Analyzing CPEC

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3217
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Kashi » 21 Jan 2019 13:51

chetak wrote:That the hans chose not to, despite being pressurized by the amerikis, by no less a person than kissinger himself, is a cause for some study and reflection. It would have also placed the amerikis under some serious obligation to the hans. Both countries are very transactional and this was the best way for the hans to go.


Could be because Soviets were parked on the Northern border?

Merely brushing under the carpet, such a momentous event, and citing "winter conditions" is counterproductive, especially when the world was expecting the hans to make such a move and there would not have been too much of an outcry to support India's position, Any blowback in the international arena would have already been factored in, especially when two members of the UNSC were acting in unison. The britshits and the french were not averse to this stance of the amerikis. Only the russkis were with us. It would have been a 4-1 split in the UNSC, had push come to shove.

Yes, winter was a big factor, but so what?? Do armies go on holiday in winter??

chetak wrote:OTOH, letting India breakup the pukiland played right into the han's hands.

It fed the paki paranoia, allowed the hans to play the beplumed knight on the white horse "coming" to the aid of the beleaguered jehadis whose calculation of "bania" Hindus, the ratio of one paki to ten Hindus and all that BS was laid bare before the whole world. It also fed right into the paki's massive inferiority complex as well as their deep seated fear of India and gave the hans a golden chance to infiltrate the very core of the paki psyche and literally gain real estate as well as vital access to the waters of the gulf without firing a single shot.


That's bestowing upon the Han too much foresight. Doubt that access to warm waters of the gulf was in the forefront of their mind

chetak wrote:There was no way that the pakis or the amerikis or the hans could "spin" their way out of this massive public and demeaning spectacle of the 93,000 paki POWs sitting in sullen silence. It was a an all-round diplomatic and a strategic disaster.

I say again that this was engineered by the hans as it greatly eased their eventual way into their prime objective of gwadar and the whole CPEC construct.


As we've discussed CPEC is a ponzi scheme, makes no sense economically. Gwadar probably did not even exist in someone's imagination back then.

chetak wrote:To do the same, without subverting the paki state using the CPEC, would have meant a massive effort to subjugate India economically and maybe access the bay of bengal via beediland. Either way, their desired and long standing objective of bypassing the trap of the straits of malacca is about to be achieved.


CPEC is economically, logistically and even militarily unviable, how does it help bypass the trap of Malacca?

chetak wrote:So, they have achieved their sure shot gulf access via gwadar and are still working on gaining access via a similar and also another risk mitigation land route through beediland, again skirting the contentious malacca straits.


How does a land access via BeeDee work without going through India? They have Myanmar for that.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6541
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 23 Jan 2019 22:26

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread!

IT IS OFFICIAL NOW!

Image

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6541
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 31 Jan 2019 00:19

X Posted on the OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Thread.

Souring deals put China's Belt and Road dreams under pressure

Chinese President Xi Jinping already had plenty of reasons to rethink his grand plan to build railways, ports and other infrastructure across the globe. Malaysia has given him "20 billion" more.

The Malaysian government's move to cancel a China-financed high-speed rail link across the Malay Peninsula raised new questions about Xi's so-called Belt and Road Initiative. The cabinet decided the $20 billion project was "beyond the government's financial capability," economic affairs minister Mohamed Azmin Ali said Saturday, previewing a move that could be formally announced by next week.

The deal's collapse adds urgency to a debate already growing in Beijing about the potentially $1 trillion programme, the main engine of Xi's effort to convert China's economic might into global influence. In recent months, countries across Asia have suspended, scaled back or terminated projects amid concerns over corruption, influence-peddling and rising debt.

"We are seeing more backlash and challenges," said Pang Zhongying, an international relations professor at Macau University of Science and Technology. "China needs to draw conclusions from its experience and absorb the lessons from the all these incidents, because the external landscape is changing rapidly and its internal economic challenges looming."

‘Vanity projects'

Xi will have a chance for a reset in April, when he is expected to convene leaders in Beijing for his second BRI summit. In September, the Chinese president promised African nations he wouldn't pursue "vanity projects," and last month the country's top regulator of state-owned enterprises published a report calling for greater "overseas social responsibility" in investments.

The growing wariness toward Chinese largess adds another complication to Xi's effort to manage an economic slowdown at home and a more confrontational US abroad. The Trump administration has seized on the doubts to bolster its own regional clout, with Vice President Mike Pence telling an Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in November that US wouldn't "offer a constricting belt or a one-way road."

China's efforts have also spurred the US to set up a new agency to lend as much as $60 billion for infrastructure in developing countries.

Malaysia emerged as a particular headache last year, after a scandal over embezzlement allegations at the country's 1MDB wealth fund helped Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad oust his one-time protege, Najib Razak. Mahathir put a series of deals under review, including the East Coast Rail link, and warned against a " new version of colonialism" during a trip to Beijing.

Skepticism about Beijing's intentions was fed by a Wall Street Journal report earlier this month that Malaysia was investigating whether China offered to bail out 1MDB in exchange for infrastructure deals. Mahathir struck a conciliatory tone on Tuesday, saying the government's reason for canceling the rail was simply a lack of funds.

"Concern about its development model, Malaysia's high debt and allegations of impropriety around 1MDB all weighed on this decision," said Oh Ei Sun, a senior fellow at Singapore Institute of International Affairs. Beijing was learning that its model of infrastructure-led economic growth might be difficult to export, Sun said.

Domestic politics

Chinese projects — big, disruptive and debt-dependent — inevitably get tangled in domestic politics and fiscal considerations of the countries they're intended to help.

Nepal, for instance, canceled and then reinstated a $2.5 billion dam project after a series of government changes. In Pakistan, the government declined to include a pre-existing $14 billion dam project in the broader $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, reportedly due to onerous financing terms.

Myanmar's minister of investment and foreign economic relations said the country would scale-down a $7.5 billion plan for a deep-sea port built by CITIC Group in the town of Kyaukpyu. Thaung Tun told a news conference in the capital Naypyidaw the Myanmar didn't want to repeat the experience of other countries and build infrastructure without sufficient demand.

"We do not have any concerns about the debt trap," he said. "We are not going to borrow to the extent where we can't repay."

Moreover, places like Southeast Asia may have less appetite for large infrastructure projects than expected. The value of new large investment and construction projects dropped by half to $19.2 billion in the six largest members of Asean last year, the lowest in four years, a Citigroup analysis found.

"China's overarching geostrategic imperatives suggests it will be incentivized to be more sensitive to Asean's pushback going forward," Citigroup analysts said. They anticipated that China would show more interest in co-financing projects with multilateral development banks.

Xiao Gang, a former head of China's securities watchdog, said during a speech in Washington last week that projects built solely with Chinese funds weren't sustainable. Xiao said that China needed to ensure that more of its investments meet international standards, according to the South China Morning Post.

The criticism could also wind up strengthening the Belt and Road effort. Dane Chamorro, a senior partner at the Control Risks Group, said Beijing might decide it needs to make state-run companies meet higher standards to secure financing for overseas projects.

"There's been a huge reputational blow for China, but don't underestimate their ability to learn fast and change course," Chamorro said. "BRI 2.0 won't have anywhere near the same numbers of huge, high-profile projects as the first version and they'll be more more sustainable."

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18381
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2019 10:29

looks better equipped than gwadar is today.


India Formally Establishes Shipping Lines To Chabahar Port; Afghanistan All Set To Send Its First Cargo To Indian Ports



by Swarajya Staff - Jan 30 2019,

India Formally Establishes Shipping Lines To Chabahar Port; Afghanistan All Set To Send Its First Cargo To Indian Ports

Image

Chabahar Port (Alireza numberone/Wikimedia Commons)


Afghanistan is all set to ship its first cargo of five containers to India through the Chabahar port within a months time, as per Iran’s ministry of Roads and Urban Development, reports DNA.

The delivery of the cargo, containing mung beans and weighing about 22 tonne, will be carried out under the International Road Transports (TIR) system. TIR system streamlines procedures at borders and reduces the administrative burden for custom authorities.

According to the report, Iranian ministry quoted Afghanistan’s ministry of foreign affairs as saying, “This cargo will be shipped as a pilot project from Afghanistan to India.”

Meanwhile, an Iranian Prime Minister’s office release announced that India has formally established shipping lines to Chabahar with the first ship arriving on Sunday (27 January).

It has been reportedly decided that ships from 3 Indian ports - Mumbai, Kandla and Mundra - will now regularly go to the Iranian port every 2 weeks.

"With the arrival of the first 3700TEU container at Shahid Beheshti Chabahar port, for the first time, the shipping line between the ports of Mumbai-Mundra-Kandla have opened," director general of Sistan-Baluchestan Ports and Maritime Organisation Behrouz Aqayee said in the release, as per the report.

The development comes a month after India, in its first such venture outside its territories, took over the port’s operations.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6541
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 31 Jan 2019 15:24

chetak Ji :

Gwadi - wadi - yaar is a Chinese Project for Xinjiang's Exports - most probably Cotton Textiles - and to Chinese control of Terroristan - especially in Areas in which the CPEC, OBOR Ityaadi Projects encompass. Chinese Textiles will be labeled "Made in Terroristan" and passed on mostly to India under Terroristani-Indian Trade.

This also gives the Chinese THE FREEDOM & RIGHT to Station 500,000 Chinese in Terroristan.

For your information here are the Performances of Gwadar in the last Four Years - all the quantities ARE UNDER THE HEADING Imports!

TERRORISTAN ECONOMIC SURVEY 2017-2018 - TABLE 13.1 D - PORTS-Cargo Handled IN THOUSAND TONNES - Page 406 / 432

2014-15 "438.9" - 2015-16 "50.6" : 2016-17 "80.4": 2017-18 "23.8" (Jul-Feb (P)

Cheers Image

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Lilo » 31 Jan 2019 17:57

chetak wrote:looks better equipped than gwadar is today.

India Formally Establishes Shipping Lines To Chabahar Port; Afghanistan All Set To Send Its First Cargo To Indian Ports

by Swarajya Staff - Jan 30 2019,

India Formally Establishes Shipping Lines To Chabahar Port; Afghanistan All Set To Send Its First Cargo To Indian Ports

Image

Chabahar Port (Alireza numberone/Wikimedia Commons)


That pic is of Shahid Rajaee Port in Iran - it not a pic of Chabahar , the Swarajya guys didnt do due diligence.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18381
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2019 21:42

^^^^^^^
@Lilo

Understood, saar.

Which is why I included the original photo credits, a thing I don't normally do.

Thanks for the input.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chola » 01 Feb 2019 16:36

Peregrine wrote:
chetak Ji :

Gwadi - wadi - yaar is a Chinese Project for Xinjiang's Exports - most probably Cotton Textiles - and to Chinese control of Terroristan - especially in Areas in which the CPEC, OBOR Ityaadi Projects encompass. Chinese Textiles will be labeled "Made in Terroristan" and passed on mostly to India under Terroristani-Indian Trade.

This also gives the Chinese THE FREEDOM & RIGHT to Station 500,000 Chinese in Terroristan.

For your information here are the Performances of Gwadar in the last Four Years - all the quantities ARE UNDER THE HEADING Imports!

TERRORISTAN ECONOMIC SURVEY 2017-2018 - TABLE 13.1 D - PORTS-Cargo Handled IN THOUSAND TONNES - Page 406 / 432

2014-15 "438.9" - 2015-16 "50.6" : 2016-17 "80.4": 2017-18 "23.8" (Jul-Feb (P)

Cheers Image


Diluting a muzzie fundoo state with 500000 pork-eating chinis is for the better.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2089
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ArjunPandit » 12 Feb 2019 19:09

came across this goldmine on BRI
BRI report card: deeper linkages, greater caution

https://www.moodys.com/researchdocument ... BC_1157652

while it is sinic view. For some charts and headings are interesting, will post key details on twitter and then tag over here on sunday night. This is really fun. Even two chinese analysts in it can't hide their paap

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2408
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby darshhan » 12 Feb 2019 19:52

ArjunPandit wrote:came across this goldmine on BRI
BRI report card: deeper linkages, greater caution

https://www.moodys.com/researchdocument ... BC_1157652

while it is sinic view. For some charts and headings are interesting, will post key details on twitter and then tag over here on sunday night. This is really fun. Even two chinese analysts in it can't hide their paap


What's your twitter handle?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18381
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 12 Feb 2019 20:08

darshhan wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:came across this goldmine on BRI
BRI report card: deeper linkages, greater caution

https://www.moodys.com/researchdocument ... BC_1157652

while it is sinic view. For some charts and headings are interesting, will post key details on twitter and then tag over here on sunday night. This is really fun. Even two chinese analysts in it can't hide their paap


What's your twitter handle?


Isn't the link behind a paywall/needs subscription??

please post in full when you post details here.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6541
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 12 Feb 2019 21:34

darshhan wrote:What's your twitter handle?
chetak wrote:Isn't the link behind a paywall/needs subscription??

please post in full when you post details here.
chetak Ji :

Registration is FREE!

Cheers Image

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2089
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ArjunPandit » 16 Feb 2019 18:37

darshhan wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:came across this goldmine on BRI
BRI report card: deeper linkages, greater caution

https://www.moodys.com/researchdocument ... BC_1157652

while it is sinic view. For some charts and headings are interesting, will post key details on twitter and then tag over here on sunday night. This is really fun. Even two chinese analysts in it can't hide their paap


What's your twitter handle?

https://twitter.com/BhukkhaBhediya/stat ... 5342188544

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18381
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 09 Mar 2019 08:20

CPEC concerns making China apprehensive about supporting ban on Masood Azhar: Report


CPEC concerns making China apprehensive about supporting ban on Masood Azhar: Report

This is the fourth time that a proposal has been moved to brand Masood Azhar a global terrorist. The previous three attempts have been blocked by China

OPINDIA STAFF
MARCH 8, 2019

China apprehensive about changing minds on Masood Azhar's terror designation


The People’s Republic of China, which has repeatedly blocked India’s efforts to designate Masood Azhar a terrorist, is reportedly apprehensive about changing its mind, as it thinks it will make the multi-billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) prone to attacks by Jaish-e-Mohammed.

According to an Economic Times report, China is thinking about changing its stand on Masood Azhar and not use the veto to prevent him from getting listed as a terrorist on March 13th when the proposal moved by France and supported by other UNSC permanent members under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267 goes under consideration.

For this, it is reported that it will have to exert pressure on Pakistan to tie down security guarantees regarding CPEC. China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kong Xuanyou’s visit to Pakistan, this month, is also said to be have been done in this regard.

The $62 billion CPEC project, part of China’s giant programme Belt and Road Initiative, intends to construct modern infrastructures in Pakistan, including highway and railway networks, energy projects, to bolster the country’s economic backbone. According to reports, around 10,000 Chinese nationals are working on the project. Last week, China also sent socio-economic development experts to Pakistan to gear up projects in areas like education and water.

The corridor passes through Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and also Mansehra district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where Balakot is present. It is considered a hotbed of activities of JeM and was recently hit by air strikes conducted by India.

China, reportedly, has acquired a large amount of land near Balakot and the Karakoram Highway that connects Pakistan with China through POK also crosses Mansehra making them prone to JeM’s terror activities.

India has been persistent in its approach to declare Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. In 2009, India had moved a proposal to ban Azhar. In 2016 again, India moved a similar proposal with the P3 nations: The United States, the United Kingdom, and France in the UN’s 1267 Sanctions Committee. The P3 nations had moved the same proposal in 2017, too. However, all proposals brought no fruit for India, as all of them were blocked by veto-wielding China. Even after the Pulwama attack last month, China has shown no difference in its position.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6541
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 15 Mar 2019 23:42

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Pakistan owes $10 billion debt to China for Gwadar port, other projects: Top US general - PTI

WASHINGTON: Pakistan owes its "allweather friend" China at least $10 billion debt for the construction of the Gwadar port and other projects, the top US general has said, as he underlined Beijing's "predatory economics" to expand its global influence.

The strategic Gwadar Port in Balochistan province on the Arabian Sea is being built by China under the multi-billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and is considered to be a link between Beijing's ambitious One Belt, One Road (OBOR) and Maritime Silk Road projects.

"Let us look at just a few examples. Saddled with predatory Chinese loans, Sri Lanka granted China a 99-year lease and 70 per cent stake in its deep-water port," General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

The Maldives owes China roughly $1.5 billion in debt - about 30 per cent of its GDP - for construction costs, he said.

"Pakistan owes China at least $10 billion in debt for the construction of Gwadar Port and other projects," Dunford said.

"China is diligently building an international network of coercion through predatory economics to expand its sphere of influence," he said, adding that nations around the globe are discovering the hard way that China's economic "friendship" via OBOR can come at "a steep cost" when promises of investment go unfulfilled and international standards and safeguards are ignored.

In Africa, Djibouti owes China over 80 per cent of its GDP and in 2017, the country became host to China's first overseas military base. In Latin America, Ecuador agreed to sell 80 to 90 per cent of its exportable crude oil to China through 2024 in exchange for $6.5 billion in Chinese loans, he said.

And after leasing land tax-free to China for 50 years, Argentina is denied access and oversight to a Chinese satellite tracking station on its sovereign territory, unwittingly allowing the facility's use for military purposes, the US general said.

Dunford warned that if China's predatory debt tactics are left unaddressed, they will have serious implications on the US's military.

Alleging that China is extending its reach by increasing its overt military and coercive activities through its neighbours, Dunford said China's increasingly provocative behaviour in the Indo-Pacific, particularly the South China Sea (SCS), should concern all.

Between 2013 and 2018, China increased its air and sea incursions into the SCS twelve-fold. Within those five years, it also increased deployments of offensive and defensive weapons systems to the SCS by the same order of magnitude, he said.

China's land reclamation and militarisation far exceed that of other claimants combined in the South China Sea, he said.

Between 2013 and 2015 alone, China created more than 3,200 acres in the SCS, building features within its self-proclaimed 'nine dash line' - a claim the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in 2016 has no legal basis, Dunford told the lawmakers.

Dunford also accused China of interfering in the freedom of navigation.

"China habitually threatens this freedom, using both conventional military force projection and 'gray zone' or irregular warfare activities," he said.

Citing an example, he said Chinese military vessels came dangerously close to the USS Decatur, a destroyer of the US Navy, off the coast of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

"China's force projection inside and outside the SCS disrespects and undermines our rules-based international order and threatens regional stability and security," Dunford said

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6541
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 18 Mar 2019 23:57

X Posted on the Teroristan Thread.

CPEC Birdies come Home to Roost! :rotfl:

CPEC transparency – Editorial

THE Special Committee of the Senate on the China Pakistan Economic Corridor has raised the demand for greater transparency in the execution of work under CPEC.

The government would be well advised to heed its words. The chair of the committee, Senator Sherry Rehman, said that her committee gets more information from the media than it does from the government, a state of affairs that is entirely unacceptable.

The ruling party, while it was in opposition under the previous government, used to regularly join in the chorus of demands for greater transparency on CPEC, and its representatives in parliament used to make the same demands at the time.

Now when they are in power they seem to have reverted to the same practice as their predecessor of keeping the country in the dark as large-scale work progresses under the CPEC banner.

Only last week, for example, Planning Minister Khusro Bakhtiar announced a series of decisions taken by the cabinet committee on CPEC from which it was quite evident that major changes will be made to Pakistan’s policy environment in order to take the corridor project forward.

He mentioned that a series of projects in agriculture, education, health, poverty alleviation, water supply and vocational training is about to be finalised and will be shared with Chinese counterparts soon.

Apparently, Chinese experts have been consulted extensively in drawing up this list. Sadly though, Pakistan’s own parliament remains unaware of what is being planned and how the projects will be paid for.

In addition, the minister also revealed that plans to shift the financing of the massive railway up-gradation project known as ML1, which is the largest under the CPEC umbrella at $8.2bn, have gone back to where the previous government had left them.

The then PML-N government intended to finance the project through a Chinese grant which would be repaid with interest from the government of Pakistan’s resources. The PTI, upon coming to power, said it would like to renegotiate these terms to Build-Operate-Transfer instead, so that the repayment burden does not fall on the government and the Chinese can be asked to finance the project with their resources and recover their investment by operating the railway line themselves for a specified period of time.

It seems like the Chinese have refused this offer. Naturally, the government now has to consider the terms of repayment carefully, given the size of the project, and figure out how to manage them at a time when it is going to the IMF for balance-of-payments support.

Under an IMF programme, the government’s economic priority would be to build foreign-exchange reserves and narrow the fiscal deficit, which could become a challenge if massive projects are launched with borrowed money.

The Senate committee is right to emphasise its stake in the enterprise, and the government should move to allay its concerns.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6541
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 20 Mar 2019 16:11

X Posted on Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat & Terroristan Threads

India signals to boycott China's Belt and Road Forum for 2nd time – PTI

BEIJING: India on Wednesday signalled that it will boycott China's second Belt and Road Forum for a second time, saying no country can participate in an initiative that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.

India boycotted the first Belt and Road Forum (BRF) in 2017 after protesting to Beijing over the controversial China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which is being laid through the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) overriding New Delhi's sovereignty concerns.

Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi recently said that next month China plans to hold a much bigger, second BRF which will also be attended by Pakistan Prime Minster Imran Khan.

Speculation is rife whether India would attend the second BRF as China has deepened its commitment to expand the $60 billion CPEC, which aims to connect China's Xinjiang province with Pakistan's Gwadar port with a host of road, rail, gas and oil pipelines.

China has also undertaken a host of energy projects under the aegis of the CPEC.

India's ambassador to China Vikram Misri told the state-run Global Times that "above all, connectivity initiatives must be pursued in a manner that respects sovereignty, equality and territorial integrity of nations".

"No country can participate in an initiative that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity," he replied to a question about India's concerns over the BRI and whether India would take part in the second BRF meet.

The Indian envoy's interview was carried by the daily on Wednesday.

"To be honest, we have made no secret of our views and our position on the BRI is clear and consistent and one that we have conveyed to the authorities concerned.

"India shares the global aspiration to strengthen connectivity and it is an integral part of our economic and diplomatic initiatives. We ourselves are working with many countries and international institutions in our region and beyond on a range of connectivity initiatives," Misri said.

"However, it is also our belief that connectivity initiatives must be based on universally recognised international norms, good governance and rule of law. They must emphasise social stability and environmental protection and preservation, promote skill and technology transfers and follow principles of openness, transparency and financial sustainability," the Indian envoy said.

India along with the US and several other countries have been highlighting the concerns over the BRI projects, leaving a number of smaller countries in debt traps.

The concerns grew louder after China took over Sri Lanka's Hambantota port on a 99-year lease as debt swap. Several countries including Malaysia and even Pakistan have wished to reduce the Chinese projects over debt concerns.

Asked whether India-China ties are back on track, Misri said: "the bilateral relationship between India and China is of great significance not just to the two countries, but also to the larger region and the international community".

He said that the Wuhan summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping in April, 2018 was a "milestone in bilateral relations during which the two leaders exchanged views on overarching issues of bilateral and global importance, and elaborated their respective visions and priorities for national development in context of the current international situation".

Last year, the two leaders also met on the sidelines of multilateral summits.

"These meetings have reinforced strategic communication between the two countries at the highest levels and helped in elaborating a road map for continuing contacts. China is India's biggest neighbour and we assign a very high priority to this relationship," the Indian envoy said.

"Unlike some 50 years ago, when our relationship had a much narrower basis and there was not much communication, today we have what one would call a full spectrum relationship.

"This has been possible because our respective leaders have realised that mutually-beneficial cooperation responds to the most urgent developmental needs of our people and these needs to be prioritised over other issues," Misri said.

Asked about the impact of India's elections on India-China ties, Misri said: "my own feeling is that on foreign policy issues there is a broad political consensus in India on where our national interests lie. I do not think therefore that the outcome of the elections will impact the broad contours of India's foreign policy in general or the very important relationship with China in particular".

Cheers Image

IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6793
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby IndraD » 21 Mar 2019 19:19

https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-j ... dh-2731702

China deploys soldiers within 90 kms of Indo Pak border in Sindh: this news has been doing rounds, looks like China doesn't believe Pakistan will be able to protect its CPEC project and has deployed over 10,000 soldiers in its protection.
CPEC is also protected by 4000 men from special forces of Pakistani army.
Pakistan becoming a vassal state of China sooner than thought.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51352
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ramana » 21 Mar 2019 19:39

Folks I read somewhere that India has signed agreement to link by rail Delhi with Kathmandu and another agreement to link Kathmandu with Dacca.

Kathmandu is already linked by rail to Beijing.

These links will open up Mumbai and Chittagong as entry ports to Beijing.

Shippers can use these if they want to bypass risky CPEC.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10179
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 21 Mar 2019 20:30

ramana wrote:Kathmandu is already linked by rail to Beijing.



Incorrect. No part of Nepal is linked by rail to PRC Occupied Tibet or for that matter any other bit of PRC.


Folks I read somewhere that India has signed agreement to link by rail Delhi with Kathmandu and another agreement to link Kathmandu with Dacca.


Correct:

India and Nepal sign agreement to build railway line between Kathmandu and Bihar’s Raxaul
Last edited by arun on 21 Mar 2019 20:35, edited 1 time in total.

IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6793
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby IndraD » 21 Mar 2019 20:31

interesting nitpick: Balakot where India struck is where CPEC passes through, looks like feel of insecurity in China has been fueled by India's strike hence PLA deployment.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18381
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 21 Mar 2019 20:36

IndraD wrote:interesting nitpick: Balakot where India struck is where CPEC passes through, looks like feel of insecurity in China has been fueled by India's strike hence PLA deployment.


so what, saar??.

it will get chalked up to collateral damage, no??

one time they said we hit trees, next time some cheeni peoples, who can say what will happen??

There will be much commiseration and bowing by some faceless baboo(n) from the external affairs ministry, some Indian tea ceremony, in traditional white vesty and angavastram of course, along with some stale humble pie and fresh, hot and really spicy samosas.

until the next time and more cheeni collateral damage, right??

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby yensoy » 21 Mar 2019 20:52

ramana wrote:These links will open up Mumbai and Chittagong as entry ports to Beijing.

Shippers can use these if they want to bypass risky CPEC.


Huh? Shippers can already send their stuff by sea to Tianjin port, which is very close to Beijing.

We all know that CPEC/Gwadar has zero purpose of providing China with a sea port, even Sinkiang region of China. So the fact that our ports have overland transit into China is meaningless.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests