity” to Xi Jinping’s aggressive strategy. To reach that strategic goal, China must stabilize and extend the strategic depth of its northwest rear in order to expand land power westwards as the basis of expanding marine power eastwards.19Chinese commentator Feng HaiWen states the attempt of China: Once China controls Central Asia, it can have enormous strategic activity space. To the south, it can pass Palestine or Iran and go to the Arabian Sea directly, then go into the Indian Ocean; it also can go westwards to reach the Caspian Sea, Turkey, and then confront NATO directly.20Therefore, China established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) with 100 billion U.S. dollars in capital in 201521and provided funds of 40 billion dollars to establish the Silk Road fund22 for reaching Haiyun Wang, 〈中國向西開放的戰略價值〉, Dong Fong Daily, January 16, 2013, <http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2013-01-16/064926044849.shtml>.
HaiWen Feng,〈龍吟大地：中國借鐵路布局中亞〉, The-Sun, February 20, 2011, <http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20110220/00409_001.html>. 〈亞投行在北京舉行協議簽署儀式〉, BBC Chinese, June 29, 2015, <http://www. bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/china/2015/06/150629_china_beijing_aiib>. 〈中國將出資4 百億美元成立絲路基金〉, BBC Chinese, November 8, 2014, <http://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/world/2014/11/141108_china_silkroad-fund>.
the aforementioned strategic goal.
Nevertheless, the development of the strategic objective of China to expand land power westwards as support for expanding maritime power eastwards is unfortunately not smooth. In October 2009, the China Ministry of Railways proposed to Premier of Kyrgyzstan Igor Tukinov to build the “1,435mm” orbit railways from China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, and Turkey, before entering Europe. The Director of the Central Agency or Development, Investment, and Innovation of the Kyrgyz Republic, Maxim Bakiyev (the presi-dent’s son), visited Beijing in January 2010. He said that this project should go on as soon as possible. Nevertheless, there was a coup
d’état in Kyrgyzstan in April 2010, president Bakiyev was forced to
escape, and his son Maxim Bakiyev was ordered to be arrested. Chinese scholars think this was instigated by Russia to get rid of the influence of the U.S. and China in Central Asia.21 China holds its advantage of funding to build the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway and Ch ina-Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan railway from 2004 in order to connect to “Europe-Caucasus-Asia” transportation railway of Euro-pean Union, but it is still unable to be successful up to now.
2. Geo-strategy of European Union
Britain, France, and Germany, which lead the European Union have common interests on the new Eurasian landbridge. Moreover, the appearance of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defense Policy of Europe means Britain, France, and Germany pursue unanimous foreign strategy of European Union to make the European Union have higher international influence. So, the European Union and the head of the twelve Caspian Sea countries signed the “Basic Multilateral Agreement on International Transport for Development Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia” in the Azerbaijan capital, Baku, in September 1998. It is called international
Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia (TRACECA), which is financed by the European Union. The TRACECA is the renaissance of the ancient Silk Road. It starts in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine) and crosses Turkey. Its route passes the Black Sea to the ports of Poti in Georgia and uses transport network of the Southern Caucasus from Turkey towards this region. From Azerbaijan, by means of the Caspian ferries (Baku – Turkmenbashi, Baku – Aktau), the TRACECA route reaches the Central Asian states of Tur-kmenistan and Kazakhstan. Then, they are connected to destinations in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, to reach the borders of China and Afghanistan.23 The TRACECA countries are gradually implementing the Intergovernmental Commission (IGC) TRACECA Strategy for the Europe-Caucasus-Asia corridor and ensure multi-modal transport with step-by-step integration of the corridor into the Trans-European Transport Networks (TENs).24In addition, the Euro-pean Union transportation minister held a meeting in Crete in 1994. The meeting confirmed nine pan-European transportation corridors. The first, the second, and the ninth among them can link with the transport network of Russia. The ninth especially connects TRACECA via Astrakhan in Volga of Russia.25Therefore, the strategic goal of the European Union has more opportunity to choose in the Eurasian landbridge, and the strategic goal is identical with China.
Halford Mackinder influences the scholars of Europe. The his-torical scholar Paul Kennedy, who studies international relations,
TRACECA, “The Silk Road of the 21stcentury,” September 15, 2015, TRACECA,
<http://www.traceca-org.org/en/home/the-silk-road-of-the-21st-century/>. TRACECA, “Welcome to TRACECA,” September 15, 2015, TRACECA, <http:// www.traceca-org.org/en/traceca/>.
YaLong Li & LiKun Wu,〈歐亞國際運輸走廊問題及中國的應對之策〉, pp. 50-63.
points out that the thing that stayed in the 20th century shows Mackinder’s theory since there were two world wars for controlling the edge zone that extends to Asia from Eastern Europe through the Middle East. German geopolitics scholar Karl Haushofer was a believer of Mackinder. He was a concept pusher of German living space, and he also was an advisor of Adolf Hitler. Hitler wanted to take Russia into his own possession as his living space of his higher race.26It is the key geopolitics topics of Europe great power countries to open the Eurasia passage for a long time. Therefore, the European Union established TRACECA, which is an intergovernmental organi-zation including: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan at present. It not only can prevent expansion of Russia land power but also can unite with China to set up the new Eurasian landbridge, to diversify Eurasia landbridge, and to influence the center area of the World-Island.
3. Response of Russia
CIS nations, the Baltic Sea countries, Finland, and Mongolia use 1,520mm train gauge railway networks. This causes delays when Asian goods transit to Europe because of changing the wheels. So, Russia is afraid that Central Asian states will eliminate 1,520mm track rail and adopt the common 1,435mm track rail of Eurasia. When these countries give up the 1,520mm track rail, Russia will lose most of its advantages in exporting transport services. Therefore, Russia proposed the international transportation corridor of “East – West,” “North – South,” and “Central” to respond to the European Union and China.
Alfred McCaw, 〈美學者：美國霸權正在步大英帝國沒落的後塵（魏文摘 譯自2015 年 6 月 14 日西班牙《起義報》）〉, Glibal View, July 24, 2015, < http://www.globalview.cn/html/global/info_4719.html>.
The “East – West” international transportation corridor refers to the Siberia railway. This railway was built in December 1901. It is from Moscow to Vladivostok, which is the home port of the Russian Pacific Fleet and is the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean. The Siberia railway has offered international transport services since 1965. The largest container transportation center on the China and Russian border, Zabaykalsky (from Manzhouli and Suifenhe of China to Zabaykalsky, Russia), opened in October of 2008, and it has an annual ability in transit exceeding one million tons. Meanwhile, Russia also has offered South Korea, North Korea, and Japan inter-national transport services. The Pan-Korea Peninsula railway and Si-beria railway began to be connected in October 2008. The international transportation service of the Korean Peninsula can bring income of about 200 million dollars to Russia every year after 5-7 years.27
The governments of India, Iran, and Russia signed the agreement of “A South - North international transportation corridor” in St. Pet-ersburg in 2000. Starting from Finland, it goes through Moscow, then continues to Astrakhan in Volga of Russia and Samur of Azerbaijan, reaches the Caspian Sea of Russia, crosses the Caspian Sea to Iran, and connects to the Gulf of Oman. This international transportation corridor connects the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian Sea area to Europe and competes with TRACECA because they have almost a parallel transportation route. The Central international trans-portation corridor is from China, Kazakhstan, Russia, and on to Europe to against China’s “One Belt”.
YaLong Li & LiKun Wu, 〈歐亞國際運輸走廊問題及中國的應對之策〉, pp. 50-63.
V. Conclusion
The foreign international transportation service of South Caucasus countries and Central Asian states was required to pass through Russia during the former Soviet Union era. The main strategy in foreign transportation of South Caucasus Countries now is to have many in-ternational transportation routes. Inin-ternational transportation routes will not be controlled by Russia. Therefore, when the European Union set up TRACECA for the Europe-Caucasus-Asia corridor and ensured multi-modal transport with step-by-step integration of the corridor into the Trans-European Transport Networks, all of the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asian areas participated. The European Union and China hope to set up the international transportation route of the Eurasian landbridge which is not controlled by Russia. They and South Caucasus countries and Central Asian states have the same strategic interests. After the European Union has established the In-tergovernmental Commission TRACECA, China proposed its “One Belt, One Road” Policy and set up the AIIB and Silk Road fund to reach a common strategic goal. Therefore, the New Eurasian landbridge, which is not controlled by Russia, will be set up gradually because the European Union, China, and South Caucasus Countries and Central Asian States all want it. Nevertheless, the land strategy traffic route means a particular country has the ability to use the particular railway for transporting personnel, goods and materials, and military, along with having the power to make another country surrender. For achieving this purpose, the most direct method is obtaining direct political and military control of the essential part district, the core district, and resource area and receive them for territories or possessions in the strategic area.28Nevertheless, even if China and the European Jun-Ping Wang,《潛在的超強：中國崛起的地緣戰略與亞太安全之研究》 (Diss., Graduate Institute of Diplomacy, National Chengchi University, Taipei,
Union set up the New Eurasian landbridge, they will be unable to control the New Eurasian landbridge.
The progress that China is preparing to establish the new Eurasian landbridge is quite slow because of the obstruction of Russia. Never-theless, the European Union, which has the same strategic goal as China, has set up IGC TRACECA, making the new Eurasian landbridge able to be realized in the future. China can only control domestic railway transportation, although it can control the entry of East Asia into the new Eurasian landbridge. The cargo and material of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea can be transported by the first Eurasian land-bridge (Siberia Landland-bridge) and through melted Arctic Ocean marine shipping lanes.
References
English
Book
Brzezinski, Zbigniew, 1997. The Grand Chessboard: American
Pri-macy and its Geostrategic Imperative. New York: Basic Books.
Buzan, Barry & Ole Wæver, 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure
of International Security. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Cohen, Saul B., 2009. Geopolitics: The Geography of International
Relations. London and New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Pub-lishers, Inc..
Mackinder, Halford, 1919. Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study
in the Politics of Reconstruction. New York: Holt.
Journal Articles
Mackinder, Halford, 1904. “The geographical pivot of history,”
Ge-ographical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 421-437.
Online Resources
Australia Asia Projects Architecture Constructor (AAPAC) Group, 2012/12/6.“China and Kazakhstan open new second rail link -renaissance of ancient Silk Road and opening to Eurasian econ-omic boom,” AAPAC Group, <http://www.aapacgroup.com/china-kazakhstan-second-rail-link.html>.
Ma, Haiyun, I-wei Jennifer Chang, 2014/3/20. “China’s New Silk Road Strategy,” Middle East Research and Information, <http://www. merip.org/chinas-new-silk-road-strategy>.
TRACECA, 2015/9/15. “The Silk Road of the 21stcentury,” TRACECA, <http://www.traceca-org.org/en/home/the-silk-road-of-the-21st-century/>.
TRACECA, 2015/9/15. “Welcome to TRACECA,” TRACECA, <http:// www.traceca-org.org/en/traceca/>.
Chinese
Journal Articles
Li, YaLong & LiKun Wu, 2011/6.〈歐亞國際運輸走廊問題及中國 的應對之策〉, Russian Study, Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 50-63.
Doctoral Dissertation
Wang, Jun-Ping, 2012.《潛在的超強：中國崛起的地緣戰略與亞太 安全之研究》, Diss., Graduate Institute of Diplomacy, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Online Resources
2014/4/20.〈大陸橋運輸的返空箱問題困擾〉, Land Bridge Net, < http://www.landbridgenet.com/wenku/2014- 04-20/12624.html>. 2014/11/8.〈中國將出資 4 百億美元成立絲路基金〉, BBC Chinese, <http://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/world/2014/11/1411 08_ china_silkroadfund>. 2015/6/29.〈亞投行在北京舉行協議簽署儀式〉, BBC Chinese, < http://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/china/2015/06/150629_ china_beijing_aiib>. 2015/7/24.〈新亞歐大陸橋擁堵暫時緩解 國際通道仍然脆弱〉,
Sina Finance, <http://finance.sina.com.cn/china/20150724/
101922781691.shtml>.
2015/8/10.〈上半年我國集裝箱輸送量微增 6.1%〉, Land Bridge
Net, <http://www.landbridgenet.com/landbridgeshipping/
2015-08-10/ 22155.html>.
2015/9/9.〈重慶崛起密碼：銜接“一帶一路”，渝新歐輸送量衝刺 百億級〉, Land Bridge Net, <http://www.landbridgenet.com/ yaowen/2015-09-09/22978.html>.
關於全面深化改革若干重大問題的決定〉, Xinhua, <http:// news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2013-11/15/c_118164235.htm>. Feng, HaiWen, 2011/2/20.〈龍吟大地：中國借鐵路布局中亞〉, The-Sun, <http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20110220/00409_ 001. html>. McCaw, Alfred, 2015/7/24.〈美學者：美國霸權正在步大英帝國 沒落的後塵（魏文摘譯自2015 年 6 月 14 日西班牙《起義
報》） 〉, Global View, <http://www.globalview.cn/html/global/ info_4719.html>.
Wang, Haiyun, 2013/1/16.〈中國向西開放的戰略價值〉, Dong Fong
Daily, <http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2013-01-16/064926044849.
shtml>.
Wang, Jing-Wen, 2015/8/18.〈習近平提戰略構想：“一帶一路”打 開“築夢空間”〉, China Economic, <http://www.ce.cn/xwzx/ gnsz/szyw/201408/11/t20140811_3324310.shtml>.
Xiangyang City Business office, 2011/8/1.〈歐亞大陸橋情況介紹〉,
Xiangyang City Business office, <http://www.xiangyang.gov.cn/
