Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2901
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Karthik S » 17 Jul 2017 21:16

BTW are Chinese outsourcing engineering to the pakees?

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3398
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 17 Jul 2017 23:30

Karthik S wrote:BTW are Chinese outsourcing engineering to the pakees?
Karthik S Ji :
Indeed, such as Nuts, Screws & Bolts.
Cheers Image

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 532
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Deans » 17 Jul 2017 23:34

Karthik S wrote:BTW are Chinese outsourcing engineering to the pakees?


When the Chinese were introduced to `Lt Gen 10%', their local partner handling highway construction, little did they know that he would
build 10% and pocket 90%

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5473
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 18 Jul 2017 02:13

pankajs wrote:Now imagine what a chota-mota bomb will do to that slope.


Create more blue collar employment opportunities for the pakis.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5473
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 18 Jul 2017 02:15

Peregrine wrote:
Karthik S wrote:BTW are Chinese outsourcing engineering to the pakees?
Karthik S Ji :
Indeed, such as Nuts, Screws & Bolts.
Cheers


I see what you did there. The accepted definition of a paki rapist in a UK court : nut screws and bolts.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3398
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 21 Jul 2017 01:04

X Posted on the OBOR, Chinese Strategy & Implications And STFU Threads.

Advancing CPEC by stealth

This newspaper carried a report back in May revealing a document that could be called the CPEC master plan. That report drew a sharp response from the government, particularly the minister planning who is in charge of all CPEC coordination. He argued that the report was “factually incorrect” and that the real long-term plan was under negotiation and would be released to the public upon finalisation.

But a number of developments since then show that the plan as revealed, far from being “factually incorrect”, is in fact being implemented as we speak. The implementation is taking place below the headlines, and many of the initiatives outlined in the plan are being advanced by burying them under other policy initiatives to give them a different name and thereby deflect attention. This mode of implementation is contrary to how those CPEC projects that the government is keen to tout are being projected as massive signature achievements. An entire website has been created simply for the purpose of purveying information about specific CPEC projects, but there are many that find no mention on that site.

Let’s take an example. One of the elements of the plan published in this newspaper that took a lot of people by surprise was its emphasis on agriculture. A careful reading of that plan document shows agriculture is, in fact, one of the biggest priorities for the Chinese government when they look at CPEC — not transit trade, not power plants. There is no mention of agriculture on the CPEC website (accessed on July 19).

But the recently announced National Food Security Policy, which went almost completely unnoticed as was undoubtedly the intention, contains a couple of paragraphs which show that the government is, in fact, moving fast to create an enabling environment to facilitate the entry of Chinese enterprises into Pakistan’s agricultural sector. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this. The agri-sector is in dire need of investments. But the fact that this is being done with some care to ensure no attention is brought to bear upon it is curious.

The policy has an entire section that details the creation of what it calls “CPEC agricultural development zones”. It identifies areas for the “agricultural economic and technical cooperation between China and Pakistan”, and details that “the corridor is divided into nine sections, each of which possesses distinct opportunities for establishing diverse agro-based businesses” since the corridor traverses different agro-ecologies.

“The commodities that can be potentially exported to China include cereals, dairy, eggs, honey, live animals, tobacco, meat, seafood, fruit and nuts.” The idea advanced by the policy is “developing business clusters for more than 40 commodities identified across the corridor for promoting rural businesses through developing entrepreneurship, processing zones, skilled manpower and modern market infrastructure”.

The whole enterprise is then wrapped up in agrarian development objectives. “Overall, the establishment of agricultural economic zones along CPEC in collaboration with Chinese counterparts can help to achieve: a) food sovereignty; b) benefiting farmers and rural communities; c) smarter food production and yields; d) biodiversity conservation; e) sustainable soil health and cleaner water; f) ecological pest management; and g) resilient food systems.”

In another place, the policy says all this is being done to advance the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular the one that relates to hunger, to which it says the government has a “strong commitment”.

The policy measures advanced to catalyse the creation of the CPEC agri-development zones also sound like they came straight out of the plan document revealed in the Dawn report. They are designed to facilitate the entry of private enterprises into the agrarian markets (again, nobody should construe this to be a bad thing), with a focus on “market intelligence”, reducing “post harvest losses”, and so on.

This suggests that a policy framework is being built, under the guise of a ‘national food security policy’, that, in reality, is designed to lay the groundwork to advance the agriculture-related priorities of Chinese enterprises, as the master plan document revealed in the Dawn report clearly stated.

The same thing can be seen in many other areas too. In finance, for example, work is under way to facilitate a greater role for the yuan in Pakistan’s economy, for payment and settlement purposes. The attorney general has said that “disputes between commercial entities of the two countries are bound to crop up”, for which “a bilateral institution for arbitration” between China and Pakistan could be necessary, so recourse to other bodies like the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and the International Chambers of Commerce is not necessary.

All this is happening beneath the radar of the headlines. There are no flashy announcements, and often the work being undertaken is not mentioned at all. Look at the CPEC website run by the government of Pakistan, and you will find no mention of any of this, only of roads and power plants. The descriptions contained in the National Food Security Policy are a rare example, but even they are vaguely expressed, couched in other development objectives, and with pains taken to draw little or no attention to them.

Yet, this is where the reality of CPEC is. The corridor is only minimally about transit trade. The power plants, too, are little more than the “early harvest projects”, on commercial terms, designed to jump-start the economy before the real game begins. The real game of CPEC is about granting access to Chinese enterprises to Pakistan’s domestic markets, raw materials and the agrarian economy.

But that side of the entire equation is being kept deliberately quiet while we are encouraged to think of the projects in terms of roads and power plants alone.

There is a growing and urgent need for our CPEC conversation to move beyond transit trade and balance of payments. The real game has not even begun, and few understand the form it will take.

Cheers Image

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8955
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 21 Jul 2017 09:20

X Posted from the CPEC thread.

Singapore based newspaper Straits Times’ Associate Editor Ravi Velloor on OBOR, CPEC and the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

Pakistan is where OBOR hits the road

Despite its fulsome promise, the US$62b plan by China to boost Pakistan's infrastructure may not be all good for the flailing South Asian economy.

Ravi Velloor Associate Editor

For much of the world, the jury's still out on China's Belt and Road initiative, better known as the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) programme. While some countries have embraced it enthusiastically, others, such as the United States and Japan, have tried to be polite about it, going along warily without fulsome endorsement.

A few, India particularly, are openly disdainful, if not hostile to the plan. That's because they see it not as the Chinese grand design for globalisation that it is projected to be, but a Beijing plan to entrap the world in its grasp even as China looks for ready export markets for its tottering state-owned enterprises.

In the more than 60 nations that span President Xi Jinping's OBOR vision, none looms larger than Pakistan, possibly the Asian state strategically closest to Beijing after North Korea. The latest projected outlay for Chinese investment in that country under a plan called CPEC, or China Pakistan Economic Corridor, exceeds US$62 billion (S$85 billion) in loans and tied aid.

The vision is to link Kashgar in Xinjiang province to the warm water port of Gwadar in Pakistan's largest and most thinly populated province, Balochistan. In the bargain, Pakistan will get its biggest infrastructure boost since independence in 1947. China's strategic interest is to give itself all-weather access to the Arabian Sea bypassing the Strait of Malacca, a potential choke point that has India at one end and Singapore at the other, with Indonesia's Sumatra and the Malay peninsula in between.

While a good part of CPEC is about building road connectivity, the major investments are going into a series of power plants to shore up Pakistan's crumbling and hugely inefficient power grid that's made brown-outs of 12 hours a day common. The CPEC, according to available public information, will be built with not only Chinese capital, but Chinese labour and steel too. Because the so-called corridor traverses some intensely restive spots marked by periodic violence and terror attacks, Pakistan has raised a whole new army division to protect Chinese workers, marking a substantial recurring investment since pay and pensions tend to make up almost two-thirds of most military budgets in South Asia.

So far, so good. Few can take issue with Pakistan for accepting Chinese munificence, if indeed it is that, to fix its crumbling infrastructure. The dismal power situation had shaved off as much as 2 percentage points of growth annually, leaving the economy floundering at an expansion rate of less than 5 per cent, below potential. Having missed the services revolution that transformed next-door India because the poor security situation within its borders had made it risky to house outsourcing operations for Western firms, the energies of Pakistan's talented white-collar workforce had been unexploited to a large degree. As a result, India's significantly larger economy consistently outpaced that of its smaller neighbour, accelerating existing disparities.

SOLACE IN THE ARMS OF CHINA

What's more, Islamabad feels abandoned by Washington, which only in 2002 had deemed it a "major non-Nato ally". In the Pakistani narrative, the US used Pakistan to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, funnelling Saudi-funded arms to militant groups resisting the Soviets, then uncharitably abandoned it to favour India. In the wake of the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai, blamed on hitmen allegedly trained inside Pakistan, former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright referred to Pakistan as an "international migraine" with its combination of nuclear weapons, terrorism, extremism, corruption and poverty.

Little wonder then that Pakistan's Commerce Minister Khurram Dastgir Khan recently described China as "the only game in town".

Against that background it suited both Pakistan and China to tighten their decades-old strategic embrace. The Pakistanis, quite seriously, believe their relationship with China is, to use a phrase popularised by Beijing, "taller than the mountains, deeper than the valleys and sweeter than honey".

The problem is that too much of the CPEC plan is opaque, and not available publicly for a proper examination of its merits. This leads to apprehension that, especially in the light of South Asian neighbour Sri Lanka's experience with unviable Chinese investments that led it into a debt trap, Beijing's talk of a win-win means China wins twice.

The Chinese money for CPEC, it is increasingly clear, is largely on commercial terms. On the other hand, if power plants constitute a major chunk of the CPEC outlay, Islamabad may have a repayment problem when China eventually hands it a bill. Analysts point out that Pakistan has always sold power to its people at rates significantly below what it pays for the energy. Additionally, collection ratios are poor because of rampant power theft and defaults by companies owned by elite families. Unable to pay the producers in time, a problem of circular debt has ensued.

IN PAKISTAN'S INTEREST OR NO?

What's more, not everyone is convinced that the projects were conceived in Pakistan's interest. Some analysts say that four of the six thermal power plants being set up will run on imported coal, whereas Pakistan's plants have traditionally used furnace oil. There also is fear that at a time when oil prices seem set to tread the troughs for a substantial period, and solar energy is nudging grid parity with coal, Pakistan may be making the wrong choices.

It also has not gone unnoticed that China, despite the tight strategic relationship, has in past years generally not shown much appetite to invest in Pakistan. According to State Bank of Pakistan figures cited in the Pakistani press, total foreign direct investment (FDI) in the six months to December last year - the latest number available - was US$1.08 billion.

While that was a 10 per cent increase over the previous year, the jump was mostly on account of a single Dutch investment of US$460 million. Chinese FDI in the same period was US$48 million, about a tenth of what companies from the mainland put into India.

Still, it is not difficult to divine the Pakistani mindset. In the near term, Islamabad is clearly playing off its strategic sweet spot not just to power up its economy but also to allow China such a big say in it that it compels Beijing to also underwrite its security, if nothing else, to protect its investments.

The gap with India widened so much in the last two decades that it left Pakistan in pretty much the same situation that India finds itself in vis-a-vis China: a deepening sense of insecurity about the more powerful neighbour and fear of coming under its economic and political coercion. The sensible thing to do would seem to be to develop a closer economic relationship with India, not just on account of geography but also because Pakistani products are likely to be far more competitive against Indian goods rather than Chinese products. It is no secret though that the Pakistani deep state will not countenance this, even if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif himself favours it.

For Pakistan, therefore, the CPEC plan - which apparently also envisages giving Chinese visa-free access and the Chinese language being promoted in a massive way across the country - marks a turning of the back on its broader South Asian heritage.

According to revelations made two months ago by Dawn, Pakistan's internationally respected broadsheet, the CPEC document talks of a national fibre-optic backbone meant to assist in the "dissemination of Chinese culture".

Yesterday, the newspaper said "the real game of CPEC is about granting access to Chinese enterprises to Pakistan's domestic markets, raw materials and the agrarian economy".

It is now up to China to make sure that the CPEC does not turn out to be one more lemon it sold to yet another vulnerable developing economy. Mr Ahsan Iqbal, the Wharton-educated Minister for Planning in Mr Sharif's Cabinet and a key architect of the CPEC programme, has called the earlier Dawn report "factually incorrect". More recently he told me on the sidelines of a conference that his department's assessments are that the projects under the plan meet the benchmarks for commercial viability.

If that is true, there ought to be no grounds to complain. But, if Beijing is seen to have stiffed its closest friends with unviable projects and burdensome repayment obligations, it will not go unnoticed around the world.

After all, OBOR is a 100-year project and public memory, while short, cannot be completely erased. In more ways than one, therefore, Pakistan is where OBOR hits the road.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on July 21, 2017, with the headline 'Pakistan is where OBOR hits the road'.


From the Straits Times:

Pakistan is where OBOR hits the road

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8955
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 21 Jul 2017 12:09

Excerpt from July 20, 2017 article in World Finance titled “Following China’s debt-paved Silk Road”:

……………….. the paving of the Silk Road with low-priced debt has got China into trouble in some regions, particularly following the collapse in the price of crude oil. In Latin America, for example, state-owned lenders have been forced to swap infrastructure-funding debt for the supply of oil as recipient countries run out of revenues with which to pay China back.

The policy has also backfired in other locations. As the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies pointed out in a definitive recent report, crisis-hit Venezuela provides a sobering example: in mid-February, China agreed no less than 22 new deals aimed at propping up the South American country’s fast-declining oil industry. Although the ever-hopeful President Nicolás Maduro characterised the deals as heralding “our country’s economic recovery”, it looks more as though China is taking control of its wells and refineries in an infrastructure-for-debt swap. …………………….

Following China’s debt-paved Silk Road


Taking on debt from the Peoples Republic of China on usurious terms and conditions for infrastructure projects whose primary purpose is to keep PRC project infrastructure enterprises, PRC Labour and PRC input suppliers humming along has brought even more baleful consequences for countries such as Venezuela whose citizens have been so impoverished that they now need to work as prostitutes in Colombia:

Venezuelans sell sex in Colombia to survive : Women fleeing poverty get the right to work as prostitutes

The Mohammadden Terrorist Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan should take note of events in Venezuela as the day will not be long when muslimah wimmens sistahs may be forced to head westward to service Arabs as the adverse consequences OF CPEC aka Conning Pakistani’s to Enrich China, become reality.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15035
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 21 Jul 2017 18:56

twitter

India's diplomacy power play pays off, #Seoul pulls plug on PoK projects http://m.indiatoday.in/story/india-seou ... 07273.html … @rajeev_mp @TarekFatah



India's diplomatic power play is paying off with countries rethinking and reviewing decisions to invest in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

South Korea's Daelim Industrial Company Limited, which is leading a consortium to develop the 500 MW Chakothi Hattian Hydropower Project on the Jhelum in Muzaffarabad, is reconsidering its investment in the venture.

This after financiers such as the Asian Development Bank, International Finance Corporation and Exim Bank of Korea expressed their inability to back a project in a disputed area. The information minister of PoK Mushtaq Ahmed Minhas has confirmed the development.

Further, other Korean-financed ventures in the region, such as the Kohala Hydropower project, may also be stalled.

Sources have told India Today TV that Pakistan has been aggressively trying to seek investment from international financial institutions and countries, including China and South Korea, in energy and other infrastructure projects in PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan. Both are parts of undivided Jammu and Kashmir, and claimed by India as its territory.

"I think it's a very favourable development for us," said Jayadeva Ranade, president of the Centre for China Analysis and Strategy, and a former additional secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat. "It's a development that we should follow up. In fact, I would say that we should encourage South Korea and its companies to come to India particularly in areas that we are weak like shipbuilding."

MONEY ISSUES
While investments were being considered earlier, lately there has been a general reluctance both by financial institutions and countries towards putting money in these areas. This disinclination is on account of an increased international understanding of the legal status of Gilgit-Baltistan and PoK.

"If it is as a result of diplomatic effort on the part of India, I would say that it is very good and encouraging news that countries are receptive to concerns that we have," said former foreign secretary Shyam Saran.

Following the announcement of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and India's categorical objection to it on the grounds that Pakistan and China could not construct an economic corridor that passed through Indian territory currently under illegal occupation of Pakistan, the international community has woken up to the disputed nature of the region.

Hydropower has been a source of friction between the neighbouring nations, with the two sides over the years objecting to each other's major dam projects. New Delhi has in recent months fast-tracked hydropower projects worth about $15bn in Kashmir, ignoring warnings from Islamabad that power stations on rivers flowing into Pakistan will disrupt water supplies.

The CPEC has also brought to the fore the legal position of the two areas in Pakistan. Not only do the regions remain disputed territory, they are also not formally part of Pakistan under the country's constitution. Azad Kashmir (AJK),i.e., Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and Gilgit-Baltistan, are not named in the constitution of Pakistan, thereby leaving a large number of questions unanswered, including the citizenship of people residing in these parts.

India's continuous efforts to highlight these facts over the last few years have yielded results where doubts have been raised among investors on the economic feasibility of projects in the disputed area. "I think this realisation will dawn on commercial entities which have major stakes in India," said Ashok Kantha, former ambassador to China. "They will have to take a call sometime on what is more important for them: to get involved in PoK or to look after their commercial interests in India."

CHINA'S ROLE
Apart from South Korea, sources say China has also been putting pressure on Pakistan to legalise the status of PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan through amendments to its constitution before it pours in huge investments in these areas as a part of the CPEC.

China is aware that not only is the region disputed, being claimed by India, but even Pakistani laws do not give it the status of Pakistan's sovereign territory. Chinese pressure has led to the recent move by the Nawaz Sharif government to change the status of Gilgit-Baltistan and declare it the fifth province of the country.

"There must be some technical reason for their pullout," said Sardar Atiq, former Prime Minister of AJK (PoK). "One needs to find out. But as far as foreign investment in 'Azad Kashmir' is concerned, this is not for the first time. We have 2-3 projects going on right now and are accommodating a lot of foreign investment."

Earlier, Asian Development Bank also refused to fund the $14 billion Diamer-Bhasha Dam on the Indus river. This project has been facing problems with financiers since its inception with several sponsors backing out in 2012. The following year, it appeared that the project would take off after the Aga Khan Foundation and ADB agreed to be its financiers. However, subsequently the ADB put its decision to bankroll the project on hold

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8955
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 22 Jul 2017 08:48

X Posted from the “Baluchistan: The Story of Another Pakistan Military Genocide” thread.

CPEC = Colonization of Pakistan for Enrichment of China.

ANI report on the proceedings of the conference titled "Wall of Silence: Human rights in Balochistan" jointly organized by the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) and the World Baloch Organization (WBO) at the UK House of Lords in London:

CPEC represents colonization of Pakistan for enrichment of China, says expert

By: ANI || Updated: 22 Jul 2017 08:05 AM

London [UK], July 22 (ANI): A senior teaching fellow and a PhD candidate at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has said that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) represents the colonization of Pakistan for the enrichment of China.

Speaking at the conference "Wall of Silence: Human rights in Balochistan", Burzine Waghmar said Pakistan's statehood is based on a fragile framework with no national basis in which Pakistani military acts with no legitimacy and with violence against local populations.

The conference was jointly organized by the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) and the World Baloch Organization (WBO) at the House of Lords in London.

The event which was hosted by Baroness Jenny Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party for England and Wales), discussed Pakistan's suppression of human rights in Balochistan, focusing on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and on the shutdown on journalists and international organistions.

Distinguished experts from various backgrounds presented their experiences and ways forward, in a fruitful exchange of ideas at the British Parliament.

Waghmar during the conference also highlighted with concern the fact that China is unlikely to take into the consideration the contexts of the various ethnic groups in the country while pursuing the implementation of the economic corridor.

He presented a historical overview that showed how China's regional ambitions have affected disadvantaged groups in Pakistan for decades and how the Pakistani government has collaborated with these ambitions even before the Indo-Pakistani deal in 1947.

Baroness Jenny Jones de Moulsecoomb opened the event with an overview of the situation in Balochistan, from extrajudicial killings to economic exploitation and the persecution of those who oppose the implementation of CPEC.

The Baroness talked about the importance of raising awareness about these issues and of gathering international support to bring peace to the Baloch people.

Noordin Mengal, human rights campaigner (WBO), who was also the moderator of the panel in the conference reminded the audience that CPEC is not the first project of exploitation of natural resources by outsiders in Balochistan: natural gas and copper are key resources that have been exploited by Punjabis and Chinese, while the government denies the local population their rights to partaking in the richness that results from the use of the resources of their own land.

Angela Stanzel, of the European Council on Foreign Relations, highlighted the centrality of Balochistan in Pakistan-China relations, considering the amount of investments dedicated to the region by the Chinese, mainly for the Port of Gwadar.

According to Stanzell, CPEC has been fueling conflict in Pakistan and particularly in Balochistan, as it became a target for political opposition and extremist groups.

She noted that the feeling of Baloch people of being neglected and left behind was not born with CPEC, having been consolidated throughout history while Balochistan was subjected to exploitation and while its inhabitants were denied their rights.

Stanzell also drew attention to the fact that CPEC seems to be a model for the projects that China intends to implement worldwide, which must be regarded with concern considering that no investment is directed to local communities, increasing tensions in regions that are already unstable and raising censorship and violence against those who dare to oppose the project.

Carlotta Gall, who spent ten years in Pakistan and Afghanistan as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times, talked about her experiences under the intimidation and the violence to which both foreign correspondents and local journalists are subjected by Pakistani intelligence officers and military in Balochistan.

According to Gall, journalists are followed by Pakistani intelligence officers from the moment they touch ground in the region and are intimidated not only with physical violence, but also with threats to the safety of their loved ones.

She affirmed that her experience proved to her that Pakistan is not interested in allowing the Baloch people to have a voice - their focus is solely allowing military plans and economic projects such as Gwadar to move forward.

Approaching the fact that journalists, students, political activists are often arrested, tortured and murdered, she concluded that people are given little choice to be active in helping their communities, which fuels the rising of groups that resource to violence in order to fight for survival and dignity.

Peter Tatchell, from the Peter Tatchell Foundation, focused on the possibilities for Baloch people to succeed in their struggle for peace and respect for their rights.

He reminded the audience that Pakistan is widely dependent on western support, which means that raising international pressure in the context of IOs and CSOs is likely to have a strong impact in reducing the military pressure on the Baloch people.

He highlighted the importance of a well-delineated plan that gathers different Baloch organizations and groups, based on principles of social justice, human rights and democracy.

According to Tatchell, by uniting around some central demands - such as the release of political prisoners, a UN-sponsored ceasefire and a referendum on independence, and free access to the region for human rights organizations and journalists - Baloch people will be able to mobilize a comprehensive international solidarity movement to support their struggle.

Fernando Burges, UNPO Programme Manager, noted that the situation of ethnic and religious minorities in Pakistan stand out as particularly dire and noted that events such as "The Wall of Silence" are of paramount importance to give a platform for these peoples' voices to be heard, while they are silenced in their own countries.

The conference came to an end with Mengal urging states such as the United States and the United Kingdom to revise their policies regarding Pakistan, taking in consideration the situation of disadvantaged communities that have been suffering with human rights violations for decades. (ANI)


From ANI via ABP Live:

CPEC represents colonization of Pakistan for enrichment of China, says expert

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15035
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 22 Jul 2017 19:31

Image

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 377
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby yensoy » 22 Jul 2017 20:11

chetak wrote:twitter

India's diplomacy power play pays off, #Seoul pulls plug on PoK projects http://m.indiatoday.in/story/india-seou ... 07273.html … @rajeev_mp @TarekFatah


Quid pro quo for this http://www.financialexpress.com/economy/india-bars-trade-of-defence-other-goods-with-north-korea/597293/?

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5473
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 23 Jul 2017 00:46

CPEC - Conquest of Pakistan for the Enrichment of China. I like that.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3398
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 23 Jul 2017 23:05

X Posted on the Managing China Threat & STFUP Threads

China's New Chick : China's Proposed Infrastructure Project Running Through PoK | Exclusive



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QDbLhOqrO8

Cheers Image


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anjan, atamjeetsingh, ldev, Manish_Sharma, UlanBatori and 32 guests