To dispel some unnecessary worries, it is important to expand the understanding of the OBOR. Though the OBOR initiative has been viewed by some as Chinese version of the Marshall Plan, they are vastly different. The Marshall Plan aimed to help recover European economy after the end of the WWII, so it was a short-term program (1947-1951). Aspiring to build Eurasian infrastructure connectedness, especially in terms of highway, fast train and maritime transportation, the OBOR has to be a very ambitious program entailing vast amount of resources through multilateral collaboration. Therefore, no single country can dominate its process. One shall not forget about the enormous differences in the Eurasian continent that promises the completion of the OBOR to take tens of years if not centuries. This adds a great amount of uncertainty in the road ahead. The recent case of Sri Lanka government and subsequent halting of the aforementioned harbor city project is a clear example.

Given the challenges, it is important for various parties to understand the OBOR well. At the outset, it is crucial to clarify that the Chinese proposal is not another Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan, or European Recovery Program, aimed at aiding those Western European countries to ride out those chilly years, through which America could both contain the left-wing there plus the Soviet bloc and tap the opportunity to boost its own economy. However, the OBOR initiative attaches no strings and the collaborative partners are equal. It is mutually beneficial. Rather than dividing the partners, the OBOR plan shall bring Asia and Europe closer.

Indeed, China's OBOR initiative attempts to attain win-win, so China is not going to give without taking. As aforementioned, promoting Eurasian infrastructure interconnectedness would entail resources beyond anyone's own treasury, so it has to be a co-paying and co-sharing business. The Marshall Plan, nonetheless, was a U.S.-giving, Western Europe-reviving unequal arrangement at a time when the recipients had no alternative. At a globalizing age, neither America nor China is the only aid provider – there are many other sources of external support, such as the World Bank and ADB, as well as other donors like Japan. It is hard for any actors to dominate Eurasian geopolitics by merely building some railroads and harbors.

China's push has been accompanied with no preconditions. The Marshall Plan used to invite Soviet Union and Eastern European states, but with demand of economic concession. That was why Moscow refused it and set up its own counter version, Comecon. China simply could not afford to defray all the costs of building OBOR by itself. It has to mobilize all resources from its partners and therefore share the leadership with all stakeholders.

There is room to dispel suspicion and build trust by further enhancing transparency of the AIIB institution through reducing China's share holding, offering more leadership positions to foreign nationals, and employing international business standards. As long as a mutually beneficial cross-regional connected infrastructure system can bring about public goods without allowing any single party dominance, there is no reason why such a program should not be welcome.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/shendingli.htm

This article was first published at Chinausfocus.com To see the original version please visit http://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/china-advances-its-one-belt-one-road-initiative/

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.