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.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16074
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 21 Nov 2017 16:06

KrishnaK wrote:
chetak wrote:The black swan event for the hans and for the CPEC is Modi, like a bolt from the blue and far removed from the pliant, fearful and oily congi+manmohan whom the hans had well trained to be obsequious in their approach to Indo han relations. The IA in its new avatar under Modi cannot be trifled with.
The change in India's war plans from 1.5 wars to a full fledged 2 front war and the consequent raising of the MSC was done under the obsequious UPA.


The intent was laudable but it lacked seriousness by denying any serious funding to take it forward. The UPA had hobbled the Forces completely with chidambaram greedily and actively taking funds away from the forces to benefit the mafia NAC's cockamaime schemes.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby vijaykarthik » 21 Nov 2017 16:37

Why are the Hans obsessed with the Himalayas in general? Is it a generic strategy to have Bharat so scared that they can roll in through the plains if they control all the high lands?

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6469
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 21 Nov 2017 17:23

SSridhar wrote:Pakistan refuses to allow free use of yuan for CPEC projects - PTI, Economic Times
Pakistan was not ready to allow the Chinese yuan (renminbi) for free use in Gwadar or its treatment on a par with the US dollar in the country and this was disappointing for the visiting Chinese officials


Lest this is viewed as a case of the mouse that roared (apologies to Peter Sellers), how long can the bakis now resist the temptation of free "everything" from the chinis? Bakra kab tak khair manayega? The full fledged chinification of the baki society and economy is on! The yawn will become de facto safe harbor currency in the next five to ten years for the bakis.

Next, compulsory Tai Chi in public parks and plazas, and open sale of pork in non-halal butcher shops. After all, the 500,000 chini citizens have to eat, right?

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6469
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 21 Nov 2017 17:31

vijaykarthik wrote:Why are the Hans obsessed with the Himalayas in general? Is it a generic strategy to have Bharat so scared that they can roll in through the plains if they control all the high lands?


Since time immemorial, the hans have been at times wary, envious, scared, jealous, watchful, admiring, lustful, cautious, friendly, neighborly, at war...with the Vedic people. Himalayas are a psychological barrier that stands between them and the ancient land of Bharatas. The Hindus are everything the Hans have desired to achieve but can not have - respect, history, pluralism, democracy, republican society, enterprise, faith, soft power...

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Vips » 21 Nov 2017 21:04

Pakistan refuses to allow free use of yuan for CPEC projects.

Pakistan has refused to allow free use of the Chinese yuan on the lines of the US dollar in the country as officials from the two nations met to decide on a long-term developmental plan under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). (Last vistages of resistance before the inevitable turning into chinese colony)

The meeting of senior officials from Pakistan and China yesterday decided to formally move ahead despite hurdles and finance at least three special economic/industrial zones (SEZs) and some important rail, electricity and road projects.

The Dawn reported quoting a senior government official that Pakistan was not ready to allow the Chinese yuan (renminbi) for free use in Gwadar or its treatment on a par with the US dollar in the country and this was disappointing for the visiting Chinese officials. (Time to ask the jernails to take over the local radio and TV statons?)

He said the use of yuan for common use in any part of Pakistan or exchangeable like dollar has to be on a reciprocal basis.

The official also said the issue would be discussed again for some kind of institutional arrangement at the CPEC Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) meeting today to be co-chaired by Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal, who is also minister for planning and development reforms, and Wang Xiaotao, vice chairman of National Development and Reforms Commission (NDRC) of China.

The official said the USD 3.5 billion Karachi Circular Railway (KCR) project was also unlikely to be cleared for inclusion in the CPEC at this stage because of some unsettled issues between the two countries. The project is likely to be dropped for now.

Informed sources said the two sides appeared to have settled issues relating to $8.5 billion Karachi-Lahore- Peshawar Railway Line.

The discussions were positive and the two sides are also expected to sign agreements on actively promoted power projects.

They also agreed to include road projects such as the much-talked-about western route between Gwadar, Nawabshah, Zhob-D I Khan-Hakla under CPEC besides Karakoram Highway (KKH) in Gilgit-Baltistan.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 22 Nov 2017 01:16

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

‘Pakistan was not properly prepared for CPEC’

KARACHI: Pakistan’s renowned economist Kaiser Bengali was amused to hear repeated praise of socialism from Chinese Council General in Karachi Wang Yu and later told him that socialism is a ‘dirty’ word in Pakistan, during a moot, “CPEC – Prospects, Challenges and Way Forward”, held here Thursday at National Institute of Management (NIM).

“Mr Wang Yu repeatedly praised socialism in his speech. I may tell him Socialism is considered a dirty word in Pakistan. People here may not be able to digest that socialism could bring such great changes in the society,” Bengali said.

Earlier, Yu literally showered praises repeatedly on ‘Socialism of Chinese Characteristics’ for the success of China. He also said that Pakistan and China have had helped each other in the past on different occasions and were iron brothers.

Bengali, although acknowledged Chinese for their immense progress in the international arena, however he was critical about CPEC and even said that a feasibility report, doing a cost and benefit analysis, was never prepared by Pakistan authorities. “No cost and benefit analysis has been done. Environmental impact of CPEC has also not assessed, which is mandatory by law,” Bengali said. “I have questioned many government officials about the duty distribution of the Gwadar Port but never got an answer. However, what I have come to know, is that Pakistan would receive only nine per cent from it.”

“It is the duty of our government to provide security to all the people coming to Pakistan either for work or tourism. All foreign people are our guest. However, if the expenses on security of those people, which will be borne by Pakistan, exceeds which would be received from that nine per cent duties then what is the use of CPEC for Pakistan?” questioned Bengali.

“I am not against CPEC and I don’t doubt China’s intention. But what I want to say is that we have not prepared properly for CPEC and not bargained well because of incompetency of our government,” he said. He also highlighted the issue that if Chinese products are offloaded in Pakistan in between Kashgar to Gwadar then it would destroy local industries.

He added that the money coming in Pakistan from China under the umbrella of CPEC was either loans or FDI and Pakistan would have to pay back as interest and profit respectively in dollar terms, increasing outflows. It would be a huge burden on Pakistan’s economy, which is already enduring a huge pressure on its deteriorating Balance of Payment (BOP).

Parliamentary Committee on CPEC Chairman Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed said that China could have chosen Iran or Myanmar instead of Pakistan to achieve what it has planned to do through CPEC.

“When US President Donald returned from a visit of China, a journalist described him as a humbled leader of a ‘declining’ super power,” Mushahid said. He added that China has become a hub of innovation and said that it possessed 202 super computers as compared to USA’s 143 super computers. “Shanghai has become New York.” He stressed on the big picture of CPEC and added that the concept of South Asia has been enhanced from few countries and now China and Central Asian countries have also become a part of a ‘Greater South Asia’.

Mushahid said that the inefficiency on government’s part should not be considered as the outcome of CPEC. “One cannot hold CPEC liable for inefficiency on the part of the government. If there is water shortage in Karachi or Gwadar, then it is not the outcome of CPEC. It has been the responsibility of the administration. CPEC will solve those problems in times to come,” he said. He said that no one was willing to invest in Pakistan either western countries or Middle East and it was China, which right away planned to invest $46.2 billion in Pakistan, which has now increased.

“I am also against culture of secrecy and all the information should be made public. We have to be transparent. Culture of secrecy is not the answer,” he said. Mushahid also criticised bureaucracy and elite class in Islamabad and asked them to shift their lenses to Asia. He alleged that Pakistan’s bureaucracy has been inclined towards the West and was unable to understand that 21st century belonged to Asia.

He said that Pakistan would observe a surge in cement production from 45 million tons in 2015 to 70 million tons in 2019. In 2015, Pakistan was producing 7.1 million tons and it would be producing 12 million tons in 2019. “Around 60,000 Pakistani people have been employed in CPEC related projects and another 22,000 Pakistani students are studying in China and out of that 5000 are studying on government scholarships,” he added.

He further said that China could be a market for our agricultural products. “Our dates are better than the Middle East’s dates. China could be our target market.”

He further said that CPEC consisted of a number of projects. The exact number was 39. There was a different feasibility for each of the project. There are FDIs and government’s soft loans, with an interest rate of 1.5 to 2 per cent. And then there are also grants (gift) from China.

Sindh Information Minister Syed Nasir Hussain Shah, Peshawar Chamber of Commerce and Industries President Zahidullah Shinwari, Infrastructure Development and CPEC in Punjab Advisor Zahir Shah, Chamber of Commerce and Industries President Mufassar Ata Malik, District Council Gwadar Chairman Babu Ghulab and Sindh Abadgar Board Hyderabad Vice President Mehmood Nawaz Shah also spoke on the occasion.

Cheers Image

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 787
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ArjunPandit » 22 Nov 2017 01:18

just thinking a wild scenario: What if China and Pak come to exchange blows on CPEC takeover of the land of pure, will India support "'Yellow Light" or will go for "Green Light" Would be interesting to see chinese approach in dealing with terrorism :)

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Bart S » 22 Nov 2017 01:51

ArjunPandit wrote:just thinking a wild scenario: What if China and Pak come to exchange blows on CPEC takeover of the land of pure, will India support "'Yellow Light" or will go for "Green Light" Would be interesting to see chinese approach in dealing with terrorism :)



We should get ourselves a big bowl of popcorn and sit down to watch the fun.

Or better still, in keeping with the theme, some green edamame with yellow beer :twisted:

Image

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 787
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ArjunPandit » 22 Nov 2017 02:03

^^Good one BartS, the evil me thinks we should help both of them ...

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2586
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Kashi » 22 Nov 2017 06:28

Bart S wrote:Or better still, in keeping with the theme, some green edamame with yellow beer


Edamame is Japanese isn't it?

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 884
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby KrishnaK » 22 Nov 2017 07:55

chetak wrote:
KrishnaK wrote: The change in India's war plans from 1.5 wars to a full fledged 2 front war and the consequent raising of the MSC was done under the obsequious UPA.


The intent was laudable but it lacked seriousness by denying any serious funding to take it forward. The UPA had hobbled the Forces completely with chidambaram greedily and actively taking funds away from the forces to benefit the mafia NAC's cockamaime schemes.
Defence budget is smaller now as a percentage of GDP than under the UPA. Besides if modi could un-hobble the forces in 3 years, then they weren't really hobbled per se. Last from me on this topic.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby vijaykarthik » 22 Nov 2017 09:13

anupmisra wrote:
vijaykarthik wrote:Why are the Hans obsessed with the Himalayas in general? Is it a generic strategy to have Bharat so scared that they can roll in through the plains if they control all the high lands?


Since time immemorial, the hans have been at times wary, envious, scared, jealous, watchful, admiring, lustful, cautious, friendly, neighborly, at war...with the Vedic people. Himalayas are a psychological barrier that stands between them and the ancient land of Bharatas. The Hindus are everything the Hans have desired to achieve but can not have - respect, history, pluralism, democracy, republican society, enterprise, faith, soft power...



Precisely. This is something on the lines of what I wanted to hear. Going on with the same thread of thought: with us keeping what you mentioned in mind, is it even sensible or dharmic to support an OBOR that the Hans promote by hook or crook?

We need to build an alternate transit corridor which is free and open - thats the Chinese primordial fear. We need to needle that fear and keep them in check. The Hans need to know that when the time arrives; the deers that they actually think of us, are tigers.

Think Hambantota - neither the port nor the airport has been giving the profits that were initially promised or expected. The raft of OBOR rejections in Nepal and Pak currently also seem to tell us that countries are ready to push back if they are pushed to the brink. India needs to make a call and propose an alternate route when the time is right.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby vijaykarthik » 22 Nov 2017 09:17

ArjunPandit wrote:just thinking a wild scenario: What if China and Pak come to exchange blows on CPEC takeover of the land of pure, will India support "'Yellow Light" or will go for "Green Light" Would be interesting to see chinese approach in dealing with terrorism :)


Needle both and ribelate Tibet and PoK.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16074
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 22 Nov 2017 10:22

vijaykarthik wrote:
anupmisra wrote:
Since time immemorial, the hans have been at times wary, envious, scared, jealous, watchful, admiring, lustful, cautious, friendly, neighborly, at war...with the Vedic people. Himalayas are a psychological barrier that stands between them and the ancient land of Bharatas. The Hindus are everything the Hans have desired to achieve but can not have - respect, history, pluralism, democracy, republican society, enterprise, faith, soft power...



Precisely. This is something on the lines of what I wanted to hear. Going on with the same thread of thought: with us keeping what you mentioned in mind, is it even sensible or dharmic to support an OBOR that the Hans promote by hook or crook?

We need to build an alternate transit corridor which is free and open - thats the Chinese primordial fear. We need to needle that fear and keep them in check. The Hans need to know that when the time arrives; the deers that they actually think of us, are tigers.

Think Hambantota - neither the port nor the airport has been giving the profits that were initially promised or expected. The raft of OBOR rejections in Nepal and Pak currently also seem to tell us that countries are ready to push back if they are pushed to the brink. India needs to make a call and propose an alternate route when the time is right.


Think Hambantota and how the hans have wormed their way into a port that is now permanently han dominated and conveniently sitting in India's backyard. Think gwadar and how it is sitting on India's jugular of the gelf oil/trade routes.

Think harbors in beediland that are permanently accessible to the hans as well as safe havens in nepal which has a completely open and unchecked border with India that is well used by both the pakis and the hans. What does this say about our true relations with nepal, beediland and lanka and the huge security risk that they have become, nay purposely allowed themselves to become as far as India is concerned??

Primarily, when dealing with the hans, think a little more national security and a little less trade :). BTW, letting the hans into our telecommunication/power industry infrastructure is an extreme act of foolishness.

Personally, I would consider the willing cooperation of these allegedly "friendly" countries with the hans to be acts of war against India, but, hey, that's just me.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6469
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 22 Nov 2017 11:56

Uh-oh! Trouble in paradise?

Top cooperation body okays CPEC long-term plan
But...

but could not conclude agreements on development projects and special economic/industrial zones
Chinese delegation complained about the political instability in Pakistan that would negatively impact on the pace of CPEC progress.
The two sides took almost four hours longer than the scheduled time to conclude the 7th JCC meeting as they struggled over acceptable phrases and language to sign off minutes of the meeting.
They also could not finalise taxation issues and stood short of final agreement on inclusion for financing of special economic zones.
A lot of time was also consumed over Chinese insistence on prioritising the Hattar Industrial Estate in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in view of its ready infrastructure instead of Rashakai near Peshawar, but it was finally agreed that the province’s priorities would be honoured in this respect.
Minister for Interior and Planning and Development Ahsan Iqbal lamented that a political party’s sit-in ahead of the Chinese president’s visit to Pakistan in September 2014 had delayed the CPEC launching and that tradition was carried forward today ahead of the 7th JCC meeting.
the protesters were earning a bad name for the country.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1372079/top-c ... -term-plan

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 23 Nov 2017 16:37

China’s road through Pakistan - Khurram Husain

MINISTER Planning Mr Ahsan Iqbal has been busy of late. He has had to deal with those nuisance protesters blocking the road, then play host to the Chinese delegation that flew in for the seventh Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) meeting to finalise the Long Term Plan (LTP) for CPEC. Since it has been difficult to get through to him in the midst of these pressing engagements, I thought I’d share some questions I have about that meeting right here in hopes of an answer.

Why are the Chinese interested in making the yuan legal tender in Gwadar? What purpose does such a step serve, and how are Pakistan’s interests advanced by it? If this is about helping make the yuan an international currency, which is a major policy priority for China, then why only ask for it to be legal tender in Gwadar? Why not all of Pakistan? Most other efforts to make the yuan a global currency are focusing on making it into a reserve asset through yuan-denominated bonds and currency swap arrangements between the central banks of China and other countries. Pakistan too has such a swap arrangement for many years now. But reserve asset is one thing, legal tender is a different ball game altogether.

When did the government of Pakistan first receive this proposal which was raised and discussed at the JCC meeting concluded on Tuesday? According to details trickling out from that meeting, it was first raised in the Senior Officials Meeting held on Monday which was intended to prepare the ground for the higher-level talks on Tuesday where the important policy decisions were made. Is this true? Another report, quoting unnamed officials, says that “Pakistan conveyed its opposition to the demand a few months ago, but the Chinese side pressed it again”. So if they were told ‘no’ a few months ago, and returned to press the demand again, might they return a few months later and press harder still? Or is the ‘no’ they have been given this time final? Has this been raised in any of the previous JCC meetings?

How hard did the Chinese press the case for this proposal? Again, according to details trickling out, it appears there was extended debate around the idea. Is this true? What arguments did they advance for the proposal? Following the meeting, the secretary planning told reporters that the idea had been turned down, but the minister planning simply said it was being considered and “it is only a proposal at this point”. So which is it? Turned down or under consideration? Or perhaps ‘turned down for now but to be considered later’?

The CPEC plan raises far more questions than it answers. It needs to be made public.

By itself the proposal doesn’t tell us much, except that whatever plans the Chinese have for Gwadar are a lot bigger than what we have been told. Thus far, there are two countries that have officially allowed the yuan to be legal tender: Angola and Zimbabwe. In the case of Zimbabwe, the decision was aided by the fact that its own currency had collapsed in 2009, with an inflation rate of 500 billion per cent (yes, five hundred billion). They shifted to the US dollar and the South African rand as legal tender, then in 2015 allowed the yuan in.

By itself there is nothing inherently wrong with countries discussing and possibly mulling monetary arrangements whereby their currencies can acquire the status of legal tender in other countries. But in this case, a few sources of concern arise. First, it appears the demand is for one city only, which is odd, unless there is a plan to extend the coverage to the rest of Pakistan soon, in which case it is still odd to begin with one city, especially one so remote from the centres of economic activity in the country, for now anyway.

The LTP that was finalised on Tuesday (pending a few issues we are told) needs to be made public to prevent questions such as these from clouding the overall positive prospects that CPEC has for Pakistan. What is an important source of concern is how many other such surprises await us in the future as we go down this road. Recall that we are only at the very beginning, and the discussions taking place around the LTP — which is a detailed road map extending to 2030 that significantly increases the role of Chinese capital and enterprises in Pakistan’s economy — are precisely where the future shape of the project is being decided.

Nobody outside a small circle had heard of this proposal to bring the Chinese currency as legal tender in Pakistan. It is not mentioned in any public pronouncement, not on the CPEC website, not in any of the minutes of the JCC meetings held thus far, not in the LTP finalised in December 2016 at the sixth JCC and not in the shorter summary of that document circulated to the provinces in March of 2017. So the question is, what else is being discussed that would take the whole cooperative framework of CPEC far beyond the roads and power plants that we are encouraged to imagine when thinking about the project?

There is one fact that is becoming increasingly clear: CPEC involves a fundamental and profound reshaping of our economy and policy landscape in order to create the space for Chinese capital and enterprises to acquire stakes and participate in the economic life of the country. When this newspaper ran details from the LTP back in May, the minister planning referred to that document as a “live document”, meaning it was up for changes. Then, before the JCC meetings got going, he told us that the LTP under consideration is the same document. The time to come clean on all this has arrived. Let’s see the plan, as you promised, Mr Minister!

Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22107
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 23 Nov 2017 16:55

anupmisra wrote:Top cooperation body okays CPEC long-term plan

But...

A lot of time was also consumed over Chinese insistence on prioritising the Hattar Industrial Estate in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in view of its ready infrastructure instead of Rashakai near Peshawar, but it was finally agreed that the province’s priorities would be honoured in this respect.

This is very clear instance of diverging political priorities.

The Chinese want a lot of quick progress in CPEC as Xi has staked personally on it, whereas the Pakistanis want Punjab to get the advantage. To hell with KP is what they say.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1920
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chola » 23 Nov 2017 17:04

lol. Having Cheen entangled economically and personally with the TFTAs (instead of just selling them weapons from afar) is a good thing for us.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 23 Nov 2017 22:38

X Posted on the Terroristan & Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat Thread

China soiling its tlousels in all Colouls of the Lainbow as it despelately needs India to join CPEC & OBOR due to Tellolistan, Myanmal, Nepal & Bangladesh inability to develop tlaffic which India would genelate!

China hints it can rename CPEC if India joins OBOR initiative

BEIJING: The Chinese foreign ministry on Thursday responded to a statement by its ambassador in India, Luo Zhaohui, who recently said Beijing is prepared to rename the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to address India's concerns. The ministry neither endorsed nor denied Luo's statement, suggesting that it was encouraging Luo to negotiate with New Delhi over the issue, while ensuring that it did not upset Islamabad either.

The ambassador had said during a speech in Delhi last week that China "can change the name of CPEC" and "create an alternative corridor through Jammu & Kashmir, Nathu La pass or Nepal to deal with India's concerns".

In return, it was suggested that India join its One Belt One Road (OBOR) connectivity plan which desperately needs a boost from China's largest neighbour to its south. Chinese investments in Nepal and Myanmar are meant to pressure India to join the initiative but India has not responded to these overtures so far.

The fact that Luo publicly discussed the possibility of renaming CPEC twice indicates that he was acting on instructions from Beijing and not expressing his personal views, observers said.

The foreign ministry said on Thursday: "CPEC is an economic cooperation Initiative that has nothing to do with territorial sovereignty disputes, and does not affect China's and Pakistan's position on the Kashmir issue."

Experts said that the mention of Pakistan in the statement was significant because Beijing does not want to hurt sentiments in the country until its envoy in New Delhi manages to strike a deal. The fact that it is interested in negotiating with India, sources said, was evident from the foreign ministry not contradicting its envoy in New Delhi.

New Delhi believes Beijing has sided with Islamabad by including Pakistan's name in the project, which passes through a portion of Kashmir described as a part of India.

At the same time, India's refusal to join OBOR is one of the major hindrances in OBOR's growth. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had made this clear when India became the first major country not to attend the OBOR forum in Beijing in May, whereas most western countries including the United States had sent official delegations.

"China is ready to strengthen connectivity with all neighbouring countries and promote regional economic cooperation and common prosperity," according to a translation of the ministry's statement which was released in Chinese.

"CPEC is a framework for cooperation focusing on the long-term development of cooperation in all fields. It is in the interest of both China and Pakistan. It is also conducive to promoting regional stability and development," it said.

Cheers Image

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9611
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 24 Nov 2017 01:39

What will access to Nepal or Mynmar or Bangladesh mean if there is no access to India? Those projects too will suffer the same fate a CPEC in financial terms.

Just let Nepal know that once Free trade starts between it and China the Indo-Nepal border will become gated and visa driven.

Added later: If we continue to shut our borders to CPEC it will automatically kill the other projects.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 787
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ArjunPandit » 24 Nov 2017 02:32

pankajs wrote:What will access to Nepal or Mynmar or Bangladesh mean if there is no access to India? Those projects too will suffer the same fate a CPEC in financial terms.

Just let Nepal know that once Free trade starts between it and China the Indo-Nepal border will become gated and visa driven.

Added later: If we continue to shut our borders to CPEC it will automatically kill the other projects.

This has again proven, sometimes inaction is better than negative action. The yellow hans has created a big trouble for other countries and itself by this huge debt doled out for CPEC.
We simply need to wait for it to unravel it and prepare for the time when to strike a blow to have the entire set up collapsed then later on enjoy the benefits of han sponsoered infrastructure

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Vips » 24 Nov 2017 16:31

Another way to turn the countries against china is offer at least one project in each country (in south and central Asia) where India finances the project on very favourable terms without any ownership rights and which should result in skills upgradation and employment generation in the host country. The after effects would be fun to watch.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1920
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chola » 25 Nov 2017 16:02

Vips wrote:Another way to turn the countries against china is offer at least one project in each country (in south and central Asia) where India finances the project on very favourable terms without any ownership rights and which should result in skills upgradation and employment generation in the host country. The after effects would be fun to watch.


What you are talking about is foreign sid through soft loans. We cannot build needed infrastructure in-country because of lack of funds. And we know how stretched funding is for our military.

Trying to play the financing game with the Cheen printing press is like the USSR trying to outspend the US printing press during the Cold War. It is nothing but a road to financial ruin.

Probably better to open our market to their exports. This will create goodwill and dependence. It is how the US keeps a lock on countries like Japan, SoKo and Taiwan right on Cheen’s doorstep.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Vips » 26 Nov 2017 07:51

I fully realize we cannot match china in financial terms and hence had mentioned one project each in the select countries which would be big in impact viz Employment generation, very low rate interest loans to bring in focus the exploitative nature of chinese projects in those counties (namely high interest rates charged on projects financed and also extensive chinese labor deployed).

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16074
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 27 Nov 2017 22:04

Vips wrote:I fully realize we cannot match china in financial terms and hence had mentioned one project each in the select countries which would be big in impact viz Employment generation, very low rate interest loans to bring in focus the exploitative nature of chinese projects in those counties (namely high interest rates charged on projects financed and also extensive chinese labor deployed).


They are all trying to play India against china.

We don't need to fall for this.

Our treasure is better utilized at home. Let those countries take the cheeni money and pay the price when they fail to make the required payments.

The lanka example is already staring all these countries right in the face. Its a better example than India can ever hope to teach anyone.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 29 Nov 2017 05:05

X Posted on the Terroristan & OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Thread

Why China is sinking $46 billion in politically unstable, terror-wracked Pakistan

China has moved from its harm offensive at Doklam to a charm offensive of sorts with its ambassador here mentioning that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor could be renamed if that would persuade us to join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

In May this year the ambassador had said the same thing, but the embassy’s website subsequently removed a reference to it apparently because of the adverse reaction in Islamabad for which changing the name would imply that China was willing to assuage, even if symbolically, India’s sovereignty concerns that are central to its opposition to the BRI. China’s position remains that the CPEC is an economic project, with no bearing on sovereignty issues which India and Pakistan have to settle bilaterally. In May and now again, to demonstrate China’s benign, win-win intentions, the ambassador has proposed a corridor between China and India through Kashmir or Sikkim.

China loses nothing through this sham diplomacy apparently prompted by suggestions from some China experts in India that a diplomatic way out of the BRI impasse would be to re-name the CPEC and render possible India’s participation in the BRI in the future.

A cosmetic change in nomenclature will, however, make no difference on the ground as any corridor between China and Pakistan has to traverse parts of the erstwhile J&K state illegally occupied by Pakistan. This India cannot accept not only for legal reasons but also for what is a strategic move to encircle India in an area where China itself is involved in a territorial dispute with us. China is drawing Pakistan deeply into its sphere of influence not only to continue using it as a weapon against India, but also to challenge the already declining US presence and power on the Asian landmass.

China will not give up the CPEC - no matter what it is called - as it is central to its geopolitical ambitions in Asia and beyond. If it wants to sink $46 billion or more in a politically unstable, terrorism-wracked country that needs financial bail-outs by the IMF or Arab donors and attracts little foreign investment, and, which, moreover, is bent on creating an unfavourable environment for itself by perpetuating conflictual relations with both its direct neighbours, it is for larger geo-political reasons, not economic gain alone.

The China-India corridor through Kashmir that has been aired would supplement the CPEC, and not be an alternative to it. China pretends that these corridors are politically neutral and that it can envisage a corridor through Kashmir without taking any position on India’s sovereignty over J&K that Pakistan disputes. A corridor through J&K would get linked to the corridor through POK and China would conveniently reap a double benefit.

Through this ploy China will solidify its ts grip over J&K on both sides. Even Mehbooba Mufti has backed linking India to the BRI through Kashmir as a rediscovery of “traditional trade routes of Kashmir”.

Actually, what is intended is not any new China-India corridor through Kashmir but linking Srinagar through Muzaffarabad to the CPEC. The CPEC renaming gambit, in seeming disregard of Pakistani sensitivities, may be intended as a pressure point on implementational aspects and subduing voices in Pakistan questioning the project’s benefits.

The propitiatory kite-flying on corridors should be seen also in the context of the Russia-India-China dialogue at foreign minister level at Delhi on December 11 and 12. Russia supports BRI but India has widened its opposition to it by teaming up with Japan and the US to expose its dubious dimensions.

Cheers Image

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 29 Nov 2017 08:35

X Posted.

Slowly and steadily Afghanistan’s ability to resist economic blockade threat by the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, gains strength.

Close on the heels of the opening of the India-Iran-Afghanistan trade corridor via Cha Bahar port, the Lapis Lazuli Route / Corridor that will connect Afghanistan directly to Europe and completely by passes the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, inches forward:

Lapis Lazuli Nations To Form Three Technical Working Groups

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22107
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 29 Nov 2017 15:58

CPEC will aggravate India-Pak tension: US think-tank - PTI
WASHINGTON: The multi-billion dollar China- Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will deepen China's already formidable presence in the South Asian nation, and "aggravate" tension between India and Pakistan, a US think-tank said today.

"CPEC will deepen China's already formidable presence in the country and clearly aggravate India-Pakistan tensions. In addition, real questions persist about Pakistan's ability to finance its share of new energy investment," Michael Kugelman, deputy director and senior associate for South Asia Program at the Wilson Center said in a report published today.

According to him, even though the CPEC may enable Pakistan to generate more power, it will not solve the country's broader energy crisis, which is rooted in factors that go well beyond supply shortages.

"Stability in Pakistan's security situation and economic performance is increasingly in critical interest for Beijing because it is a precondition for CPEC's success. Given New Delhi's strenuous opposition, CPEC will exacerbate India- Pakistan tensions," Kugelman wrote.

Among other things, CPEC cements the already deep presence of Washington's top strategic competitor in a region where the US has a much lighter footprint, he said.

"The project also generates additional obstacles for the Indian efforts to access markets and natural gas reserves in Central Asia — a region that India cannot reach directly by land because Pakistan denies its transit rights on Pakistani soil," he said.

According to Kugelman, Beijing's messaging is very similar to Islamabad's — it uses only the most positive of rhetoric and with a triumphant and confident tone. Like Pakistan, China has much at stake, he said.

As per the report, CPEC is in some ways a test case of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) because it includes some of the initiative's first projects to become fully operational. {Exactly as we have said here as to why CPEC is a limus test for BRI and why Xi has staked so much in Pakistan & CPEC}


"Privately, however, China worries about the security risks to CPEC, even as terrorist violence has subsided in Pakistan since 2014, when the Pakistani military launched a major counterterrorism offensive," the report said, adding that many of the attacks that have taken place since then have occurred along or on envisioned CPEC routes in Baluchistan.

Separatist rebels have targeted energy infrastructure in the province for a number of years and remain an active threat.

"Furthermore, criminal gangs pose threats to CPEC projects in Punjab Province. One such outfit, known as the Chotu Gang, abducted 12 Chinese engineers working on a highway project in Punjab back in 2005," he wrote.

Kugelman said in private conversations, Pakistani officials and analysts offer a sobering appraisal of the project.

"Privately, Pakistanis also express concern about the country's ability to pay back loans in the coming years, as well as about the security threats ranging from terrorism and separatist insurgency to organized crime that threaten CPEC construction," he said.

Referring to India's reaction to CPEC, Kugelman said New Delhi's biggest objection to CPEC is that it entails building projects in Gilgit-Baltistan.

"New Delhi does not formally oppose BRI as a whole; rather, its stated concerns are restricted to CPEC, which it has described as a violation of Indian sovereignty, he noted.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 30 Nov 2017 08:10

Article in The Globalist by James M. Dorsey , Senior Fellow at the Singapore based S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies on BRI and CPEC aka Conning Pakistan to Enrich China.

Article indicates that the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan might just be cottoning on to the fact that there is no such thing as Free Halal Pork Haleem when it comes to dealing with Higher than Himalaya’s, Deeper than Indian Ocean, Sweeter than Honey, As Close as Lips to Teeth, Stronger than Steel All Weather Friend and Iron Brother, the Peoples Republic of China:

China’s Belt and Road Initiative Hits a Wall

Pakistan concerned about a neocolonial Chinese effort to extract the country’s resources.

By James M. Dorsey, November 30, 2017

In a rare challenging of Chinese commercial terms that underlie the country’s ambitious Belt and Road initiative, Pakistan and Nepal have withdrawn from two dam-building deals.

The withdrawal coincides with mounting questions in Pakistan, a crown jewel in Chinese geo-strategic ambition, about what some see as a neo-colonial effort to extract the country’s resources.

The withdrawals and questioning call into question China’s economics-centred approach to geopolitics based on the long-standing win-win principle of Chinese policy, the notion that all parties benefit from Chinese investment and largesse.

China wins twice

Critics have charged that the principle boils down to China wins twice, a notion that is supported by Chinese plans for Pakistan’s agricultural sector; the extraction of Pakistani onyx, granite, and black gold marble; the disagreement over the dams; and the debt traps that forced countries like Sri Lanka to surrender control of key assets.

Pakistan and Nepal announced their withdrawals last week in separate statements. Pakistani Water and Power Development Authority chairman Muzammil Hussain charged that “Chinese conditions for financing the Diamer-Bhasha Dam were not doable and against our interests.”

China and Pakistan were also at odds over ownership of the $14 billion, 4,500 megawatts (MW)-hydropower project on the Indus River in the country’s problematic region of Gilgit-Baltistan near disputed Kashmir.

Nepal’s Deputy Prime Minister and Energy Minister Kamal Thapa announced his government’s decision to scrap a US$2.5 billion deal with China’s Gezhouba Group to build a hydroelectric project on the Budhi Gandaki River in the west of the country two days before the Pakistani decision.

With India’s National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) waiting in the wings and expectations that the incumbent, Nepali Congress (NC) will be returned to power in elections scheduled for November 26 and December 7, the project plays into Eurasia’s Great Game for regional influence.

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

The Diamer-Bhasha project was intended to be part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a key node on the Belt and Road. With planned investments into infrastructure, including the port of Gwadar in the volatile province of Balochistan; energy, telecommunications and information technology, of more than $50 billion, it constitutes China’s largest financial commitment to any one country.

The Pakistani withdrawal takes on added significance because it was included in CPEC after the government had failed to secure funding from international institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) because of Indian objections that it was in disputed territory.

The government has broken ground on the project five times in the past 15 years. Mr. Hussain said that the government now has a five-year funding plan for the project that would be completed in 2026.

Chinese analysts suggest that the Pakistani and Nepalese withdrawals could set a precedent.

“It will not be a big surprise if similar problems happen in China’s future overseas projects. And that would not change the big picture. There is a common misinterpretation internationally that the Belt and Road is something China would want to push forwards at all cost.

But in fact, all projects are commercial so they have to be justifiable economically, and agreed mutually,” said Zhao Gancheng, a South Asia expert at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies.

China is likely to encounter greater resistance not only on its financial terms, but also regarding assessments of what economic benefit investment target countries can expect.

Pakistan’s marble industry

A State Bank of Pakistan study concluded that exports of marble to China, Pakistan’s foremost rough-hewn, freshly-excavated marble export market, and the re-export to Pakistan of Pakistani semi-processed marble was “hurting Pakistan’s marble industry to a significant extent.”

Pakistani marble exporter and retailer Shakil Khan told Asia Times that “the Chinese buyers go for the square slabs, while the local quarrymen tend to excavate oval-shaped blocks which reduce to smaller bits” and are only of interest to the local Pakistani handicrafts and tile market. The Chinese approach discriminates against mines with cracked marble.

“The Chinese pick only the rare and quality stuff like onyx, black gold marble and high-quality granite from the market. Local processing units don’t have the high-tech processing equipment here to treat these costly marble products,” added Zahid Shinwari, president of the Sarhad Chamber of Commerce & Industry (SCCI), in Peshawar.

Economic domination

The Pakistani marble industry’s experience strokes with the overall suggestion of the leaked long-term plan for CPEC that projects risks of economic domination, the creation of a surveillance state and would allow China to shape Pakistan’s media landscape.

It projected an approach that has already sparked popular resistance and setbacks in countries and regions such as Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Balochistan.

The plan envisioned Chinese state-owned companies leasing thousands of hectares of Pakistani agricultural land to set up “demonstration projects” in areas ranging from seed varieties to irrigation technology.

The Chinese companies would be offered “free capital and loans” from various Chinese ministries as well as the China Development Bank.

Effectively turning Pakistan into a raw materials supplier rather than an added-value producer, a prerequisite for a sustainable textiles industry, the plan sees the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps in China’s troubled north-western province of Xinjiang, as the vehicle for the introduction of mechanization as well as new technologies in Pakistani livestock breeding, development of hybrid varieties, and precision irrigation.

Added value would be produced in Xinjiang as part of China’s bid to quell ethnic unrest among the Uighur population.

Pakistani textiles for Xinjiang

The plan envisaged the Pakistani textile sector as a supplier of materials such as yarn and coarse cloth to textile manufacturers in Xinjiang.

“China can make the most of the Pakistani market in cheap raw materials to develop the textiles & garments industry and help soak up surplus labour forces in (Xinjiang’s) Kashgar,” the plan said.

Chinese companies would be offered preferential treatment regarding “land, tax, logistics and services” as well as “enterprise income tax, tariff reduction and exemption and sales tax rate” incentives.

Pakistan and Nepal’s withdrawal from the dam projects suggests that for China to secure economic dominance in Eurasia, it will have to ensure that win-win amounts to equitable terms and distribution of benefits among those that need the investment.

“China needs to nurture better understanding of its intentions and visions…to prevent unnecessary suspicions about its geopolitical ambition,” The Jakarta Post said earlier this year in an editorial that acknowledged that “we badly need the huge infrastructure spending that China is bringing.”


From The Globalist:

Clicky

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9414
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 30 Nov 2017 11:40

Provincial Minister for Higher Education, Raza Haider Gilani said that the income generated from toll plazas on 2,400 kilometer long Gwadar-Khanjrab route of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor(CPEC ) and its rail service and 120 berths of Gwadar Port would be more than annual financial budget of Pakistan. He further said that after completely functioning of Gwadar deep sea port and CPEC, US dollar would be available at Pk Rs 1.75, as saying, due to 67 berths at Dubai Port, US dollar was available at UAE Dirham 3.31. “Value of US dollar will decline at amazing level as 120 berths of Gwadar deep sea port and CPEC route completely start functioning,” he said.
He was addressing 12th Convocation at Islamia University Bahawalpur …………………….

Clicky


For an event at a place of learning with the very Mohamadden name of Islamia University, Madrassah Maths and Sialkot Statistics on display. Provincial Minister for Higher Education of Punjab, Raza Haider Gilani, has a wet dream that CPEC tolls will equal the Annual Financial budget of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan which was PKR 5103 Billion or USD 48.44 Billion.

Consider the Suez Canal revenue for the 10 months January to October 2017 amounted to USD 4.3 Billion for an annualised USD 5.16 Billion.

Suez Canal revenues up to USD 4.3 billion in 2017: SCZone Chairman

Al-Masry Al-Youm
October 19, 2017 3:29 pm

The chairman of Suez Canal Authority (SCA) and SCZone — the Suez Canal Economic Zone, Mohab Mamish, announced on Wednesday that the SCA’s revenues raised by 3.4 per cent within the period from January-October 2017, increasing to $US4.3 billion up from $US4.2 billion in 2016. ……………..

Suez Canal revenues up to USD 4.3 billion in 2017: SCZone Chairman


Then consider that the Panama Canal revenue for the 6 months January to June 2017 amounted to USD 1.1 Billion for an annualised USD 2,2 Billion revenue:

Panama Canal toll revenues up 19.7% in first half 2017

Panama Canal revenues totaled US $ 1,119.5 million in the first half of this year, up 19.7% from US $ 935.3 million in the same period of National Institute of Statistics and Census (INEC) released today.

08/08/2017 - 15:59 ·Panama, Aug 8 (EFE) .- Panama Canal revenues totaled $ 1,119.5 million in the first half of this year, 19.7% more than the 935.3 million in the same period of 2016 According to data from the National Institute of Statistics and Census (INEC) released today. ………………..

Panama Canal toll revenues up 19.7% in first half 2017


USD 48.44 Billion is a large multiple of the toll revenues of the Suez canal and Panama canal combined.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22107
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 30 Nov 2017 13:28

^ Kufr India, be afraid, very.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6469
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 30 Nov 2017 17:49

SSridhar wrote:^ Kufr India, be afraid, very.


As one paki retard said on one of their "shout & scream" TV shows, "dollars will soon start to flow in the gutters".

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9611
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 30 Nov 2017 18:06

Why Dolla. ... Why not the international karrancy yuan?

Is this another yahood and hanuud khanspiracy to deny the yuan it's right fool place?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16074
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 30 Nov 2017 22:26

Bad terms: Pakistan’s raw deal with China over Gwadar port


Bad terms: Pakistan’s raw deal with China over Gwadar port

As details emerge of agreements reached, it seems likely China will profit and Pakistan will pay. Critics say Pakistan's bureaucrats have blundered

By F.M. SHAKIL NOVEMBER 29, 2017

China will bag a 91% share in gross revenues from Gwadar port, in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, and 85% from the surrounding “free zone,” under a 40-year deal finalized by Pakistani authorities with the China Overseas Port Holding Company.

The numbers were revealed by Pakistan’s federal minister for ports and shipping, Mir Hasil Bizenjo, in the Pakistan Senate last Friday. He also disclosed that Pakistan will pay back US$16 billion in loans obtained from Chinese banks for the development of Gwadar port, the free-trade zone and all communications infrastructure, at rates of over 13%, inclusive of 7% insurance charges.

The project forms part of the US$56 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Business figures say China will recoup its entire CPEC expenditure in the first four years out of earnings from Gwadar port –which was inaugurated a year ago – and the free zone.


Bizenjo added that the Chinese port holding company will operate the port over the next 40 years through a BOT (build-operate-transfer) arrangement. Pakistan will take over the port’s operation, along with responsibility for infrastructure maintenance, after the expiry date.

The minister’s disclosure comes on the heels of persistent demands from lawmakers for details of the long-term agreements inked with the Chinese authorities to be revealed, amid accusations that the federal government had attempted to sweep them under the carpet.

“Such deals need input from the private sector and the government should have involved the trade organizations before signing deals of national significance”

Most senators are of the belief that the long-term agreements are heavily tilted toward China. Raza Rabbani, who is chairman of the Pakistan parliament’s upper house, bowed to pressure from lawmakers and directed the Senate Standing Committee on CEPC to look into whether Pakistan’s national interests are undermined by financial obligations entered into via the agreement with China.

Pakistan Tehreek-e- Insaaf Senator Mohsin Aziz, who could not be reached for comment by Asia Times, is of the view that the long-term contracts entered into in relation to CPEC most certainly do undermine the national interest. “Such deals need input from the private sector and the government should have involved the trade organizations before signing deals of national significance,” he told the Senate, adding that the private sector would have been able to negotiate better deals for Pakistan than its bureaucrats.

Business leaders are indeed skeptical of the agreement’s 40-year term, stressing, in particular, that the infrastructure, roads, machinery and plant is unlikely to remain in workable condition in four decades. By the time Pakistan takes over responsibility for its maintenance, they say, it will need significant upgrading.

Muhammad Ishaq, a leading importer and one-time director of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board of Investment & Trade (KPBOIT) told Asia Times: “The hefty share in the revenue of port and free economic zone is not the only issue which will deal a severe blow to economy. The government also allowed contractors and sub-contractors associated with China Overseas Port Holding Company an exemption from income and sales taxes, and federal excise duties, for a period of 20 years, besides a 40-year tax holiday granted for imports of equipment, material, plant, appliances and accessories for port and special economic zone.”

He added that major shares of the earnings from the port and free zone would go to Chinese companies, while Pakistan will struggle to service costly loans obtained from Chinese banks. The 2,282-acre free zone, he said, will include factories, logistics hubs, warehousing facilities and display centers that will all be exempt both from customs duties and from provincial and federal taxes.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 787
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ArjunPandit » 01 Dec 2017 01:31

SSridhar wrote:^ Kufr India, be afraid, very.

That's why we should make it Cutting Pakistan to Ensnare China

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 02 Dec 2017 05:01

Real questions persist about Pakistan’s ability to repay CPEC loans: report

A recently published report by The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR) takes a look at the implications and obstacles of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor’s (CPEC) energy projects with the possibility of it exacerbating already fraught relations between Pakistan and India.

Energy is a big part of CPEC, with many high profile projects relating to it, including sixteen which are close to completion. PML-N came into power in 2013 with a mandate to fix a far-reaching energy crisis. In his speech to mark the occasion of CPEC’s launch in April 2015, ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif declared that the project “will benefit all provinces and areas in Pakistan, and transform our country into a regional hub and pivot for commerce and investment.”

Islamabad, thus, has a strong political interest in getting as many energy-related projects online as possible before the next national election in 2018 given their recent political struggles, states report’s author Michael Kugelman, who is the South Asia senior associate at The Wilson Center.

Of the over $50 billion in promised Chinese investment in CPEC, 60 per cent is for coal-fired power generation. The project offers “many potential benefits for Pakistan, ranging from improved infrastructure to increased employment and, more broadly, greater access to the global economy”, says Kugelman. Pakistan is currently disastrously short of electricity supplies and while CPEC will help Pakistan generate more power, it will not solve the broader energy crisis that is rooted in more than supply shortages, states the report.

“CPEC will not do much to address the fundamental drivers of that crisis—debt, corruption, a lack of a clear and coordinated energy policy process, and other factors that have little to do with supply-side considerations”, claims Kugelman.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) not only has to look at the environmental implications for the region but also the host countries’ ability to meet their goals for reducing carbon emissions under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Moreover, the project for China is deeply dependent on “the precarious and uncertain security situation in Pakistan”. Stability in Pakistan’s security situation and economic performance is an increasingly critical interest for Beijing. Real questions also continue to persist about Pakistan’s ability to repay loans and whether the country is capable of financing its share of the new energy investments.

In a recent report by The Express Tribune, it was observed that the central government’s debt and liabilities increased to Rs21.4 trillion by June this year, which were about 68% of the total national output and is considered a dangerous level.

The report by Kugelman also takes a look at the noticeable split between public narratives and private sentiments on CPEC in Pakistan. While CPEC is envisioned as the project to integrate Pakistan into the global economy, officials and analysts acknowledge the risks of “placing all of Pakistan’s economic eggs in the CPEC basket”. With heavy investment from China, there is no longer a level playing field in Pakistan for other interested foreign investors.

It further discusses the impact CPEC will have on the already fraught relations between Pakistan and India. Beijing is New Delhi’s biggest strategic competitor in the region and the project “generates additional obstacles for Indian efforts to access markets and natural gas reserves in Central Asia”. India cannot currently reach these regions by land because Pakistan denies it transit rights on Pakistani soil.

India has repeatedly expressed severe reservations on CPEC. Not only is New Delhi critical of CPEC building projects in Gilgit-Baltistan which is part of disputed territory, but many policymakers view CPEC as China ‘encircling’ India in the South Asian region. There are not only infrastructure development and energy deals but also some naval and military-related projects.

“That CPEC is taking place on India’s doorstep and all across Pakistan is even more unsettling for New Delhi,” states Kugelman.

Monitoring CPEC is also a major focus of the US, which has thus far not been too vocal about the project, states the report. “CPEC is problematic because it represents major inroads made by a key strategic competitor in a region where the United States has been much less present than China.”

However, if looked at through an economic lens, the intended outcomes of the project – energy security, better infrastructure, employment and stability – are desirable for the US because it aligns with its own interests in Pakistan.

The report also points out the benefit Iran gains from CPEC energy projects. The country has long wanted to complete a natural gas pipeline between Pakistan and Iran. Financial constraints have, however, stopped Pakistan from developing its portion.

While CPEC faces many obstacles, Pakistan has moved quickly to address them. It has moved quickly to address concerns about security and offered up a security force of nearly twenty thousand soldiers to protect CPEC workers, as well as a separate maritime force to protect Gwadar port. “The the risks will remain high though, particularly in Balochistan.”

However, at the end of it Pakistan emerges as a winner. In time, the generation of more electricity and harvesting of indigenous resources could end the country’s dependence on imported oil and gas from the Middle East.

Cheers Image

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby periaswamy » 02 Dec 2017 08:56

From Noko thread:
Dipankar:
For comparison the currently used Western (cross Pacific) and Southern Routes (Suez Canal) to USA/Europe takes about 20 - 30 days.


This was discussed earlier. I cannot see the economist article (paywall) but it is more instructive to just do the math. Calculate the number of container ships that can travel in the ocean in 30 days via the Indian Ocean (China has large fleets of them) and the frequency of the trains that would be needed to match that throughput. The numbers are all on the other thread. Maybe they will bill a large number of tracks across the central asia...who knows.

This huge difference in trade volumes between land and sea routes also the reason why CPEC is not feasible as a trade route to arica or the middle east.

nachiket:Rail cars can be double stacked to carry two 53 foot containers at once. So four 20-foot containers is possible.

Thanks. Indeed, that seems to be in rampant use.

A four axle container car can take 90 tonnes (99.2 short tons; 88.6 long tons). Since a container is limited to 30.5 tonnes (33.6 short tons; 30.0 long tons) (plus a rail car), single stacking clearly does not use the load capacity of the railway. A 20-foot (6.1 m) container is limited to 24 tonnes (26.5 short tons; 23.6 long tons) and two such can fit into a car for a 40-foot (12.2 m) container, or even three if double-stacking, but not four unless very high axle load is permitted. The North American railways permit two 53-foot (16.15 m) or four 20-foot (6.1 m) containers as shown in the images on this page.

Another consideration is the maximum weight of a train. A maximum length train in Europe, 750 m (2,461 ft) long can have 50 container cars with a total weight of 2,250 tonnes (2,480 short tons; 2,210 long tons), and more if 20 ft containers are included.


So about 90-120 containers per train. There would have to be 120 trains between china and europe every 30 days to just match one Container ship. China has a fleet of container ships that are in transit at any point in time.

Of course, nothing to say trade with china has to remain at the same level as now, and could reduce in due course to make it feasible.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 03 Dec 2017 23:35

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Iran inaugurates new extension to its main Arabian Sea port

TEHRAN: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Sunday inaugurated a newly built extension to the country's main Arabian Sea outlet , the strategic Chabahar Port on the Gulf of Oman, which more than triples its capacity and poses a challenge for a port under construction in neighbouring Pakistan.

The $340 million project was constructed by a Revolutionary Guard-affiliated company, Khatam al-Anbia, the largest Iranian contractor of government construction projects.

It involved several subcontractors, including a state-run Indian company, and brings the capacity of the port to 8.5 million tonnes of cargo annually, from the previous 2.5 million tonnes.

Iranian state TV said the inauguration was attended by dignitaries from India, Qatar, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries.

The extension includes five new piers, two of them for containers allowing cargo vessels with up to 100,000-ton captaincy to dock.

It is also expected to make Chabahar, Iran's closest sea link to the Indian Ocean, a rival to Gwadar Port, some 80 kilometres away across the border in Pakistan, which Pakistan has been building with Chinese investment.

Rouhani, however, downplayed the rivalry in his inauguration speech and said the port will bring "more engagement and unity" among regional countries.

"We should go after positive competition,"
he said. "We welcome other ports in the region, we welcome Gwadar's development."

He said Iran also plans to link the port to the country's railroad network to facilitate transit of goods to neighbouring landlocked Central Asian countries, as well as open a route to eastern and northern Europe through Russia.

For India, the investment in Chabahar was important since the port will bolster a trade route for land-locked Central Asian countries that would bypass rival Pakistan. Last year, India committed up to $500 million for the development of the Chabahar port along with associated roads and rail lines.

In October, New Delhi shipped its first cargo of wheat to Afghanistan through the Iranian port+ , part of 1,30,000 tons that India plans to export to Afghanistan.

Chabahar also has an international airport and Iran's Navy and Air Force have bases in the city, adding to the ports value.

Cheers Image

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3568
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby panduranghari » 04 Dec 2017 01:28

For India, the investment in Chabahar was important since the port will bolster a trade route for land-locked Central Asian countries that would bypass rival Pakistan.


Rival? Kiska rival?

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Bart S » 04 Dec 2017 01:53

panduranghari wrote:
For India, the investment in Chabahar was important since the port will bolster a trade route for land-locked Central Asian countries that would bypass rival Pakistan.


Rival? Kiska rival?


There should be a law against Indian news outlets publishing Reuters/AP/AFP articles on India verbatim. :evil: Height of laziness and stupidity at best, and deliberate disbursement of anti-national propaganda a lot of the time.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupmisra, Mollick.R and 42 guests