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.
Deans
BRFite
Posts: 725
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Deans » 31 Jan 2018 16:06

https://youtu.be/Lexw4DhWXaA

Good analysis of China's rail connectivity project.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Bart S » 31 Jan 2018 16:21

chetak wrote:It's increasingly beginning to look that the only thing that will now save the CPEC is if India and it's vast markets are a essential part of the OBOR project. For this to happen, India must convert and become another exploited province of china.


I had posted about this earlier as well. If we suspend reality for a moment and assume that CPEC is going to deliver on all that it promised and be a grand success in the construction part, it will still be utterly useless without access to the Indian market. The Pakis have obstructed every trade and transit possibility with India, but in case CPEC delivers surplus power and a cheap manufacturing base for Chinese companies, it will still be millstone around Pakistan and China's neck unless they have access to the Indian market. A nightmare scenario for India would be that Pak and China suddenly push for trade to be opened and even an FTA, positioning it as some grand favour or peace initiative, and some weak Indian govt aided by fifth columnists decides to open up our markets! Not only will our economy be badly hurt but the Pakistanis will rapidly benefit from it, as will the Chinese who will take all the profits and be enriched, so absolutely bad scenario for India. I suspect that the lack of feasibility of CPEC currently is being ignored by China in the hope that they can, at a later date open up trade between Pak and India to flood our market through a different route. Economic growth vis a vis Pakistan is our biggest weapon against them, and is likewise critical to help India stay in the race with China and this would be a double-whammy.


chetak wrote:They are also extremely upset with India's new "Enemy property law" and they have been very vocal about it.


Can you elaborate on this further please? How does it impact them and why are they concerned about it?

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 31 Jan 2018 16:26

chetak Ji :

Your Post above : 31 Jan 2018 14:38

Let me sum up : "Without India Joining CPEC - OBOR - other fancy Acronyms ityadi ityadi China Wala is between a Rock and a Hard Place!

India should tighten its Vigil on the Indo-Nepal, the Indo-Beedee and the Indo-Myanmar Border.

All in all I fully agree with your summation and look forward to demise of the CPEC - OBOR - other fancy Acronyms ityadi ityadi Grand Plans of the Han in General and Eleven Gin Pegs in Particular.

Cheers Image Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2018 18:16

Peregrine wrote:chetak Ji :

Your Post above : 31 Jan 2018 14:38

Let me sum up : "Without India Joining CPEC - OBOR - other fancy Acronyms ityadi ityadi China Wala is between a Rock and a Hard Place!

India should tighten its Vigil on the Indo-Nepal, the Indo-Beedee and the Indo-Myanmar Border.

All in all I fully agree with your summation and look forward to demise of the CPEC - OBOR - other fancy Acronyms ityadi ityadi Grand Plans of the Han in General and Eleven Gin Pegs in Particular.

Cheers Image Image


Sirji,

No two ways about it and you are absolutely right.

The hans were never our friends, never will be and we would be very foolish to start that hindi cheeni bhai bhai nonsense all over again.

We should not join the CPEC, especially or for that matter, as a matter of national security, any han other initiated, han inspired or han backed project without ensuring the primacy of our supreme national interest and if we are constrained to do so in some future multilateral forum, we should seek an India centrist, maximum risk adjusted exposure vis-a-vis china, and specifically keep out the hans in any disguised roundabout free trade attempt to penetrate the Indian markets.

It's high time that we imposed the traditional and internationally accepted norms on border controls with nepalese, beedis and the myanmarese.

jared kushner in the US has been roundly castigated, and rightfully so, for dealing directly with the hans without being accompanied by the relevant SD officials to guide him or keep records.

It looks like the hans are making a policy of such singular engagements with people whom they think would serve their needs. One never knows what inputs are gleaned by the clever hans from such idiotically "innocent" interlopers who stumble into areas of foreign policy far beyond their limited understanding or even IQ.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7429
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 31 Jan 2018 23:20

Chinese-built expressway divides Uganda as debts mount

Traffic will soar above the muddy swamp between Uganda’s capital and its international airport when a new Chinese-built highway opens in a few months time, but the road itself is mired in controversy.
China alone has loaned the east African nation nearly $3 billion and is in talks for $2.3 billion more as part of its vast overseas development Belt and Road scheme.
“Uganda will grind to a halt as a country because of Museveni’s reckless borrowing. We’re like a patient on life support,” said opposition lawmaker Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, alluding to a debt warning from the central bank last year.
“We’re not borrowing for consumption and luxury, we are investing,” said Finance Ministry spokesman Jim Mugunga.
In a 2015 report, he noted the new road’s cost per lane per kilometer was double Ethiopia’s six-lane Addis-Adama Expressway, a road built by the same company -- the China Communications Construction Co. Ltd -- with more features like underpasses and link roads.
“The project costs could have been much lower if the contractor had been procured through competitive bidding,” said the report.
Other mega-projects funded by Chinese loans include two new hydropower dams on the River Nile worth about $2 billion and a $325 million expansion of Entebbe Airport. Talks are ongoing to fund a railway at $2.3 billion.
In the 2018/19 budget, interest repayments - at 17.3 percent - will consume the largest chunk of domestic revenues.


Notice a pattern here?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ugan ... SKBN1FK0V1

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 31 Jan 2018 23:35

X Posted on the OBOR & Terroristan Threads

Chinawalas have a Severe Affliction of "Ants in their Pants"- just can't sit still - If it is not CPEC then it is OBOR

India should join BRI, says Chinese expert

SINGAPORE: India should leave its bilateral disputes with China aside and join the Beijing-backed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a Chinese scholar has said.

"We will keep the door open on India's participation in the BRI. China has repeatedly extended invitations to India to be part of the BRI," said Associate Professor Huang Yunsong, Associate Dean, Sichuan University School of International Studies.

"But India is not interested in BRI at this stage," he told PTI after addressing a BRI symposium in Singapore on Monday.

He pointed out the number of disputes between China and India, but stressed these should not be used against the BRI.

Touted as Chinese President Xi Jinping's ambitious project, the One Belt One Road initiative focuses on improving connectivity and cooperation among Asian countries, Africa, China and Europe.

The BRI also included the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which India opposed as it goes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

"There are a lot of issues between India-China since 1947, such as the China Pakistan relationship," he said. Among others issues, there were growing trade imbalance between the two countries, Dokalam border situation, Tibet and Dalai Lama, he pointed out.

"China has an agreement with Pakistan that it will not back any side in their (disputed) claims on Kashmir. It is between Pakistan and India," stressed Huang who is well versed on China-South Asia issues.

But he also noted the positive points, for India and China having agreed to work on border disputes at its own pace while taking a more cooperative approach in pursuing economic activities between the two countries.

He called on India to offer more favourable terms for Chinese investments as a way forward to manage the trade deficit.Thereby China will end up owning and controlling Indian Industry!

According to figures, India's trade deficit with China was $51.08 billion in 2016-17.India should start curtailing Chinese Origin Imports and reduce its Trade Deficit with China.

Huang also called for removal of tax-based restriction on exports of Indian iron ore and cotton to China.

"India should remove restrictions on Iron ore and cotton for export to China. China may allow pharmaceutical imports," said Huang, who is also the Coordinator, Centre for South Asian Studies at Sichuan University of China. In return China will Arm and Supply Terroristan so that Terroristan can continue its Terrorist Activities in India.

Cheers Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19366
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Philip » 01 Feb 2018 12:32

Let's see what Jet Ley does in the budget curtailing Chin goods.I have little hope that we will see a dramatic change in attitude towards the import of chin goods which are destroying sectors of the Indian economy. I would've imposed a total ban on all Chin electronic goods,computers,cell phones and the like-even tourists entering India to leave their chin phones at home,or they will be dstroyed/confiscated upon arrival,plus 300% tariffs on any other Chin goods allowed into India.Stapled visas for all Chins visiting India,plus a tax levied on all Indian cos. /corporate entities investing in China. Imports from Taiwan on the other hand allowed freely and setting up JVs with Taiwan for semi-conductor/ chip manufacturing,etc. in India on a scale enough for our future reqs.to make us self-reliant.

The Gwadar port now being turned into de-facto Chin territory is going to be the biggest nuisance to India in the IOR/Arabian Sea. China will use it as a vast Chin. equiv. of Diego Garcia,except that it will also have heavy repair facilities for the PLAN and a massive logistic depot for Chin military ware for use in the Gulf/ME and IOR region supporting Chin expeditionary forces,plus arms for export to its regional satellites including Pak.I do not know what our mil. planners and analysts are thinking about Gwadar-which must be countered,but imagine Gwadar and its vats hinterland as a "Chinese (Fortress) Singapore".You get the picture.H'tota port though extremely valuable,will be another problem but not as huge as Gwadar as Pak is joined to the hip with China militarily unlike Sri Lanka.

http://www.defencenews.in/article/China ... lem-526144
China-Pakistan sign new deals for Gwadar port's development: CPEC may turn out to be India's security and strategic problem
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
By: First Post

Gwadar Port, situated in the restive Balochistan province, has been the ‘it’ project of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the torch bearer of the China-Pakistan relations, which Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani once said is "higher than mountains, deeper than the ocean, stronger than steel and sweeter than honey." The Gwadar Port is expected to provide China’s western hinterland with access to the Arabian Sea – and in turn the Indian Ocean – for maritime trade. Now partly operational, the port is one of the first visible signs of the $62 billion CPEC, which is a network of infrastructure projects that are currently under construction throughout Pakistan

On Monday, Pakistan prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi inaugurated the Economic Free Zone at the Gwadar Port, which will be run by China Overseas Port Holding Company. A Xinhua report said that 30 companies belonging to businesses such as hotel, banking, logistics and fish processing will be in the free zone. The free zone is expected to garner direct investment of about $474.3 million, while the annual output is expected to be $790.5 million after full operation.

On the same day, both countries also signed six agreements to further develop the capacities of the deep water port.

Ever since it was first launched in 2002, the Gwadar Port has been a point of discussion among the Indian strategic community. With China asserting its claim to be a global power, its military interests in the Indian Ocean Region have seen a spike in the recent years. An ambitious China attaches paramount importance to the Indo-Pacific Region, an area which includes the Western Pacific Ocean as well as whole of the Indian Ocean, but this runs in parallel to India’s pre-eminence in the region.

Pakistan expects Gwadar to be a "gamechanger" – a term often used by the Establishment there – due to its strategic location near the Gulf of Hormuz. This gives China access to the Gulf region, a major route for oil supplies in the world. Moreover, there are military implications of the project too.

China is expected to be in control of the port till 2059 after which will turn into Pakistan’s second naval base – after Karachi. However, what is more worrying are reports of Gwadar being a part of grand Chinese designs to encircle India through strategic ports in the Indian Ocean. Called the “string of pearls”, the true nature of the plan has been a matter of speculation, with The Economist considering it to be of commercial rather than military value. Nevertheless, a recent report claimed that China was building a naval base off the coast of Gwadar, which was denied by the Chinese foreign ministry.

While the opening of the Chabahar Port in Iran is being dubbed as India’s counter to Gwadar Port, only time will tell if it serves India’s economic as well as strategic purpose. The port, located in the Sistan-Balochistan province on the energy-rich Persian Gulf nation’s southern coast, lies outside the Persian Gulf and is easily accessed from India’s western coast, bypassing Pakistan.

The CPEC and India's concerns ::

More than the Gwadar Port, it is the CPEC that has been a contentious issue for the Indian government. The reason being that parts of the corridor passes through Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), which is legally a part of India. India has been raising the issue of "sovereignty" while opposing the CPEC as well as associated plans like the One Belt One Road (OBOR) Initiative.

In Gilgit-Baltistan, which is the largest part of PoK, hydropower dams and railway lines are the major CPEC-related infrastructure projects.

Speaking in the Lok Sabha in December last year, MoS, External Affairs VK Singh had said, "The government has conveyed to the Chinese side, including at the highest level, its concerns about China's activities in PoK and asked them to cease these activities. However, there may have been a softening in China's stance over CPEC too. China on Monday said it is ready to hold talks with India to resolve their differences on the controversial issue.

As to the differences between China and India, China stands ready to communicate and hold talks with India to seek a proper solution so that these differences will not affect our general national interests. This best serves the interests of the two countries," Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said.

Not only in India, but concerns over CPEC have been raised in Gilgit-Baltistan region as well. Activists in the disputed region claim that China’s pace of implementing projects will environmentally harm the region. They also believe that these projects will lead to rampant land grabbing and loss of employment opportunities for the locals.

Despite local concerns, including opposition from Baloch groups for the fear of alienation as well as economic exploitation by Chinese companies, the project is likely to continue. But CPEC, as a project linking two of India's major geo-political rivals, spells a major security threat to India.

As noted by this Firstpost article, written on the eve of Chinese president Xi Jinping’s maiden visit to Pakistan, "CPEC project would mean Chinese presence in entire Pakistan, including Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, becomes all pervasive and powerful. China’s hectic economic and so-called 'commercial' engagement with Pakistan, which is nothing but a strategic gamechanger in the region, would go a long way in making Pakistan a richer and stronger entity than ever before."

Since the last decade, the fear of a two front-war has been bothering the strategic community in India. Echoing similar sentiments, former northern army GoC, DS Hooda told The Times of India in 2017 that with China investing $62 billion in the corridor, any war with Pakistan will invariably also involve China.

"You have to be prepared for China. For India, the prospect of a two-front war is a real one. The question is: will China resort to armed hos tilties if a conflict breaks out between India and Pakistan? We are looking at it carefully and preparing," Hooda said while stressing on the reported close military relationship between the two of India's arch rivals.

Between June and August 2017, India and China were involved in a military standoff at the Bhutan-India-China tri-junction at Doka La. While border disputes between the countries were not new, the intensity and the persistence of the standoff was unprecedented. An opinion piece in The Economic Times at the time of the standoff linked the standoff to India's refusal to join the OBOR, which India had boycotted in May 2017 as part of CPEC passed through Gilgit Baltistan.

"The actual theatre of Doklam war might not be the India-Bhutan-China tri-junction where Indian and Chinese soldiers are facing off. It could be thousands of kilometres away—the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. In Doklam, China might be manoeuvring to secure CPEC, its biggest strategic asset in the region," the opinion piece noted.

As CPEC projects near their completion dates, Balochistan may well be at the centre of a security strategy of China. Beijing will like to securing Balochistan as a major part of the CPEC passes through the insurgency-ridden state. Two factors may force China to be proactive with regards to any security threat to Pakistan. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's reference to the persecuted population in Balochistan and the rise in Chinese casualties in terror attacks in the insurgency-ridden state.

As China embarks on its ambitious connectivity programme, India may find itself in a spot of bother as Beijing has brought almost all of New Delhi's neighbours on board. Afghanistan, which is a strategic partner of India, has also expressed interest in joining the connectivity programmes. Amid such developments, India-China rivalry across South Asia will be watched out.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 01 Feb 2018 13:22

Bart S wrote:
chetak wrote:It's increasingly beginning to look that the only thing that will now save the CPEC is if India and it's vast markets are a essential part of the OBOR project. For this to happen, India must convert and become another exploited province of china.


I had posted about this earlier as well. If we suspend reality for a moment and assume that CPEC is going to deliver on all that it promised and be a grand success in the construction part, it will still be utterly useless without access to the Indian market. The Pakis have obstructed every trade and transit possibility with India, but in case CPEC delivers surplus power and a cheap manufacturing base for Chinese companies, it will still be millstone around Pakistan and China's neck unless they have access to the Indian market. A nightmare scenario for India would be that Pak and China suddenly push for trade to be opened and even an FTA, positioning it as some grand favour or peace initiative, and some weak Indian govt aided by fifth columnists decides to open up our markets! Not only will our economy be badly hurt but the Pakistanis will rapidly benefit from it, as will the Chinese who will take all the profits and be enriched, so absolutely bad scenario for India. I suspect that the lack of feasibility of CPEC currently is being ignored by China in the hope that they can, at a later date open up trade between Pak and India to flood our market through a different route. Economic growth vis a vis Pakistan is our biggest weapon against them, and is likewise critical to help India stay in the race with China and this would be a double-whammy.


chetak wrote:They are also extremely upset with India's new "Enemy property law" and they have been very vocal about it.

Can you elaborate on this further please? How does it impact them and why are they concerned about it?


In case of war, enemy property meaning cheeni owned, can simply be confiscated by the GoI.

The hans have invested in real estate companies, plant and machinery for factories, which the foolish GoI has permitted. They own considerable physical assets in India which would all be at risk in case of hostilities.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2534
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chola » 01 Feb 2018 15:36

If CPEC is dependent on the Indian market and we hold the key to its survival then we have absolutely nothing to worry about and we can close this thread.

Obviously, the chinis wouldn’t be in the position to fund something like CPEC if they depended on the generosity of regional rivals to make their projects viable. Come on, people!

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Bart S » 01 Feb 2018 19:34

chola wrote:If CPEC is dependent on the Indian market and we hold the key to its survival then we have absolutely nothing to worry about and we can close this thread.

Obviously, the chinis wouldn’t be in the position to fund something like CPEC if they depended on the generosity of regional rivals to make their projects viable. Come on, people!


It is certainly not dependent on India (though unlikely to help either China or Pakistan in any great way), but the point is that if India caves and opens up domestic market to trade from Pakistan post-CPEC it would be a spectacular success for both Pak/China, allowing them to wreck our economy and letting Pak nullify our economic growth.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 03 Feb 2018 01:06

Bart S wrote:
chola wrote:If CPEC is dependent on the Indian market and we hold the key to its survival then we have absolutely nothing to worry about and we can close this thread.

Obviously, the chinis wouldn’t be in the position to fund something like CPEC if they depended on the generosity of regional rivals to make their projects viable. Come on, people!


It is certainly not dependent on India (though unlikely to help either China or Pakistan in any great way), but the point is that if India caves and opens up domestic market to trade from Pakistan post-CPEC it would be a spectacular success for both Pak/China, allowing them to wreck our economy and letting Pak nullify our economic growth.


I think that something has drastically and fundamentally changed with the CPEC.

Something, either some far fetched or new risk factor had not been evaluated properly and that has come back to seriously bite these guys in the arse or has the situation with the paki govt has changed with, maybe, the PA not willing to follow through on some earlier commitments or some costing has escalated way beyond expectations causing the project, as it currently stands, to turn un viable??

Earlier, the hans were quite lukewarm about India's participation and the pakis were all gloating away that this game changer would help them to pull far ahead of India. I watched the paki press at that time. The paki and cheeni body language at that time was 'India has been bested, we will not allow them to join and we have got India on the run".

Gradually, the scenario changed, the mood turned sombre, and now India's "essential participation" is seen as very crucial to the success of the project. This can easily be verified just by watching the discussions in the paki press as opposed to their earlier jingoistic euphoria and boasting of overtaking India with china's help. The paki press now wants India to pitch in and help make the CPEC a success.

we should be trying to understand the reason for the change, or did we simply fall prey to some clever psyops??

The access to the Indian market was never an awowed part of the CPEC plan or was it a hidden agenda, to be unveiled at the opportune moment, to be presented as a fait accompli??

did the stand-off at doklam have something to do with it in any way??

Did India's tough stand at doklam stymie some quid pro quo proposals by the chinese in return for India's CPEC participation?? Did our stand forcibly make the chinese take away some of their coercive options, off the table, options that they thought were already in the bag, had doklam gone according to "their" plan and they would have made India 'an offer that India could not have refused"??

Doklam certainly caught the chinese, by great surprise and very much off guard and made them lose face badly, in what they claim to be their own backyard. By some indications, this seems to have caused some discord between the han central leadership and the PLA generals with some of them being forcibly removed from positions pf power and authority?? Earlier the han general in charge of doklam was promoted but now some sort of purge seems to have taken place??

1962 is far behind us now and one knows this for sure that, what the pakis and the chinese have clearly understood, is that a simultaneous attack on India by the hans and the pakis will very clearly be viewed as an existentialist threat to India, not only by India but also by the amrekis and the europeans and the japs. This means that all bets are off and the Indian nuke option comes into play very early in the game. This opens up a pandoras box for both the hans and the pakis with the amrekis sitting in very close proximity in afghanistan, and they are not there merely to bonk babes in burkhas. Trump's long term commitment to afghanistan is to be seen in this light, with the paki nukes in their cross hairs.

And again everyone knows, the hans more than anyone else, that, in this unlikely event, India is loaded for bear, han bear

Into this heady mix, is thrown in the toxic (for the pakis and the hans) actions of the amrekis, afghanis, iranians and our new port access in iran, "the chabahar gambit", leading to a paki free route to afghanistan as also to the central asian republics via iran.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Bart S » 03 Feb 2018 04:11

chetak wrote:The access to the Indian market was never an awowed part of the CPEC plan or was it a hidden agenda, to be unveiled at the opportune moment, to be presented as a fait accompli??


That is exactly what I suspect. I think they were OK with no Indian participation initially, but if they can pull off access to the Indian market from Pakistan at some point (basically a roll of the dice as far as China goes), it would be a huge bonus.

As for what has changed, in addition to the points that you mentioned:
Multiple countries (including SL and Nepal) wising up to some of the debt triggered land grab tactics
Relations with America gone sharply downhill and Americans openly opposing CPEC (they had probably counted on American aid and loans subsidising some of CPEC)
Open tolerance for the Baloch movement in western capitals
Chabahar being constructed and thrown open well ahead of CPEC schedule
Pakistan tethering on the brink of bankruptcy, leading people to question why the expensive power plants were needed

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10468
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby A_Gupta » 03 Feb 2018 17:45

http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/ira ... s-expense/
Chabahar port, along with Pakistan's refusal to allow transit for Afghanistan to India, which prompts Afghanistan likewise not allow transit to Pakistan from Central Asia, has the potential for making CPEC and Gwadar into a failure. India needs the US-Iran front to remain quiet.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10468
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby A_Gupta » 03 Feb 2018 17:47

The access to the Indian market was never an awowed part of the CPEC plan or was it a hidden agenda, to be unveiled at the opportune moment, to be presented as a fait accompli??


I think quite early on China was saying that CPEC needs access to trade volumes that only India could provide for it to be successful. The Pakistan side was simply not listening.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 836
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby TKiran » 03 Feb 2018 18:25

+1 Chetak sir, I suspect that India did something like checkmate to CPEC post doklam. We will never know what exactly India did, but very subtle killing of CPEC has already taken place and Han are also clueless. They are also looking for answers and they may also never know what happened. It's​ just a drama by Han to bring India into negotiating table regarding CPEC, that idea itself is funny and exposes their total lack of understanding of what exactly happened that CPEC has failed.

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby DavidD » 03 Feb 2018 20:41

I think it's wrong to focus on material gains like money and assets with OBOR investments. Like many of you mentioned, countries can default on loans, they can nationalize assets. What would China do if countries do that, invade them like the U.S. does? No, what it's about is building a supply chain in which China is an indispensable part.

You see, the goal isn't so much to "own" ports, power plants, and whatnot in other countries because those can be taken away by fiat. The goal is make China a part of anything and everything one needs to buy in your daily life. From household items like fridges, TVs, and toilet papers to capital items like trains, cars, and excavators, some key component of the supply chain will involve a Chinese company. Moving forward, services like banking, payments, and currency exchanges will also involve Chinese companies. This way, cutting China off will not be an option, because China will be an indispensable part of everything you need, and you literally cannot live life as you know it without China.

OBOR is just a slogan, the underlying strategy is full steam ahead whether one embraces the slogan or not. Take Vietnam for example, antagonistic toward China in many respects, and a minimal participant in the OBOR, yet completely dependent on China economically. Despite all the hullabaloo the past few years, they've yet to go much beyond rhetoric to hurt Chinese interests. They're a quintessential example of the strategy at work, they're part of the "OBOR" whether they admit/like it or not.

Same goes for India. When every road and port in Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Nepal connect to China, when everything they buy and sell involve China, how can India shut itself off from the OBOR? Will India just stop trading with all its neighbors? A road built to connect India and Myanmar can be done under any banner whether it's OBOR or Act East, but the effect will be the same. The country that makes most of everything people need will be the one that has the most to gain.

Of course, that also means such connectivity can be a double-edged sword for China. If another country rises to make more of everything than China, then it'll stand to benefit more than China does and become even more indispensable than China. China is working hard to maintain and advance that edge, and ultimately that'll be the key determinant of how successful this strategy will be.

Connectivity will happen sooner or later, OBOR just makes it happen sooner. It'll be up to each country's ability to provide the best and most of things that everyone needs whether it's mobile phones or commercial loans that'll determine its place in the increasingly interconnected world. That's the way the world has always trended toward, and the more things change they more they stay the same.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1407
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Pulikeshi » 03 Feb 2018 22:22

DavidD wrote:I think it's wrong to focus on material gains like money and assets...


Agreed India has been saying this since its less than extra ancient times - there is much to learn from wise Chinese brother!

DavidD wrote:The goal is make China a part of anything and everything one needs to buy in your daily life. ... This way, cutting China off will not be an option, because China will be an indispensable part of everything you need, and you literally cannot live life as you know it without China.


This is already true - China is indesensible, some would even say 'too big to fail us!'

DavidD wrote:OBOR is just a slogan, the underlying strategy is full steam ahead whether one embraces the slogan or not. ...
Same goes for India. When every road and port in Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Nepal connect to China, when everything they buy and sell involve China, how can India shut itself off from the OBOR?


India is correctly compared to Vietnam and has no choice but to buy into this strategym. These vassals shall but pay obeisance to Zhong Gu!
Like many slogans have comes and goes in China, but the march of the Zhong Gu remains from extra ancient 7000 years now.

DavidD wrote:Of course, that also means such connectivity can be a double-edged sword for China. ...
Connectivity will happen sooner or later, OBOR just makes it happen sooner. It'll be up to each country's ability to provide the best and most of things that everyone needs whether it's mobile phones or commercial loans that'll determine its place in the increasingly interconnected world. That's the way the world has always trended toward, and the more things change they more they stay the same.


The Cult & Goad is not a double-edged sword, it is the sword arm of the Zhong Gu!

Or famously in lesser human vassal state art-form on the idiot box of the Hoi Polloi:

"We are the Cult & Goad. Your supply chains and biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile."

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 03 Feb 2018 22:34

DavidD wrote:I think it's wrong to focus on material gains like money and assets with OBOR investments. Like many of you mentioned, countries can default on loans, they can nationalize assets. What would China do if countries do that, invade them like the U.S. does? No, what it's about is building a supply chain in which China is an indispensable part.

You see, the goal isn't so much to "own" ports, power plants, and whatnot in other countries because those can be taken away by fiat. The goal is make China a part of anything and everything one needs to buy in your daily life. From household items like fridges, TVs, and toilet papers to capital items like trains, cars, and excavators, some key component of the supply chain will involve a Chinese company. Moving forward, services like banking, payments, and currency exchanges will also involve Chinese companies. This way, cutting China off will not be an option, because China will be an indispensable part of everything you need, and you literally cannot live life as you know it without China.

OBOR is just a slogan, the underlying strategy is full steam ahead whether one embraces the slogan or not. Take Vietnam for example, antagonistic toward China in many respects, and a minimal participant in the OBOR, yet completely dependent on China economically. Despite all the hullabaloo the past few years, they've yet to go much beyond rhetoric to hurt Chinese interests. They're a quintessential example of the strategy at work, they're part of the "OBOR" whether they admit/like it or not.

Same goes for India. When every road and port in Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Nepal connect to China, when everything they buy and sell involve China, how can India shut itself off from the OBOR? Will India just stop trading with all its neighbors? A road built to connect India and Myanmar can be done under any banner whether it's OBOR or Act East, but the effect will be the same. The country that makes most of everything people need will be the one that has the most to gain.

Of course, that also means such connectivity can be a double-edged sword for China. If another country rises to make more of everything than China, then it'll stand to benefit more than China does and become even more indispensable than China. China is working hard to maintain and advance that edge, and ultimately that'll be the key determinant of how successful this strategy will be.

Connectivity will happen sooner or later, OBOR just makes it happen sooner. It'll be up to each country's ability to provide the best and most of things that everyone needs whether it's mobile phones or commercial loans that'll determine its place in the increasingly interconnected world. That's the way the world has always trended toward, and the more things change they more they stay the same.



DavidD ji,

I am not sure that I agree with your characterization of "connectivity" and its inexorable inevitability in the global scheme of things as well in the regional context with special regards to India.

It is too benign a construct, entirely forgiving of naked and unwarranted economic aggression and doesn't gell with the facts on the ground. Then there is the vexed problem of the balance of payments issue which all somehow seem to favor the hans, most of the times, to put it politely.

The han economy, set up as it is, is geared towards aggressive exports, which have been countered to some extent by anti-dumping measures by the affected countries, in order to defend themselves and protect their own local industries from being undercut, devastated and ultimately destroyed by the relentless production capacities of the hans and their voracious appetite for profits.

Many such goods have ultimately entered the target countries via the medium of smugglers and mislabelling to bypass customs and port controls aided and abetted by traitorous locals who probably see themselves or are encouraged to see themselves as brave entrepreneurs battling their own evil governments, who are hell bent on restricting their commercial freedoms.

The hans simply do not care who they hurt or what environmental damage they cause, anywhere in the world.

Their single-minded thrust is profit and market access cannot be denied to us. Beware if you even try to obstruct us. They try to achieve their goals by any means including naked aggression and blackmail. These profits add muscle to their military expansionist capabilities and military presence in off shore locations thousands of miles away from the han home lands

India, OTOH, is currently an economy that is largely geared to its own internal markets and our industries are not able to service that demand so there is enormous potential for Indian industries to grow organically. The FDI that is coming into India recognizes this potential for growth but seem to be holding out for big concessions so that they can grab more than their share of the pie.

Our trade with "neighbors" is more like a pity trade for us. They need our markets very much more than we need theirs. Do we need "dried fruit/fish" from afghanistan or bangladesh or even srilanka?? or plastic flying hanumans and led torches from china??

India needs low quality chinese goods like a hole in the head. We will not accept such stuff in the name of "connectivity" from our "neighbors" even via OBOR, CPEC or any other name notwithstanding.

The africans and the lankans have been at the receiving end of chinese economic terrorism. The chinese have been able to weaponize disguised "economic assistance" couched in benign terms but only upto a point. The lankans folded very quickly and thus exposed the "benign" chinese economic hand and the true nature of their OBOR investments. The nepalis and to a certain extent the pakis have wised up. The myanmarese have always known about this part of the chinese state investments in their country.

India is not a pushover. The chinese know that. India does not need OBOR or the CPEC or the han investments in Indian industries and infrastructure. If they come in, it WILL be ONLY on Indian terms and conditions.

India's "neighbors" can all be OBOR connected and good luck to them too but why do chinese goods and services have to enter India via these routes. India makes almost everything it's people need. If we need to import then it is for better quality, better and wider choice and certainly not for "better" chinese stuff.

As a civilization, we are older than the han civilization. We have our own culture and traditions. Rest assured that we will not be replacing our very own Monkey Brand Black Tooth Powder with Bottokan Customed Healthy Tooth Cleaning Bamboo Charcoal Tooth Powder anytime soon.

In India, chinese goods have a well deserved and notorious reputation for bad quality and shoddiness. This has endured unfailingly over the years. china is merely tolerated in India, not welcomed, under any circumstances.

Sovereign state considerations have legally prevented china from outrightly owning lankan assets like hambanthota port. Instead of forcibly imposing a usurious, 99 year lease, which the chinese will never vacate, the hans could have simply renegotiated the terms for the port and reduced the interest rate outflow of the lankans by extending the time period for repayment. Instead, they went ahead for the 99 year lease. If this is not a move toward ownership, then I do not know what is.

Chinese "economics" is always backed by a hidden core of military muscle, including in the US of A, where their sheer volume holdings of the US T bills is a weaponized investment and is well recognized as such.

If the hans were to dump a large quantity of the T Bills, everyone knows what will happen to the US$ and how this will immediately impact the global markets and the chaos it will create.

That's why the africans, the lankans, the maldives as well as the amreki tread cautiously because the han investments are insured by no less than a chinese version of Smith and Wesson.

OBOR, CPEC et al is a sly economic facade with a not so well hidden military core. The hans are notorious for their brutish and illegitimate aggressiveness and uncultured territorial grab tactics along with uncouth threats issued via their controlled media mouth pieces and of course their tactics of unceasing harassment on international fora. Always citing some manufactured illegitimate ancient data allegedly involving "tributes" which can never be verified except in freshly minted chinese "ancient" documents which miraculously surface just when the chinese need them.

china is a hydra headed monster that seeks to displace the unipolar superpower and usurp it's place, cement it's position as the top dog and grind into the dust, all opposition, so that it becomes and remains the sole superpower, with the resources of the world being seen merely it's private supply chain and the subjugated global markets as it's unalienable right to access and service on its own terms. We all know how monopolies behave.

They, however, want to be seen as peaceful lambs and need us to politely disregard the vicious wolf lurking within.

And that is what you seem to be doing in pushing their viewpoint.

Thanks for pushing the chinese point of view so vehemently and clearly.

It's a real pity that you missed out on being equally clear on your err, their global political and military agenda as well.

Maybe you would like to clarify the same for us sometime??

BTW, once upon a time, didn't hitler and the nazis have such very similar global ambitions as well.??



Edit for clarity
Last edited by chetak on 04 Feb 2018 03:41, edited 1 time in total.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4264
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Arjun » 04 Feb 2018 00:24

Prem wrote:http://www.atimes.com/article/afghan-port-shift-adds-pakistans-economic-woes//
Chabahar Port lures Afghan traffic away from Karachi

Afghanistan has shifted 80% of its cargo traffic from Pakistan’s Karachi seaport to Iran’s Bandar Abbas and Chabahar ports. The move comes two months after Chabahar, barely 100 kilometers from Pakistan’s Gwadar port, was inaugurated. The shift, prompted in part by a new trade tariff imposed by Islamabad, is expected to greatly reduce Pakistan’s role in the transit of Afghan goods.Pakistani business leaders believe that more Afghan trade will eventually shift to the strategic Chabahar Port, as it is Iran’s closest sea link to the Indian Ocean. The first phase of Shahid Beheshti Port in the Sistan-Balochistan province was commissioned last year. It is expected that US$5 billion worth of Afghan trade will be conducted solely through the tripartite Chabahar Port – sponsored jointly by India, Iran, and Afghanistan – once it starts feeding the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC).The current fiscal year has seen a US$2 billion drop in trade with Afghanistan due to frequent border shutdowns, military skirmishes and the new trade tariff. The trade volume, which stood at US$ 2.5 billion in 2016, has gradually declined to US$500 million following the deterioration of relations between the South Asian neighbors.
“The leadership of both countries should not mingle politics with trade and discourage the use of bilateral trade as a leverage to settle political and regional disputes,” Zia Ul Haq Sarhadi, director of the Pakistan Afghanistan Joint Chamber of Commerce & Industry (PAJCCI), told Asia Times. He attributed the decline to heightened tensions on the border, tariffs and Chabahar port, where he claimed India offered huge incentives for Afghan traders.“On a reciprocal basis, Afghanistan opened a second aerial corridor for India, enabling her to establish a direct trade link between Mumbai and Kabul. The first flight took 40 tons of dried and fresh fruits and medicinal herbs to India through the aerial route,” Sarhadi said.The US$2 billion reduction in bilateral trade with Afghanistan is expected to adversely hit the country’s economy, which is already reeling under a widening trade deficit and worsening balance of payments. Data released by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS) in December last year point to a dismal economic outlook.Pakistan’s foreign exchange deposits figure is gradually sinking. It is presently estimated at US$14.66 billion, which includes US$2.5 billion worth of sales proceeds from euro and Sukuk bonds. Pakistan needs to pay back $6 billion for foreign debts servicing by the end of June 2018. To make matters worse for the country, the US government announced it was freezing military aid to Pakistan.As bilateral trade continues to shrink, Pakistan is looking at a looming economic crisis, while the Chabahar Port becomes a lucrative alternative for the Afghans. It is doubtful that the CPEC will be able to plug the gap.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 04 Feb 2018 14:23

twitter

Brahma Chellaney@Chellaney
Feb 2

Some Indians claimed India was isolating itself by opposing China's BRI. In reality, India has helped shape global reaction — e.g., Theresa May echoes India's words by saying BRI should be transparent, open and rules-based. Tillerson, meanwhile, likens BRI to European colonialism

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 04 Feb 2018 16:01

twitter



Brahma Chellaney@Chellaney
Jan 26

The word "predatory" has become linked with China. Tillerson for example blasted China's “predatory economics.” Other US officials have referred to China's "predatory financing" & "predatory approach." Now Trump at Davos takes aim, slamming market-distorting "predatory behaviors"

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7429
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 05 Feb 2018 07:09

Pakistani honored with ‘Excellent Foreign Youth Employee Award’ by Chinese giant
Note the irony!

Abrar Manzoor, a young and excited Pakistani officer, was bestowed with “Excellent Foreign Youth Employee Award” under the Belt and Road Initiative by the China Communication Construction Company for his outstanding performance and excellent contribution towards the project.
The CCCC is China’s largest port design and construction company which is also involved in development of Gwadar master plan.


The paki was working on a construction project in his own country and was awarded this "most excellent" award. Foreigner in his own land?

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/27614 ... nese-giant

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Bart S » 05 Feb 2018 15:58

anupmisra wrote:Pakistani honored with ‘Excellent Foreign Youth Employee Award’ by Chinese giant
Note the irony!

Abrar Manzoor, a young and excited Pakistani officer, was bestowed with “Excellent Foreign Youth Employee Award” under the Belt and Road Initiative by the China Communication Construction Company for his outstanding performance and excellent contribution towards the project.
The CCCC is China’s largest port design and construction company which is also involved in development of Gwadar master plan.


The paki was working on a construction project in his own country and was awarded this "most excellent" award. Foreigner in his own land?

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/27614 ... nese-giant


ROFL :rotfl:

This is uncannily like the 'First annual Montgomery Burns award for outstanding achievement in the field of excellence' :mrgreen:


anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7429
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 06 Feb 2018 07:11

Pakis get ready to make more SeePak-related demands before the chinis get too comfortable. After all, the chinis owe them this much.

Pakistan seeks unilateral :wink: market concession from China

Pakistan has sought unilateral market concessions from China on cotton yarn, rice, nuts, plastic waste, leather, nuts edible fresh or dried, trousers, frozen fish and crabs on immediate basis before embarking on the second phase of China Pakistan Free Trade Agreement (CPFTA).
Islamabad had made a special request to Beijing to take remedial measures in the wake of eroded exports by granting concession on products before finalising revised FTA that could give boost to our exports on immediate basis.
...first phase of CPFTA with China, the country’s trade deficit increased from $2.9 billion to $12.66 billion over the last decade. :((
Pakistan’s imports from China increased from 18% to 28% of its global imports. Pakistan’s imports from China are 36% of Pakistan’s non-oil imports while China’s imports from Pakistan are 0.1% of the country’s global imports. Pakistan’s imports from China are greater than 50% of global imports in 44% tariff lines.
China’s exports to Pakistan increased from $4 billion in 2006-07 to $14.56 billion in 2016-17. Pakistan’s exports increased from $0.5 billion to $1.47 billion during the same period.
Following increase in investment-led imports Pakistan’s global trade deficit has increased to $30.9 billion in 2016-17.
If exports stagnate, the trade deficit would increase from $30.9 billion in 2016-17 to over $40 billion in 2017-18


:((

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/277432 ... from-china

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7429
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 06 Feb 2018 07:16

From the land of inbred idiots comes this new one...

Axact fraud case: FIA report raises questions about FIA
:rotfl:

Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has though acknowledged before the Supreme Court that the fake degree scandal of Axact Company is based on facts, the report it submitted appears to be an attempt of bailing out the accused through misrepresentation of facts.
The report submitted to the court late Friday made tall claims about the FIA’s past performance in the case but didn’t offer any promise of bringing the culprits to justice. Instead, the failure was attributed to the lack of cooperation from the USA in information sharing.
The FIA in its submission to the Supreme Court further says that “during course of investigation, four thousand (4,000) students whose email contact details were recovered from the records of M/s Axact, were contacted through email to verify/ascertain regarding obtaining of fake/bogus degree/certificate from so called online universities/schools. Only seven (7) victims replied and reply of even single person was not satisfactory or confirmed regarding obtaining of fake/bogus degree/certificate from online universities/schools.”


:rotfl:

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/277439 ... -about-fia


ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1126
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ArjunPandit » 07 Feb 2018 04:59


Islampasandi of NYT makes me wonder if their funding is halal. Perhaps it should inspire us to install in kashmir and other areas

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9238
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Feb 2018 07:29

anupmisra wrote:From the land of inbred idiots comes this new one...
Axact fraud case: FIA report raises questions about FIA
Only seven (7) victims replied and reply of even single person was not satisfactory[/u][/b] or confirmed regarding obtaining of fake/bogus degree/certificate from online universities/schools.”
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/277439 ... -about-fia


Elementary, Dr. Watson: Their degrees and school certificates are fake; they are Pakis; why do u assume they can read & write, hain? :rotfl:

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 07 Feb 2018 08:30

On a slightly OT note, India should take the unilateral step of derecognizing the medical, engineering and all other educational degrees issued to Indians from china and pakiland.

The pakis have started to offer cashmeris subsidized medical admissions in pakiland.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7429
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 10 Feb 2018 04:24

CPEC contribution to cross $100 bn by 2030, if allah inshas.

The Planning Commission’s Center of Excellence (COE) for Pakistan-China Economic Corridor (CPEC) has estimated that China’s total contribution for Pakistan’s development would cross $100 billion up to 2030
The total cost of CPEC projects has already gone up from $46 billion to $62 billion and it is hoped that the total cost will further go up to $100 billion by 2030 with inclusion of more projects into list of CPEC


If horses had wings.....

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/278751 ... bn-by-2030

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 13 Feb 2018 02:37


shashankk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 57
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 03:53

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby shashankk » 13 Feb 2018 19:44

Karachi murder raises red flag on China's ambititious $50 billion projects

Chen Zhu finished lunch last week at Karachi’s China Town restaurant before driving to buy groceries opposite Zamzama Park, an upmarket area in Pakistan’s financial capital close to diplomatic consulates and a Navy-fortified housing estate.
A gunman opened fire at least nine times on the 46-year-old Chinese managing director of the local unit of Shanghai-based Cosco Shipping Lines Co., which has operated in Pakistan since 1994. Chen, who was hit in the head and later died in hospital, had relinquished his usual police escort during the Feb. 5 national holiday. Without indicating the reason for the murder, police passed the case to its counter-terrorism unit.
The incident -- in one of the safest districts of the port city of 15 million people — was a reminder of the insecurity that continues to plague Pakistan. It also highlights China’s increased concern as it finances more than $50 billion of infrastructure projects across its South Asian neighbor as part of President Xi Jinping’s flagship Belt and Road trade route. Following the attack, Beijing called on Pakistan to take more measures to ensure safety of its nationals.
“The threat perception level will go up considerably as far as the Chinese are concerned,” said Ikram Sehgal, a former military officer and chairman of Pathfinder Group, Pakistan’s largest private security company. He said “it was most certainly targeted” and will dent confidence in Chinese businessmen coming to Pakistan.
At least 20,000 Chinese nationals have flocked to tap rising opportunities across Pakistan, according to a Chinese government estimate provided to Bloomberg in August, double the number in 2015. Security forces are struggling to extend protection, particularly to those, such as Chen, who fall outside the so-called official China-Pakistan Economic Corridor announced by Xi three years ago.
Pakistan’s military has raised a 15,000 strong force to protect CPEC projects and has curtailed the movement of Chinese working at the sites.
‘Great Instability’
Many countries along the Belt and Road “have great instability and political risks, Pakistan is one,” said Wang Yiwei, director of Renmin University’s Institute of International Affairs in Beijing and a former Chinese diplomat. “Chinese enterprises also need strong security companies as good as the ones in the West to protect overseas projects and personnel.”
It’s hard not to notice the influx. Pakistan’s hotels are booming with Chinese lodgers and they’ve become a feature in weekend crowds at markets and Westernized shopping malls.

During a recent visit by Bloomberg to an immigration department in Islamabad, Pakistani officials rushed to stamp visas in dozens of red Chinese passports. Many arrived in Pakistan after security was bolstered following multiple army operations in recent years against domestic militant groups.
‘Unprecedented Situation’
Beijing has become increasingly vocal over the risks in Pakistan. In December, its embassy in Islamabad warned of imminent terror attacks on Chinese targets. That followed the Islamic State-claimed killings of two Chinese teachers in June in the restive southwestern province of Balochistan, where China is building a port.
Pakistan faces an “unprecedented situation whereby growing foreign direct investment is accompanied by a significant increase in the physical presence of foreign nationals,” said Aleena Ali, a researcher at security consultancy Control Risks. “It will be challenging for security forces to maintain a secure environment for all Chinese nationals.”
Meanwhile extra protection is being laid on for Chinese nationals, police said in a statement after the shooting. Police deputy inspector for Karachi south, Azad Khan, didn’t respond to calls or messages seeking further comment.
Pakistan is becoming more dependent on China as relations with the U. S. have hit a low. President Donald Trump last month cut about $2 billion in military funding to Islamabad at a time when Pakistan’s foreign reserves are dwindling, accusing the nuclear-armed nation of supporting terror groups while taking billions of dollars in American aid.
The business community in Karachi is wary of spooking China, and is starting to call for more action. Last week, Business Recorder -- Pakistan’s main financial daily -- ran an editorial titled “Chinese support must not be taken for granted.”
— With assistance by Keith Zhai

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 769_1.html

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3725
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby panduranghari » 15 Feb 2018 19:06

chetak wrote:On a slightly OT note, India should take the unilateral step of derecognizing the medical, engineering and all other educational degrees issued to Indians from china and pakiland.

The pakis have started to offer cashmeris subsidized medical admissions in pakiland.


They are not recognised AFAIK. Even if you do medicine from US, you will have trouble getting a registration. Primary degree from Indian university is the only real way to get registration. They even closed the Russian loophole recently.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Bart S » 15 Feb 2018 19:09

panduranghari wrote:
chetak wrote:On a slightly OT note, India should take the unilateral step of derecognizing the medical, engineering and all other educational degrees issued to Indians from china and pakiland.

The pakis have started to offer cashmeris subsidized medical admissions in pakiland.


They are not recognised AFAIK. Even if you do medicine from US, you will have trouble getting a registration. Primary degree from Indian university is the only real way to get registration. They even closed the Russian loophole recently.


This is a different situation though where that is not adequate and it needs to be totally shut down. It's just a way to radicalize youth from J&K and scout for terrorists/terrorist OGWs/sleeper cells, while simultaneously getting good publicity.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 15 Feb 2018 19:14

panduranghari wrote:
chetak wrote:On a slightly OT note, India should take the unilateral step of derecognizing the medical, engineering and all other educational degrees issued to Indians from china and pakiland.

The pakis have started to offer cashmeris subsidized medical admissions in pakiland.


They are not recognised AFAIK. Even if you do medicine from US, you will have trouble getting a registration. Primary degree from Indian university is the only real way to get registration. They even closed the Russian loophole recently.


The paki route has just opened recently and it seems to be a means to get medical seats for the kith and kin of cashmeri separatist traitors.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50068
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ramana » 17 Feb 2018 21:33

Chinese engineer marries Pakjabi girl

https://twitter.com/Shahid_Qazi1/status ... 5848353792

I had predicted this turn of events.

Pakjab is will have jenny asses only.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7429
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 17 Feb 2018 21:43

Have the pakis stolen our moniker for LaWhore?

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Laa_Whore?src=hash

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7429
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 17 Feb 2018 21:51

ramana wrote:Chinese engineer marries Pakjabi girl

https://twitter.com/Shahid_Qazi1/status ... 5848353792


Height of desperation on behalf of the pakis. That chini groom looks like a peasant from the hinterlands of western china. But I digress. Pakis are now "selling" their daughters.

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9528
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 18 Feb 2018 22:43

Looming Lesson For Pakistan :roll:

Maldives faces Chinese 'land grab' over unpayable debts, ex-leader warns
Asian Review
YUJI KURONUMA, Nikkei staff writer

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka -- Massive debts threaten to force the Maldives to cede territory to China as early as 2019, former President Mohamed Nasheed said, warning that a flawed presidential election this year would lead to a Chinese takeover of the island nation.

Will the same fate await Pakistan, which has now hitched its wagon to the Chinese CPEC :roll:

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chanakyaa » 19 Feb 2018 08:19

Unfortunately following link is for digital subscribers of FT. Only reason posting the link to highlight that such article exists.

China woos Pakistan militants to secure Belt and Road projects


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, Dumal, mappunni, nam, srin, UlanBatori and 18 guests