When the history-based metaphor of the “Silk Road” is used, that is done mainly with reference to the new set of relations that the Euro-Atlantic world is keen to build with rising Central-Asian countries. However, confining the image of the Silk Road to a bilateral axis West-East is misleading.
Other regions of the world are becoming increasingly interested in that strategic road. The point is that whereas the Euro-Atlantic concerns regard the past and the current corridor to the Far East, other actors consider it a pathway to the future. Some analysts see, for instance, a clear connection between the rising Arab world and the New Silk Road, as a result of the growing influence of China in that area.
We should not forget that Central Asia has for centuries been an area of crucial interest for China, since it was the country’s gateway to the world. After the independence of former Soviet Republics as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan Chinese foreign policy has been very attentive to the developments in the region, also a consequence of the “Western” military operations in Afghanistan. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is an early evidence of such awareness of the Chinese leadership. From the point of view of Beijing, the “New Silk Road diplomacy” is a Chinese trademark.
China is even planning a physical "New Silk Road" that will run “backwards”, through Central Asia and continue into Europe. The route within China will start in Lianyungang, in East China's Jiangsu province, and travel through Xi'an, in Northwest China's Shaanxi province, before reaching the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region. The proposed route will continue through Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Turkey, before heading into Europe. China has also proposed two other road connections between China and Europe -- one going via Kazakhstan and Russia and the other going through Kazakhstan and via the Caspian Sea. In addition to that, China is advocating a rail link that would start from the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region in China and pass through Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan before arriving in Iran; the railway would then be divided into two routes -- one of which would lead to Turkey and Europe.
So, the Silk Road is not a western monopoly; moreover, it would rather be a Silk Road to Europe.
We should also recall that the historical “Silk Road” had an economic and trade-oriented meaning; generally speaking, it doesn’t fit very well in the strategic and security concerns that lay at the foundation of the concept of a “New” Silk Road.
There is, however, one way to retrieve the original conceptual depth of that metaphor, and it is its anthropological and cultural meaning. Some authors and analysts already refer to the “Silk Road” as a way to evoke the need to overcome differences in different domains, as in the case of the “digital divide”. In this semantically rich acception, the Silk Road is rather (and correctly) perceived as a “bridge”, instead of being a tool for achieving other strategic goals, following a hidden agenda.
