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.
anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5228
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 02 Mar 2017 18:00

SSridhar wrote:CPEC claims and doubts - Editorial, DAWN
CPEC could help the entire ECO region...a ‘game changer’ for a region consisting of 10 countries


If these ten "stan" countries agree to be part of SeePack, would that imply that these nations have accepted the illegal status of PoK and the illegal transfer of J&K land by the pakis to the chinese?

As far as I know, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyztan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are not without their own territorial and political disputes.

India should bring this matter up with each of these nations and perhaps turn the screws - clockwise - a bit.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46104
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ramana » 02 Mar 2017 21:52

Some expert Srininvas Raghavan says India should jump at the offer and join CPEC.

he wrote a big article in Hindustan Times which makes me think its the Congress position also.

Anything that helps TSP survive is a Congress plan.

With experts like that India needs no enemies.

venug
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 21:39

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby venug » 03 Mar 2017 01:41

anupmisra wrote:
SSridhar wrote:CPEC claims and doubts - Editorial, DAWN


If these ten "stan" countries agree to be part of SeePack, would that imply that these nations have accepted the illegal status of PoK and the illegal transfer of J&K land by the pakis to the chinese?

As far as I know, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyztan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are not without their own territorial and political disputes.

India should bring this matter up with each of these nations and perhaps turn the screws - clockwise - a bit.


Saar, why stan nations? our silence only means we have accepted that PoK is not ours. Why blame them, if we don't have problem, why should they? "our objections" have no teeth like our dossier diplomacy. CPEC through PoK is done deal.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46104
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ramana » 03 Mar 2017 01:48

No VenuG. How can you feel like that despite being on forum?
silence means we don't accept and wait for opportune moment.
5th upaya. When you don't have cards wait and prepare.

venug
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 21:39

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby venug » 03 Mar 2017 01:51

I really hope I am wrong ramana garu. May be I am misreading the silence.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46104
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ramana » 03 Mar 2017 01:56

Yes you are wrong and time will show that.
I can assure you that.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14406
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 06 Mar 2017 09:34

refreshing change from congi and MMS's timid china policy


Modi not to attend OBOR meet in Beijing


Modi not to attend OBOR meet in Beijing

Anirban Bhaumik NEW DELHI, Mar 06, 2017,

New Delhi turned down Beijing's request for a high-level political representation from India to the OBOR conclave.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will not attend the conclave which Chinese president Xi Jinping will host in Beijing in May to drum up support for his One-Belt-One-Road (OBOR) initiative.

New Delhi turned down Beijing’s request for a high-level political representation from India to the OBOR conclave.

It has not yet been decided if New Delhi will be represented at a lower level, but the sources DH spoke to did not rule out the possibility of India finally boycotting the conclave.

Beijing is yet to send a formal invitation to the prime minister, but checked with New Delhi through diplomatic channel if India was willing to be represented in the conclave at a high-level.

India is opposed to the OBOR, because China’s ambitious connectivity initiative includes an economic corridor, which is proposed to pass through areas New Delhi accuses Pakistan of illegally occupying in Kashmir.

The proposed China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will link Kashgar in Xinjiang in northwestern China and a deep seaport at Gwadar in Balochistan in southwestern Pakistan.

Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar conveyed India’s position on the CPEC in particular and the OBOR in general during his meetings with China’s State Councillor Yang Jiechi, Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Executive Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui in Beijing on February 21 and 22.

He pointed out that the proposed CPEC passes through an area that New Delhi considered “an integral part” of India, albeit under illegal occupation of Pakistan, sources told DH.

Jaishankar conveyed to the Chinese government officials that the proposed CPEC would infringe on the sovereignty of India.

GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby GShankar » 06 Mar 2017 10:21

^^ Good move by GoI. While OBOR meeting is going on, we need on set of patrol guys set-up a camp in northern Arunachal and another patrol take a selfie right on the cpec highway and tweet.

The govt. has given me hope to dream..

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20644
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 09 Mar 2017 19:02

CPEC — proceed with caution - Editorial in DT
Speaking at public forum, in Islamabad, the Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, claimed that projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) were moving in the right direction and 13,000 local jobs had been created so far. Ambassador Weidong added that during the last meeting of the Joint Cooperation Committee, Pakistan and China have agreed to prioritise projects under the medium and long-term plans. Energy projects were on track for this year and industrial zones will be developed next year. With these developments, China’s top diplomat in Pakistan hoped that CPEC would bring prosperity to the country.

CPEC — a transit and infrastructure development initiative — has been termed as a game changer for Pakistan and the region. CPEC has also been termed a Chinese Marshall Plan for Pakistan since the project financing comprises a combination of loans and investments. In a broader framework, CPEC is a part of China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative that aims to connect Asia, Africa and Europe through infrastructure and energy projects across 65 nations that would potentially create millions of jobs over the next few decades. CPEC is one of the first initiatives taken as part of OBOR with a goal to create shorter trade routes between China, the Middle East and Africa through Pakistani territory.

Nevertheless, the projects devised under CPEC need to be scrutinized as independent experts and some opposition politicians have suggested. Chinese companies are allegedly receiving preferential treatment and several institutions such as Pakistan Stock Exchange have already had a bulk of their shares sold to the Chinese investors. China Mobile has expressed interest in acquiring PTCL. Media reports have also suggested that Pakistan’s borrowing from Chinese banks will add to the burgeoning foreign debt. The government needs to review some of these concerns with an open mind and secure the interests of the country and its future generations.

Few voices have compared China’s interests across the region to the East India Company that eventually took over South Asia under the garb of trade. It is imperative that jobs under CPEC projects should benefit the local population. Similarly, Pakistan’s small and medium scale industries would require adequate safeguards in the short to medium term. Effective regulations should be implemented with respect to foreign investments, even those under the umbrella of CPEC. In this context, greater transparency is required and the government thus far has not made all the information available. Regional connectivity and transnational trade are vital for enhancing diplomatic and cultural prowess in modern era but Pakistan needs to proceed with caution by keeping country’s interests before everything else. There is no question that CPEC will enable Pakistan to become a regional trade hub as well as achieve its geostrategic goals. Putting all eggs in one basket however is not a wise strategy. Pakistan must bolster its trade relations with all neighbours including Afghanistan, India and Iran. At present, a flawed foreign policy prevents the realisation of this objective. *


SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20644
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 09 Mar 2017 19:14

CPEC enclaves - Khurram Hussain, DAWN
A SMALL line in a news story a few days ago caught my eye. The setting was a hearing in the Senate Standing Committee on Planning and Development at which high officials from the Planning Commission were answering questions about the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The line that caused me to do a double take was this one: “The committee was informed that only Chinese industrialists would be allowed to set up their industries in the proposed economic zones along the corridor.”

Surely this was a mistake, I thought, so I called some people, including members of the committee, to ask whether this had indeed been said. They confirmed that, yes, the officials from the Planning Commission had indeed said this.

So what’s going on? Under the CPEC umbrella, there are nine Special Economic Zones planned. One each in Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Islamabad, two in Sindh and one each in Fata, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Going by the CPEC website, work does not appear to have begun on any of them yet. The relative size of each is also not disclosed, nor are there any details about the special infrastructure requirements for each.


The website claims that these are Chinese-financed projects, though it doesn’t tell us what the terms are, whether the financing is concessional or on commercial terms. We also don’t know how the energy and water requirements of these zones will be met. Will there be new transmission and distribution lines, grid stations for electricity, gas pipelines and compressors, water pipelines, and if so, where will the water be sourced from?

If gas will be supplied from the grid, what will be the merit order placement of these industries in the gas load curtailment plan? Or will they be required to import their own LNG, in which case what third-party access rules will apply for the transport of that gas from the regasification terminal to the economic zone?

What is the plan for these Special Economic Zones here in Pakistan? Will only the Chinese have access to them?

We know nothing about the security arrangements inside the zones, and if they are for Chinese investors only, then presumably a large number of Chinese personnel will be living in or near them. Will the CPEC security force be patrolling inside the zones, or will they only guard the perimeter, leaving patrolling and other routine policing functions to the provincial police forces?

We have some indication that industries set up in these zones will not be paying direct taxes. But will their imports be dutiable? If they procure from a local source, will they be liable to sales tax? Will taxes be applicable on the power and gas bills? And if they are going to be largely immune from local taxes, then will those Pakistani parties who procure their output have to pay a sales tax on the transaction?

Take the example of Habantota port in Sri Lanka. The Chinese built it, the Sri Lankans found they could not afford the repayment obligations, so they agreed to give the Chinese an equity stake and have them run the port. As an aside, the Chinese insisted on building a large industrial zone of around 15,000 acres (6070 hectares) next to the port for their investors and for housing their personnel. And then claims began to circulate in the Sri Lankan media, echoed by important lawmakers, that along with the land the government had also given policing powers to the Chinese government inside the housing colony, meaning a little Chinese enclave could now be built inside Sri Lanka that would effectively be a mini Chinese colony.

I have scoured the Sri Lankan media coverage of this affair that had led to large protests this January, and cannot find confirmation or any denial of the claim that a mini Chinese colony is being built in Habantota, so we have little more than the word of the protesters to go by for now.

But what is the plan for these Special Economic Zones here in Pakistan? And what is our contingency plan in the event the repayment obligations connected with all the investments coming under the CPEC umbrella prove too burdensome for the economy, like what happened with Sri Lanka? We know the Chinese are averse to rescheduling or forgiving debts owed by foreign governments and, in any case, it is a bad idea to take on debt with the intention of later asking for the repayments to be rescheduled.

In the event of difficulties in making repayment, one possibility is that Pakistan could be asked to grant land for Chinese investments and residential colonies, and delegate law enforcement and governance over these enclaves to federal or perhaps even Chinese authorities. In some measure, enclaves look like they are already planned if it is true that the Special Economic Zones, for which energy and water supplies will have to be supplied from Pakistani resources, will be open only to Chinese investors.

Perhaps it would be a better idea to allow access to investors of all types to these Special Economic Zones and, if that is not the case, the government should explain why they thought it was a good idea to sign agreements for special zones to which only Chinese investors will have access. How is this expected to help Pakistan?


Will our role be only to consume the output of these zones, or will these zones also create employment for Pakistanis, and contribute tax revenue to the exchequer, and foster backward and forward linkages to generate more investment?

It bothers me that something as large as this is being done with so little information known publicly. If it hadn’t been for this hearing at the Senate, we might never have known that the government has agreed to allow Special Economic Zones to which only one category of investor will be allowed in.

If there are perfectly reasonable answers to the questions asked here, it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to release them.

The writer is a member of staff.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1220
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby manjgu » 09 Mar 2017 19:49

a) in the name of CPEC pakis will be left collecting rahdari ( road pimp tax) from the chinese..and chinese will have another colony. b) about the sri lanka port..i didnt understand apart from SL and indians who else can use that port for business? what were the SL govt thinking about economic viability of the port. Chinese will eventually use it for their navy is another matter but what were the SL govt folks thinking? unless ofc they were heavily bribed off.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1220
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby manjgu » 09 Mar 2017 19:50

but u have to give it to the chinese of mixing politics, economics, defence, foreign affairs into one deadly mix. so much for our IFS etc etc.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 19 Mar 2017 15:19

Questions on CPEC

Has there been a fruitful line of inquiry regarding the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)? This largely depends on the questions with which one initiates the inquiry.

Will CPEC be a game-changer for Pakistan? This drawing-room question is particularly useless to begin with. With so much uncertainty and so many variables beyond human control, no one except a clairvoyant can predict this with any confidence. It is just as pointless – if not downright silly – to take sides. There is not enough information available for one side to convince the other on the basis of analysis. Believers will continue to believe and sceptics will continue to doubt for reasons which have little to do with the intricacies of the initiative.

The following questions pertaining to the details of the deal are more useful: Under what conditions are the various components of the initiative being negotiated? What are the financial obligations and terms of repayment? What tax concessions are being offered? What are the revenue and capital cost projections of the various components? Who will bear the operating and maintenance costs?

Citizens responsible for the debt liabilities have a right to demand this information and expect it to be provided. What are the reasons for the secrecy? What is there to hide? The numbers that are filtering out in dribs and drabs on guaranteed rates of return are not particularly reassuring. The mere fact that information is not being fully shared is a major cause for doubt. People are naturally apprehensive in the absence of transparency.

It is good that the government has set up a CPEC website (https://cpec.gov.pk/). But at this time, it is only a list of projects with costs and timelines. The terms of financing and revenue projections are missing. In addition, the website suffers from an information overload. For example, it includes the Karachi Circular Railway, the Peshawar Mass Transit, the Quetta Mass Transit and the Lahore Orange Line Metro Train projects.

These are all plausible projects with individual justifications and may all involve Chinese funding. But what do they have to do with the corridor? It appears that various stakeholders are being appeased by including their pet projects under the CPEC umbrella.

The case with the power projects listed on the website is similar. Each might be justified but why is a wind farm in Bhambore lumped under CPEC? Wouldn’t it make more sense to treat them as independent projects with separate feasibility studies, as is the norm? The indiscriminate lumping together of everything happening in the country is another red flag regarding the coherence of the initiative.

It would help to strip out the core corridor investments and share details of their financing and cost-benefit projections. It is reasonable to expect that, barring unforeseen events, a functioning corridor would be beneficial for China. But what will be in it for Pakistan except collecting a toll on the transit trade? How much toll collection is being projected? What will Pakistan be exporting via the corridor given its grossly uncompetitive economy? Why would industrial estates succeed along the isolated corridor when they have failed in major locations like Peshawar and Quetta? How many permanent jobs are expected to be created? These are legitimate questions that need to be answered in order to build consensus and take citizens into confidence.

It is not enough for the government to expect the public to trust its judgement because governments in Pakistan have done nothing to earn that trust. Neither international agencies nor Pakistani citizens believe that successive governments have been forthcoming about facts. Such behaviour is not unique to Pakistan. After all, Bush and Blair lied to their citizens to invade Iraq.

In the absence of honest answers, those without vested interests in deal-making can only point to historical precedents and past evidence. Let’s consider the example of one of the most significant trade corridors of recent times: the Suez Canal. Was it a game-changer for the people of Egypt? Or, let’s take the examples of game-changers for Pakistan that were promised in the past – such as Thar Coal, Saindak and Reko Diq. Incidentally, all these projects were also based on Chinese involvement. Why did they not reap the desired impact? They certainly changed the game for those involved in the multiple transactions for the projects. But did they bring any benefits for the people of Pakistan or even the locals who lived near the project sites?

The attempt to turn such questioning into issues of patriotism or of maligning our best friends strengthens the impression that all is not aboveboard. These are the standard tactics of those who wish to divert discussion from facts and stifle inquiries through intimidation. Under normal circumstances, citizens would be within their rights to examine the track record of Chinese investments in other countries like Sri Lanka (Google Hambantota) or prior deals with Pakistan such as the railway locomotives. In all such cases, the Chinese are not to blame – ‘buyers beware’ is rule of the market. The concern is with those negotiating the deals on our behalf and the question remains the same: Do you trust them? If so, on what basis?

Given the lack of transparency and the historical evidence, the following outcomes appear likely: For better or for worse, the CPEC momentum is unstoppable. It will be beneficial for the Chinese economy. It will generate toll revenues for Pakistan which may be more or less than the operating costs depending upon contractual terms, much as for the Lahore-Islamabad motorway.

Without inclusiveness, the economic gains of CPEC might be outweighed by political stresses. The corridor will definitely change the fortunes of a few thousand individuals in Pakistan. It is unlikely to be a game-changer for the Pakistani people – just as the Suez Canal did not alter the fate of the Egyptians. On the other hand, this could be the mother of all miracles. Let us bow our heads and pray while the untethered camel wanders into Kashgar.
Cheers Image

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4381
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 22 Mar 2017 17:40

CROSS POSTED STFUP THREAD

Paki Fauj Bills AKA CPEC Security Cost Added To Electricity Costs And Passed On To The Unsuspecting Aam Abduls !

CPEC security cost

It was always a bad idea to bundle the cost of security for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor enterprise into the power tariff and pass it on to the consumers.Now that the federal cabinet appears to have approved the decision, it falls on the tariff-setting power regulator, Nepra, to ensure that the rights of the consumers are protected against spurious items being added to their bills. So, the Pak Fauj has found another ingenuous money making racket and the civilian govt of Ganja Sharif has "rubber-stamped" the scheme :D
Nepra has taken suo motu notice of the matter and called a public hearing on April 4 to which all members of the public and other stakeholders are invited. This is a good opportunity for all civil society groups to register themselves as participants, as per the details available on the Nepra website, and submit comments and feedback on the proposal. Pretense of an "robust democracy" :roll:
It is tempting for the government to add all manner of power-sector expenses, for which there is no room in the budget, to utility bills, but this temptation must be strenuously resisted. As an alternative, the Chini-blothers can "bring in" PLA cadres to ensure the safety of their engineers and labourers !
Power bills are not surrogate revenue machinery. In this case, the total cost added to the bills will amount to 1pc of the capital cost of all projects per annum, which comes to roughly $155m going by the figures given by Nepra. The amount may not sound much at the moment, but it should be borne in mind that this figure will inevitably rise over time as the number of power projects increases.With the passage of time, it is entirely reasonable to expect that the percentage being asked for will also increase, and other unanticipated costs will similarly be added to the bills. CPEC security is undoubtedly an important matter, but costs should be kept within the budget, and not billed to power consumers. This is the same tactic implemented by the "Deep State" during the Afghan war , when the transportation of clandestine arms imported into the country through Krachi , was assigned to the National Logistics Cell - a division of the notorious ISI - the monies collected from Massa being used to export heroin to western countries ! In this case, the monies exhorted from the Aam Abduls will be used to supplement the coffers of the jernails and kernals of the fauj :mrgreen:
The proposal is yet another example of how the government has failed to properly forecast the costs it is to bear under the CPEC umbrella, and one can only wonder what other unanticipated expenses are going to arise as the projects move towards commercial operations. Due diligence performed after ( not before !) approval of the (gamechanger :D ) project for which this "leading daily " is now sounding the proverbial alarm ! :twisted:

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20644
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 23 Mar 2017 08:16

Checkered into debt and bankruptcy - G.Parthasarathy, Business Line
Image

President Mahinda Rajapakse of Sri Lanka evidently believed that China was a 21st century incarnation of Santa Claus. He turned to China to convert his constituency into a ‘South Asian Singapore’ by encouraging the Chinese to invest heavily in projects ranging from the Hambantota port to a power plant, an airport, a cricket stadium and a sports complex, while later demanding land for an industrial park. As things turned out, hardly any ships visited Hambantota. Hardly any aircraft landed at the airport. The cricket stadium and sports complex remained unused. There were hardly any consumers for the power generated. The Sri Lankan government also faced riots while seeking to acquire land for a Chinese industrial park to produce Chinese products for export.

Caught in a bind

Unable to repay its debts to China, Sri Lanka is handing over the power plant, Hambantota port and possibly the airport to Chinese control in a debt/equity swap. China would then achieve a major objective in its ‘One Belt One Road’ project, of having a strategic presence on Sri Lankan soil by professing to offer ‘economic aid’ with no strings attached. Thanks largely to such Chinese ‘aid’, Sri Lanka now spends 90 per cent of all government revenues to service debts.

If Sri Lanka was ecstatic about the prospects for future prosperity when the Hambantota port project was announced, Pakistan’s two centres of power — the army and the government — have created euphoria and great expectations of accelerated growth and prosperity through a Chinese mantra called the ‘China-Pakistan Economic Corridor’ (CPEC).

The CPEC is to be undertaken exclusively by Chinese companies and banks, with an estimated investment of $55 billion. The plan is to construct Chinese-funded infrastructure projects, including Gwadar port, road and rail communications networks, energy, and industrial and military projects, designed to showcase Beijing’s commitment to long-term economic and strategic engagement with Pakistan. The CPEC has a definite military component. A secure fibre-optic link connecting Kashgar in the Xinjiang/Uighur Autonomous Region with the Pakistan army’s GHQ in Rawalpindi, is being laid at a cost of $44 million.

The CPEC simultaneously seeks to economically and strategically bind Pakistan to China. Power generation, transport, commerce, R&D and the defence of Pakistan will all be increasingly tied to Chinese investment, supplies and interests. The Pakistan army has raised a 10,000-strong division for the security of Chinese personnel working on the project which is premised on the belief that Gwadar port on the Makran coast of Baluchistan will emerge as a major industrial hub and naval base. Given the realities, Gwadar will almost exclusively be a strategic naval base for China and Pakistan astride the Straits of Hormuz, with limited prospects of commercial use.

The initial euphoria in Pakistan was because the project was seen as setting the stage for receiving more missiles, fighter aircraft, submarines and frigates. The besieged Nawaz Sharif government saw the project as a political godsend. It claimed that it would lead Pakistan to immediate progress. All this is now leading to doubts and concerns, with a total lack of transparency and realism about its terms and conditions. Inter-provincial rivalries have also risen, with concerns that the prime beneficiary will be the dominant Punjab province, with little on no economic benefit for the already alienated people of Baluchistan.

Surprising conclusions

Studies by Pakistani analysts have led to some startling conclusions. With a substantial portion of the Chinese investments focused on power projects, the viability of the projects has been closely examined, based on interest rates charged by the China Development Bank and the China EXIM Bank. Official documents have revealed that with an estimated debt-equity ratio of 75 per cent-25 per cent, the cost of borrowings could surge to 13 per cent by including insurance costs, as the China Export and Credit Organization charges a 7 per cent fee on insurance for power projects. Interestingly, China is providing concessional finance for only 3 to 5 per cent of the entire project.

Pakistan government sources have averred that only Chinese investors would be allowed to invest in special economic zones created under the CPEC. There is no provision to protect Pakistani interests, with Pakistani businessmen barred from investing in the SEZs.There are no assurances that the Chinese would utilise Pakistani labour in any meaningful manner.

The chairman of the Pakistan Senate’s committee on the CPEC, Syed Tahir Hussain Mashhadi, has observed that he is not clear what benefits Pakistan derives from the CPEC: “China is our brother but business is business.” Referring to the absence of clarity on specific benefits for Pakistan labour and business, Mashdadi noted: “Where will the benefit be for Pakistan? Will the Chinese give us some share of the profit? We are informed that Chinese banks charge us more interest than any other international bank.”

India’s stand

India has already made its objections to the CPEC clear. It is a project that enters Pakistan through POK, disregarding the fact that New Delhi considers this part of its territory. One has, however, to analyse China’s economic compulsions in building such a vast road, rail and maritime network across the Eurasian landmass. Over the past four decades, China has built buildings, roads rail lines, bridges, ports and dams at a pace and manner unprecedented in history. That activity is now slowing down, resulting in the country being left with a surplus labour force and unusable machinery. What better way to use the surplus capacities than by undertaking projects such as the Silk Road Economic Belt that links China with Central Asia, POK, the Persian Gulf states, Russia and the Baltic states? Moreover, Beijing’s 21st century Maritime Silk Route, in turn, extends from China’s coast to Europe, through the Indian Ocean. China is simultaneously building ports across the Indian Ocean, in Asia and Africa.

Despite these developments, Pakistani friends appeared convinced that given its strategic compulsions, China would agree to write off Pakistan’s debts. What impact such a write-off would have on similar Chinese loans elsewhere, remains to be seen.

The writer is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4381
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 27 Mar 2017 06:19

Paki Journo Warns Against CPEC; Says That Possible End Game Of Chinese Is To Grab Land In Case Of Paki Default On Loans :roll:

Sighting land
Khurram Husain

Two weeks ago, I wrote a piece about the special economic zones planned under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor in which I drew attention to a news item that had come and gone largely unnoticed in which officials of the Planning Commission were quoted telling the Senate Committee on Planning and Development that “only Chinese investors will be allowed to invest in these SEZs”.
That article drew a sharp response from the Planning Commission and Miftah Ismael, special assistant to the prime minister who is heading the Joint Working Group on Industrial Cooperation, called me to give a lengthy and detailed rebuttal, saying no such exclusivity will be allowed. As a journalist I feel duty-bound to convey the contents of the responses I received, but must also add that these were not the only people who got in touch with me after that article appeared.
So let’s start with the government version. The Planning Commission sent a written response saying the article was “concocted and baseless, reported to mislead the masses”. They “condemned such distorted stories, appeared to be part of a campaign to malign the government efforts for development and economic prosperity of Pakistan”. Ganja Sharif will be long gone , once the "gamechanger project " is 110% implemented :mrgreen:
They claimed that a process to establish SEZs under CPEC had only just begun, and “[i]t is nowhere explicitly stated that only Chinese companies can invest in all SEZ”. Miftah Ismael went a step further, saying he would never acquiesce to such a request if the Chinese ever put one up, emphasising that even the Chinese side has not requested exclusive access.
Fair enough. If the government side wants to stake out such a strong and unequivocal position on such an important matter, their view deserves to be known. But the chairman of the committee, Senator Tahir Mashaddi, continues to strongly say that the government delegation before his committee did indeed say what was attributed to them in the news report, adding that there was even a lengthy discussion on the matter after their remarks. “They often do this,” he tells me. “They often back away from things they say during these hearings afterwards”. The reporter who covered the hearing also strongly stands by what he reported, saying that he definitely heard the delegation say what was attributed to them.
So let’s get past this verbal impasse. If the government wants to today strongly emphasise that they will not negotiate exclusivity for Chinese investors in these SEZs, let’s take them at their word. After all, with time all will become clear, although hopefully by then it will not be too late.
The thing is, this is Pakistan, and the age-old adage that used to be said about the game of poker applies very well here: look around the table, if you can’t figure out who the sucker is, it’s you. In this country, the rules of the game are rigged long before they have been written down. Winners and losers are preselected before the game even begins. So what will really happen once these SEZs are ready is something that will only be known by its effects, not by the rules negotiated by any working group.
The point to note is this: thus far the country’s CPEC conversation has revolved around the question of routes, which province is receiving the largest share of the investment, and the financial terms on which this investment is coming in. But now it is moving into a new area: land.
Land is what this country is fundamentally about. Land is where the rubber meets the road. In my last column I gave the example of Sri Lanka, where things went wrong in a couple of large projects and their debts proved too burdensome for that country’s economy to manage. The penalty that Sri Lanka had to pay was land, swapped along with operational control of the port, in exchange for the debt that they could no longer service.
An advance warning to the Pakis if they want to preserve their "precious sover-virginity" :mrgreen:
Since then I have learned that such examples are numerous. Tajikistan gorged itself on Chinese investment with much fanfare more than a decade ago. There too the arrival of the Chinese was hailed as a ‘game changer’ when the enterprise got under way. By 2009 or so, they had difficulty meeting their debt-service obligations. So they asked for some relief from the burdensome terms. And you know what they had to give up in exchange for this relief? Land. So, basically what he is saying that if "Due Diligence" had been performed , this deal could have been rejected ; but it is too late and the Chinis have got Pakistan by the bxxls :D
In 2011, the government of Tajikistan announced that they had just concluded a deal with the government of China, ceding control of 1,100 square kilometres of mountainous land to the Chinese under the garb of settling a centuries-old border dispute. The agreement had been reached in 1999, but finalised precisely at a time when Tajikistan’s debt difficulties began. The territory represents one per cent of the country’s total land area. In Foreign Diplomacy, there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests ; the Pakis learnt this the hard way with Massa ; then it will be Chinese who will impart this lesson to them !
At the time, more than a third of the country’s total external debt was owed to China. By 2010, the year before the land deal, some 82,000 Chinese were working in Tajikistan, up from less than half that in 2007. The land that was ceded is now being tilled by Chinese farmers. Is this scenario plausible in Islamic Pakistan ; instead of farming, the Chinese might open pig breeding farms :D
We have much to learn from Central Asia’s experience where Chinese investment has played a very positive role in building infrastructure. But the authoritarian nature of the regimes there meant very little of the growing collaboration was done with any transparency, and once the costs of the deals began to assert themselves, one of the instruments of settlement was land. So get ready for Chini immigrants !
So now that Pakistan and China are at the ‘inception stage’ of a process to negotiate the creation of SEZs, and their associated infrastructure and raw material requirements, it is worth bearing in mind that the game is becoming very serious indeed. Nothing summons up the animal instincts of our economy quite like land does, and now that a party as large as the Chinese government is poised to enter that field, extreme care must be taken. Let nothing be agreed to in the dark. Is it too late to "upon up" again the signed agreements ; are the Aam Abduls aware of the Chinese experience in other countries - Time will tell .

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8806
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 27 Mar 2017 15:17

X Posted from the “Pakistani Economic Stress Watch” thread.

Article on CPEC aka Conning Pakistan to Enrich China titled “Pakistan wrestles with growing 'Chinese corridor' debt” in the Nikkei Asian Review:

March 27, 2017 11:00 am JST

Pakistan wrestles with growing 'Chinese corridor' debt

Analysts say burden of economic agreement with Beijing may be unsustainable

TOM HUSSAIN, Contributing writer

ISLAMABAD -- Two international lending institutions and Pakistan's central bank have raised concerns about the debt burden of a huge China-led infrastructure program on the country's improving but fragile finances.

Surging Chinese imports for the initiative, known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor program, have complicated Pakistan's balance of payments problems during its second year of economic recovery following a decade of conflict with Taliban insurgents and their al-Qaeda allies.

Chinese machinery imports for power generation and transport infrastructure will reach $27.8 billion in the fiscal year ending in June 2021. The CPEC aims to build roads, railroads and energy infrastructure across Pakistan.

The Pakistan government has said that further projects costing $16 billion are expected to be implemented by 2030, while preparations are continuing for additional elements following negotiations in December that expanded the program's overall cost to $55 billion from $46 billion.

Pakistan and China have been close diplomatic and defense allies since the 1960s. Underlining the broadening of the relationship through CPEC, a 90-member honor guard from the People's Liberation Army participated in Pakistan's national day military parade in Islamabad on March 23 -- the first appearance by Chinese troops.

However, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have both expressed concerns about the financial strains caused by the CPEC program. "Sovereign guarantees associated with the CPEC project [will] elevate fiscal risks over the medium-term," the World Bank said in its Global Prospects Report for 2017, published in January.

In October, the IMF said the execution of CPEC projects would create a surge in foreign direct investment and other external funding inflows, but the import requirements of these projects "will likely offset a significant share of these inflows, such that the current account deficit would widen."

In a further illustration of international concern, the global credit ratings agency Fitch said on Feb. 6 that Pakistan's "increasing gross external financing needs could increase the country's vulnerability to shifts in investor sentiment." Fitch affirmed its non-investment grade "B" rating for Pakistan's sovereign debt, with a stable outlook.

The State Bank of Pakistan, the central bank, has been more cautious on the impact of CPEC, but warned in a monetary policy statement in January that "going forward, with the risks to the external sector, the need of financial inflows would grow further."

Prominent local economists have also expressed serious concerns. Hafiz Pasha, a former finance minister, and Ashfaq Hassan, a former adviser to the Finance Ministry, have estimated that CPEC loans will add $14 billion to Pakistan's total public debt, raising it to $90 billion by the fiscal year ending June 2019.

"The government policy of short-term borrowing is risky and at a high cost," Pasha said, speaking on a local television in January.

Noting that Pakistan has extended sovereign guarantees to CPEC project loans and subsequent profit repatriations, Pasha and Hassan projected that debt servicing payments would rise to $8.3 billion in the fiscal year ending in 2019, widening the current account deficit to 4% of gross domestic product from less than 1% in the fiscal year ending June 2015, the year before CPEC was agreed.

Without an improbable increase in exports to at least $36 billion by the fiscal year ending June 2019, from the currently stagnant level of $24 billion, Pakistan would have to request renewed balance of payments support from the IMF by the year ending June 2019, they said.

Alarmist

Mohiuddin Aazim, an independent economic analyst based in Karachi, said the projections by Pasha and Hassan were alarmist because they classified borrowing for CPEC power projects as public debt, while the government and multilateral lenders consider it to be private debt held by independent power producers.

"Foreign debt servicing in case of energy projects will be a responsibility of Chinese companies that will come and set up energy production units, so this should not create additional debt servicing burden on the part of Pakistan," Aazim said in an interview. "The much-feared increase in our import bills would be compensated by a simultaneous increase in foreign direct investment that these Chinese and other foreign companies will bring in."

Finance Minister Ishaq Dar has also played down concerns about Pakistan's indebtedness. In an article published by local English-language newspapers on Jan. 31 he said external debt servicing obligations would not average more than $5 billion a year up to the fiscal year ending in June 2021.

However, economists using Ministry of Finance data have predicted that the external account deficit will soon widen to unsustainable levels, requiring renewed balance of payments support from the IMF.

"Debt servicing and fuel imports for the new power plants will increase external payment obligations quite substantially in the next three years," said Sakib Sherani, CEO of Macro Economic Insights, an Islamabad-based consultancy. "While Pakistan's current [foreign exchange] reserves position is adequate, it is likely to need to head to the IMF by 2019 at the latest," Sherani said.

To strengthen its foreign exchange buffer, Pakistan negotiated fresh foreign loans totaling $25 billion in the three fiscal years ending in June 2016, while spending $11.95 billion on external debt servicing, the Finance Ministry reported in October. Total foreign public debt increased to $57.7 billion from $48.1 billion, at a cumulative growth rate of 6.3% a year. In the three-year period ending June 2016, the ratio of net debt to GDP remained unchanged at 60.2%, while the fiscal deficit was reduced to 4.6% of GDP from 8.2%.

Since returning to the international capital markets in 2014, after a seven-year absence, Pakistan has issued Eurobonds and sukuk (Islamic bonds) worth $4.5 billion to build up its foreign currency reserves. A $1 billion five-year sukuk issued in October was priced at a historically low yield of 5.5%, compared with 6.75% for an identical issue in November 2014. Foreign-exchange reserves peaked at $23.5 billion in October, but fell to $21.82 billion in the week ending Feb. 10.

The concerns about CPEC come as optimism about Pakistan's economic future rises on the back of cooling domestic conflict and growing consumer demand. Pakistan offers investors a market of about 200 million consumers in which about 70% of the population is 30 or younger.

Coupled with a surge in domestic consumption that followed the decisive phase of the conflict in 2014 and 2015, CPEC will push Pakistan's GDP growth to between 4.9% and 5.3% in the fiscal year ending June 2017, according to recently upgraded forecasts by multilateral lenders and ratings agencies.

In its Global Prospects Report, the World Bank revised its projection for Pakistan's GDP growth in 2016-17 to 5.2% from 5%. It said CPEC-associated improvements in energy and infrastructure, as well as recovering agricultural output and external demand for exports, would push growth to 5.5% in the fiscal year ending in June 2018 and 5.8% in the fiscal year to June 2019.

However, in a separate outlook report published in November, the World Bank warned: "Pakistan's continued growth is not guaranteed."

The bank added: "In the short- to medium-term, sustained progress on energy reforms, CPEC implementation and widening the tax net will be important. Without these structural reforms and other efforts to improve the investment climate, Pakistan's rate of investment will remain weak and its consumption-driven growth will eventually slow down."


For article click web link below:

Pakistan wrestles with growing 'Chinese corridor' debt

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4381
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 27 Mar 2017 16:30

Will Pakistan Benefit From China's "Dream Corridor"

How China could benefit from Pakistan’s ‘dream corridor’
by defencenews · March 25, 2017

For Pakistan it was a dream come true. When Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Islamabad in April 2015, he pledged a whopping Rs 3,00,894 crore for the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).While the mega project was a vital element of the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) for Beijing, it was a ‘game-changer’ for Pakistan, as it would bring prosperity to the entire region.It’s true that Xi brought with him munificent gifts for Pakistan: the Chinese billions would boost Pakistan’s flagging economy with massive energy and infrastructure projects.Chinese President Xi Jinping speaking in Islamabad in 2015, when he said both Pakistan and China share common threats and should stick together to confront them. This included an additional 12,000 megawatts to Pakistan’s national grid through coal, hydro and renewable energy projects.The Corridor would have railways, roads, optical fiber cables, dams, pipelines, you name it! Looks rosy, at least on paper :D [/quote]
Though observers marveled Beijing’s generosity (and wealth), but lately, the ‘beneficiaries’ have started realising that the project may first and foremost benefit Beijing! China- a "hard bargainer" :mrgreen:
The architects of CPEC plan to build a 2,700-km corridor stretching from Kashgar to Gwadar, which will link Central Asia (via Xinjiang) to Europe and Africa (via the maritime route).
Is it a boon for Islamabad? Not everyone agrees, even in Pakistan.Salman Rafi Sheikh, a research analyst wrote in Asia Times: ‘The CPEC continues to look like a mystery.In the absence of agreements stipulating and documenting both countries’ interests, the CPEC is creating problems that would strip Pakistan of benefits the multi-billion-dollar project promises.Claims about CPEC’s ability to change Pakistan’s economic outlook appear hollow and unreal. :shock: The question is — what’s the game changer for the region when CPEC is changing nothing in Pakistan?’The author certainly has a point. It’s true that the Corridor faces several serious issues, security for example.
Now, suppose the scheme becomes ‘unstable’ due to terrorism (presently localised in Pakistan, but which can be easily exported to Xinjiang), the cost of the project could tremendously shoot up.This deeply worries Beijing. Last month, The Dawn reported that Pakistan has deployed 15,000 military personnel, ‘as part of the Special Security Division (SSD) and Maritime Security Force (MSF) to protect projects under the CPEC’.Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on CPEC, noted: ‘Both forces will work under the interior ministry, in coordination with the provinces.’The question is, who is going to pay the bill? Quoting military sources,The South China Morning Post affirms that the PLA would soon increase its fighting force to 100,000 personnel, ‘allowing for deployment in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa and Gwadar in southwest Pakistan.’ Polk flied rile coming soon to Gwadar :mrgreen:
Chinese troops in Gwadar, the main entry to the CPEC, is worrisome, to say the least. Sover-virginity ?
The amazing part is that after the COP21 accords, the planet is abandoning coal, but China is financing new coal projects in Pakistan with Chinese coal!Beijing has agreed to provide a Rs 39,250 crore loan for road infrastructure and Rs 2.8 billion for Railways ‘on the lowest interest rate’ :roll: .
Another issue is regional disparity. On February 28, Sardar Akhtar Jan Mengal, president of the Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M), accused Islamabad of getting funds for the project in the name of Gwadar while using them in one province only, Punjab.
Mengal argued that the people of Balochistan, a province through which a major portion of the Corridor passes, have neither been consulted nor taken into confidence on CPEC projects. KP province is also being shafted in this "gamechanger project" :mrgreen:
Legality
As the project crosses Indian territory in PoK, the CPEC is unacceptable for India. Delhi cannot pretend that nothing is happening and forget about the legality of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India.Beijing has hinted that India should join the ‘global’ project, but China doesn’t seem to be ready to implement what it is preaching.After Tibet was invaded by China in October 1950, the traditional Himalayan trade routes were closed down.
An effort was made in 1954 to regulate the flow of people and goods through the ‘Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet region of China and India’ — the Panchsheel Agreement — but, China wasn’t ready to implement the letter or the spirit of the Agreement which lapsed in 1962.
While China is adamant to not reopen the Himalayan land ports between India and Tibet, why ‘invite’ Delhi to join the CPEC bandwagon?
There is no logic. In any case, the Corridor is first and foremost a vital investment for Beijing, which is slowly ‘buying’ the strategic corridor; Beijing will soon control its new dominion, Pakistan.For India, it will be a game changer as it will then face China on two fronts, the northern and the western ones. Modi should ponder about this

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 28 Mar 2017 16:04

X Posted on the PESW & STFUP Threads - Thank you China for giving a "Loving Hug" to the Clapistani Textile Industry!

A tale of two textile cities — one in China and one in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: The month of February featured tales of two textile cities.

The first news came from Islamabad where the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) approved a grant of Rs12 million to facilitate the wind-up process of Pakistan Textile City Limited, which was inaugurated with much fanfare in 2011 at Port Qasim Karachi. This textile city never produced a single meter of cloth.

The second was a textile city, announced recently, not in Pakistan but China. The Xinjiang Textile Park was inaugurated in the border province of China-Pakistan. Xinjiang now grows 60% of Chinese cotton. Only in 2016, 22 new enterprises were opened in Aksu Textile Park in southern Xinjiang, producing 10 million meters of cotton cloth with 800,000 spindles every year.

China has plans to add another 100,000 new jobs in textile manufacturing in Xinjiang alone, which already saw 112,300 new workers hired in 2016.

The Pakistan Textile City Limited envisioned to produce 80,000 new jobs, and created only administrative jobs in the headquarters.

At a cost of around Rs1.2 billion, an area of 1,250 acres was purchased from PQA for the project and 774 industrial plots of various sizes were developed. To develop the area by constructing a three-kilometre road, water tanks, etc an amount of Rs2.5 billion was also taken as loan from the National Bank of Pakistan.

The tale from two textile cities – one closed down before commencing commercial operations and the other expanding at “Punjab” speed should teach several lessons.

Already, the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) has shown serious concerns over “threats of further losing its market share to China”.

KCCI issued a statement saying, “The anticipated glut of textile and garment from the Xinjiang textile park in the export as well as domestic markets of Pakistan poses a serious threat to Pakistan’s textile sector already struggling to remain afloat.”

The chamber, in its report, said, “Setting up of the textile park at Xinjiang will give a heavy blow to Pakistani textile exports.”

In 2015, I made a presentation in the PIDE Annual Conference, on how Lawrencepur Brand, Pakistan’s premier brand of clothing, was forced to move its operations from Pakistan to China. Yes, Lawrencepur is now made in China.

With the Minister of Planning present, I argued that productivity is not a state-led process. The shifting of Lawrencepur to China and closure of Pakistan Textile City are two sides of the same coin. We are losing business, market share and jobs. Is the process of a general decline of Pakistani textile, as also exhibited in the stalemate of its exports, can be termed a Schumpeterian Creative Destruction?

This creative destruction is onset by entry of new technology, innovation and new industry, which forces old industry to shut down and opens new opportunities. It is typically enterprise driven, which embarks upon innovation and forces the old guys out. Painful but important – creative destruction is a milestone in a nation’s industrial path.

However, it seems that what we are witnessing in Pakistan’s textile is not a Schumpeterian destruction – rather it is a form of Dragonian Resurrection – a term I coined to capture Chinese influence on local business. In a Dragonian Resurrection, innovation spill-overs do not happen. Local companies are either closed down or taken over by the Chinese shareholders.

Of course, we cannot blame the Chinese, as the Karachi Chamber is doing. It is true that we are giving them infrastructure, yet I am not blaming Chinese for the eventual demise of Pakistan’s textile.

I am ready to believe that all Chinese goods will just move from the north to south to be shipped around the world. I am also assuming that the take-over of the Pakistan Stock Exchange by Chinese and intense manoeuvres by Chinese industrialists to buy big Pakistani textile firms will also be good.

However, our own textile entrepreneurs, if they want to remain in business, have to sharply re-define their business methods in this new world. The role of a well-coordinated Textile Policy cannot be under-estimated in this. One direction may be actually the big Indian market of working women, who can’t stop loving our splendid women wear designs. But here comes the crucial role of an active government, which negotiates for entry of its own businesses.

Malaysia’s MATRADE (similar to our Trade Development Authority) is a great example of how its officers work tirelessly to win market access in locations across the world.

Remember, they are not in the business of doing business, but win entry for their entrepreneurs. Thus, some kind of policy craft is essential but eventually the businesses have to deliver.

Cheers Image

chola
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chola » 28 Mar 2017 16:22

lol. Stoopid pakis. Selling your halal soul and industry to filthy lucre of godless capitalistic commies?

You know, CPEC could be a win-win for us. Obviously it would be nice if it fails and mire both the TSP and the Lizard in a couple of trillion dollar worth of debt. But if it is successful, a chini-dominated pakiland that worries about market access would be much less prone to terrorism.

komal
BRFite
Posts: 350
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 14:47

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby komal » 28 Mar 2017 18:47

^^^^ +108

Chinese control of Pakistan would eliminate ISI

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4381
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 29 Mar 2017 05:57

CROSS POSTED

CPEC "Headaches"

Owners reluctant to surrender land for CPEC

ISLAMABAD: Owners of some land located at the centre of three of the most famous mountain ranges have filed a complaint before the prime minister against the forced acquisition of the land they inherited for the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project by the Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) administration.The land in question, which is surrounded by the Himalayas and the Karakoram and Hindu Kush ranges, has been selected for the Special Economic Zone of CPEC. The "Tourist Trade" is surely going to "take a hit", if this thing goes through !
The complaint filed by Shah Jehan Mushapa and other residents of the Maqpon Das Village in the Denyuore tehsil in Gilgit, says that in order to please their rival tribe, the GB bureaucracy had forcibly acquired their land, which had been under their possession for generations. According to the complaint, the locals were given rights of the land in 1893. It says the GB administration had recently selected Maqpon Das for CPEC and acquired the land free of cost. :roll: The complainants say they are not against the CPEC project but the way that the GB administration has acquired their land is unlawful and unacceptable to the locals. Also get ready for "environmental degradation " . Pollution is a big issue in China ; also China is setting up coal fired plants in Pakistan !

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4381
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 30 Mar 2017 16:22

CROSS POSTED FROM STFUP

C.P.E.C Chickens Coming Home To Roost :D

Some Pakistani power firms stuck in slow lane on China's Silk Road
Reuters

Kamal Amjad Mian thought China's decision to invest $36 billion in the Pakistani power sector would benefit his electricity cable business, and, anticipating increased demand, his family spent nearly $30 million on a second plant to double output.But Mian's Fast Cables and some other Pakistani manufacturers have yet to reap rewards from Beijing's huge “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) project, a modern-day “Silk Road” network of trade routes across land and sea.Power stations built as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a $57 billion project involving energy, road and rail infrastructure, are being kitted out with Chinese cables exempt from import duty and sales tax. Mush: Sab sae pahle Pakistan :lol:
Such exemptions, more generous for CPEC projects than others, threaten to undermine local industry, according to Mian, one of a growing number of executives now questioning an initiative long portrayed as the key to Pakistan's prosperity.“The government, instead of giving us a level playing field, gave them an advantage,” Mian said in the eastern city of Lahore.A Water and Power Ministry official, who declined to be named because he was not authorised to speak to the media, said “there were question marks about whether the local cable industry could fulfil the demands under CPEC and we worried it would slow down projects.” It is standard practice that in infrastructure projects, foreign material is used minimally, but here we are talking about obliging the "higher than mountain fliend" . Again "due diligence" on this aspect not done ! :D
Beijing's CPEC splurge and a drop in militant violence have reinvigorated Pakistan's sluggish economy, driving growth to about 5 percent for the first time since 2008.The public and political parties broadly support Chinese investment, while cement and steel companies who bagged early CPEC contracts are embarking on aggressive expansion.Executives also say Chinese investors are poised for an acquisitions spree in Pakistan.
AKA the colonization and Chinification of Pakistan !
But not everyone is happy. Critics say CPEC projects are opaque and expensive, and question Pakistan's ability to repay the costs over time.Some firms fear they will struggle to compete with Chinese companies with deeper pockets, economies of scale and vastly cheaper credit lines.“We have to make sure (CPEC) doesn't become a Trojan Horse and start hurting existing industry,” said Ehsan Malik, chief executive of the Pakistan Business Council.There is plenty still up for grabs for local players. The next phase of CPEC involves the creation of Special Economic Zones where Chinese state-run enterprises would open factories and help develop Pakistan's industrial base. The fears of the Pakistan Business Council is not unfounded ; according to one media report, the Tajikistan Govt had to "give land to the Chinese" when it failed to fulfill its debt obligation with China, in a similar - like deal !
Wang Zihai, president of the Pakistan-China Joint Chamber of Commerce and Industry, compared Pakistan to China three decades ago, when its nascent industries faced competition from more advanced Japanese and American companies.“Chinese companies did not die,” Wang said. “Chinese are not here to take over everything, they want partners. They need a local party to work together.”And for early CPEC winners, optimism abounds.Hussain Agha's family-run steel business has bagged several CPEC contracts and is planning an initial public offering (IPO) to raise cash to expand.
“Those who are geared for the economic renaissance of Pakistan will thrive, and those who are not will miss the bus,” said Agha, an executive director at Agha Steel Industries.“We are getting ready for the 'Roaring 20s'.” Those Paki businesses with political connection and /or sifarish will obviously benefit !

jagga
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 02:07
Location: Himalaya Ki God Mein

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby jagga » 30 Mar 2017 17:15

With each passing day CPEC is turning into C-PACK (Condom Pack)

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14406
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 30 Mar 2017 17:17

Falijee wrote:CROSS POSTED FROM STFUP

C.P.E.C Chickens Coming Home To Roost :D

Some Pakistani power firms stuck in slow lane on China's Silk Road
Reuters

Kamal Amjad Mian thought China's decision to invest $36 billion in the Pakistani power sector would benefit his electricity cable business, and, anticipating increased demand, his family spent nearly $30 million on a second plant to double output.But Mian's Fast Cables and some other Pakistani manufacturers have yet to reap rewards from Beijing's huge “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) project, a modern-day “Silk Road” network of trade routes across land and sea.Power stations built as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a $57 billion project involving energy, road and rail infrastructure, are being kitted out with Chinese cables exempt from import duty and sales tax. Mush: Sab sae pahle Pakistan :lol:
Such exemptions, more generous for CPEC projects than others, threaten to undermine local industry, according to Mian, one of a growing number of executives now questioning an initiative long portrayed as the key to Pakistan's prosperity.“The government, instead of giving us a level playing field, gave them an advantage,” Mian said in the eastern city of Lahore.A Water and Power Ministry official, who declined to be named because he was not authorised to speak to the media, said “there were question marks about whether the local cable industry could fulfil the demands under CPEC and we worried it would slow down projects.” It is standard practice that in infrastructure projects, foreign material is used minimally, but here we are talking about obliging the "higher than mountain fliend" . Again "due diligence" on this aspect not done ! :D
Beijing's CPEC splurge and a drop in militant violence have reinvigorated Pakistan's sluggish economy, driving growth to about 5 percent for the first time since 2008.The public and political parties broadly support Chinese investment, while cement and steel companies who bagged early CPEC contracts are embarking on aggressive expansion.Executives also say Chinese investors are poised for an acquisitions spree in Pakistan.
AKA the colonization and Chinification of Pakistan !
But not everyone is happy. Critics say CPEC projects are opaque and expensive, and question Pakistan's ability to repay the costs over time.Some firms fear they will struggle to compete with Chinese companies with deeper pockets, economies of scale and vastly cheaper credit lines.“We have to make sure (CPEC) doesn't become a Trojan Horse and start hurting existing industry,” said Ehsan Malik, chief executive of the Pakistan Business Council.There is plenty still up for grabs for local players. The next phase of CPEC involves the creation of Special Economic Zones where Chinese state-run enterprises would open factories and help develop Pakistan's industrial base. The fears of the Pakistan Business Council is not unfounded ; according to one media report, the Tajikistan Govt had to "give land to the Chinese" when it failed to fulfill its debt obligation with China, in a similar - like deal !
Wang Zihai, president of the Pakistan-China Joint Chamber of Commerce and Industry, compared Pakistan to China three decades ago, when its nascent industries faced competition from more advanced Japanese and American companies.“Chinese companies did not die,” Wang said. “Chinese are not here to take over everything, they want partners. They need a local party to work together.”And for early CPEC winners, optimism abounds.Hussain Agha's family-run steel business has bagged several CPEC contracts and is planning an initial public offering (IPO) to raise cash to expand.
“Those who are geared for the economic renaissance of Pakistan will thrive, and those who are not will miss the bus,” said Agha, an executive director at Agha Steel Industries.“We are getting ready for the 'Roaring 20s'.” Those Paki businesses with political connection and /or sifarish will obviously benefit !



the 20-25 feudal families entrenched in the body politic of pakiland will be the ones to benefit, apart from a number of crore commanders.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 31 Mar 2017 18:49

X Posted on the STFUP Thread

Take, Do the Talk! :rotfl:

Pakistan invites US to invest in CPEC projects

WASHINGTON: Pakistan has invited the United States to invest in projects under China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to achieve its regional peace objectives and ensure a prosperous and peaceful south Asia.

“A number of western countries have shown their interest in projects under CPEC and we want the United States to also make investment in the development schemes,” Pakistan’s Ambassador Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said.

In his first public appearance at a US think tank, Aizaz Chaudhry displayed his strong diplomatic skills and expertly answered some extremely provocative questions from the Afghan participants at an event at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP).

He said Pakistan wanted to work with the United States, China and Afghan government to bring lasting peace in the war-torn country as an unstable Afghanistan was creating immense problems for Pakistan.

Chaudry said Islamabad attached extreme importance to its ties with Washington and hoped that relations would improve under the current administration. He said that perception about Pakistan in Washington needed to change in accordance with the ground realities as the country had made a lot of progress on economic and security fronts.

When an Afghan student asked him why Osama Bin Laden and Mulla Omar were killed in Pakistan and why Pakistan was sending militants who were killing Afghan nationals, he said, “We know that you have been fed this which is unfortunate and that is precisely the point I was making that the systematic nurturing of hatred in people of Afghanistan was not a wise investment. It’s not us denying you need to come out of this. Who was Osama Bin Laden? How was he made? What was he doing in Afghanistan and after Tora Bora bombing why did he come to Pakistan, we don’t need him. We wanted him dead yesterday and we are happy that he got killed but we are unhappy the way he got killed. Pakistan should have been taken into confidence so there are perspective you see the glass from this side we see from other side. As far as Mulla Omar is concerned, his son and his brother went to Zabul and exhumed the grave to make sure he never left Afghanistan and presidential palace fed BBC a wrong news that he died in a Karachi hospital,” said the ambassador.

He said this kind of propaganda was spreading hatred and was not a wise investment as the reality on the ground was totally different. The ambassador said Pakistan’s current leadership had made a commitment with the nation that no terrorist would be allowed to operate in Pakistan and the country’s soil would never be allowed to be used for planning militant activities in any other country.

Another Afghan student said she had been an Afghan refugee in Pakistan and she was thankful to the US and United Nations for hosting her to which the ambassador reminded her that she lived on Pakistani soil along with three million other Afghan refugees who were hosted by the country for 37 years.

“No other country in the world has hosted three million refugees for that long time,” he said adding that Afghan government should now create an environment conducive for the return of refugees, especially when it had received billions of dollars in aid from the United States for the purpose.

The ambassador called for a dialogue between various Afghan factions to resolve the conflict. “We are waiting for the new US administration to announce outcome of its review of Afghan policy and based on that we will engage with US.”

The ambassador said US was the main player in Afghanistan with huge investment in peace efforts in the country. He said the idea that Pakistan was responsible for all Afghan problems was an over simplification of the issue and there was a need for the two countries to engage more on all levels. He assured that Pakistan remained committed to any Afghan-owned and Afghan-led reconciliation process to achieve lasting peace in the country.

The ambassador also informed the audience about the most positive developments inside Pakistan, including the ongoing successful security operations against the terrorist remnants and the great economic opportunities borne out of robust economic reforms.
Cheers Image

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8806
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 01 Apr 2017 09:14

The Eurasian Review reproduces an article that was written by Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar (Retd) and appeared in IPCS on CPEC.

Deceptive arguments are current that the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) finds historic equivalence in the ‘Marshall Plan’.

In this context, the CPEC is not a bulwark against an ideology; neither does it presage the threat of global armed confrontation between competing blocs, nor does China have the economic muscle to promise rapid materialisation of a dominant economic confederacy. So then what is it all about? ……………

the Chinese in their financial dealings have not shown themselves to be altruists. Several contemporary China driven international projects illustrate their covetousness. …………..

For China, the project grants a much hankered 40 years operation rights to Gwadar port, assuring a long-term strategic base in the Arabian Sea that reduces Chinese dependence on the Malacca Straits while addressing the imperative to stimulate pace of development in their restive western region (largely subsidised by the project). ………………..

Considering all this, the question then becomes: is it to China’s coffers that economic benefits from the CPEC are destined and is this another lease-for-debt deal? …………………….


From here:

The CPEC: Corridor To Chinese Coffers – Analysis

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8806
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 01 Apr 2017 09:45

Talk of Gwadar and CPEC enabling a significant “bypassing “ of the Malacca Straits is a load of nonsense as the Peoples Republic of China is faced with the geographic reality that the 15 inch Isohyet line ends a very long way to the east of areas contiguous to territory occupied by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan such as Xinjiang. That reality of rainfall has resulted in a clustering of population and economic activity on the PRC’s eastern regions. In turn PRC needs to use the Malacca Straits or Sunda or Lombok to cater to import and export needs of the significant part of its population.

Note PRC’s high population density to the east of the 15 inch Isohyet and the very low population density west of the line:

Image

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4381
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 02 Apr 2017 04:04

Treasure trove

Authorities in Quetta, and might be in Islamabad, must be scrambling now-a-day to arrange millions of dollars to pay in penalty for dishonoring a deal about a project that was supposed to raise billions of dollars for the country.An arbitration tribunal of the World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) this month rejected Pakistan’s case for denying mining license to the Tethyan Copper Company Limited (TCC) for exploiting Reko Diq gold and copper mine in Baluchistan.The Tethyan Copper Company Limited (TCC), a joint venture between Antofagasta of Chile and Canada’s Barrick, had filed an arbitration claim with the ICSID after Supreme Court in 2013 scrapped the Reko Diq deal.
The three-judge bench led by then chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry ( A pakjabi masquerading as a Balochi ) ruled the agreement “invalid” on the grounds that it ran counter to the mineral and development laws and mining concession rules of the country.
According to experts, Reko Diq deposits are fifth largest deposits of gold and copper in the world.If exploited properly, the project is estimated to yield revenues of at least $60 billion in a span of nearly 60 years.


Confirmation of my suspicions that the" Reko Diq Treasure Trove " has been "gifted" to Chini Blothels by the Pakjabi Establishment :

China - Pakistan Corridor- Forbes - From April 2010

But the confrontation between Pakistan’s central government, responding to U.S. pressure, and a more intransigent provincial leadership also presented China with an opportunity. The giant Metallurgical Corp. of China, which controls the Chinese stake in the Saindak site, bid to take over the Reko Diq site from Tethyan, too.Though the provincial and federal governments have yet to agree, MCC made a compelling case. In private meetings with Baloch leaders the Chinese representatives agreed to build a railroad and a power plant in Balochistan as well as to waive any requirements for sovereign guarantees. Says a frustrated William N. Center, the U.S. State Department’s foreign commercial attaché in Pakistan, “These are terms that no private company could compete with.” So, it seems that the "gigantic penalty" slapped on the Pakis will be "funded" by the Chinese as a quid pro quo for gifting the "Reko Diq treasure trove " :twisted:

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14406
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 02 Apr 2017 11:24

RE: the coal fired cheeni aided CPEC power plants.

Anybody has a clear idea of the seasonal wind patterns in the area of these plants and how, if at all any, the winds may carry into India the pollution from these power plants??

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5146
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Agnimitra » 02 Apr 2017 14:47

chetak wrote:RE: the coal fired cheeni aided CPEC power plants.

Anybody has a clear idea of the seasonal wind patterns in the area of these plants and how, if at all any, the winds may carry into India the pollution from these power plants??

The Loo in Pakhanastan blows in our direction. From Balochistan and Sindh it moves in a N.Easterly direction. With coal-fired pollution there, the annual "kaali andhi" will be all the more kaali.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14406
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 02 Apr 2017 20:04

Agnimitra wrote:
chetak wrote:RE: the coal fired cheeni aided CPEC power plants.

Anybody has a clear idea of the seasonal wind patterns in the area of these plants and how, if at all any, the winds may carry into India the pollution from these power plants??

The Loo in Pakhanastan blows in our direction. From Balochistan and Sindh it moves in a N.Easterly direction. With coal-fired pollution there, the annual "kaali andhi" will be all the more kaali.


Thanks, Saar. :)

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 03 Apr 2017 02:14

X Posted on the STFUP Thread - An old Article

Road to Nowhere- Pakistan’s misguided obsession with infrastructure
The government is building more airports, roads and railways, even though the existing ones are underused
NEARLY 20 years after it opened, Pakistan’s first motorway still has a desolate feel. There is scant traffic along the 375km link between Islamabad and Lahore (pictured). Motorists can drive for miles without seeing another vehicle, save perhaps for traffic cops manning speed traps. As the two cities are already connected by the Grand Trunk Road, which is 90km shorter and toll-free, there is simply not much demand for a motorway.
Only 0.6% of the population pays income tax. As the World Bank puts it, Pakistan’s long-term development depends on “better nutrition, health and education”.
There are limits, however. Khawaja Saad Rafique, the railways minister, recently admitted to parliament that the country would not be getting a bullet train after all. “When we asked the Chinese about it, they laughed at us,” he said.
Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 03 Apr 2017 16:26

X Posted on the Analyzing STFUP Thread

India-Eurasia road almost ready, container dry run soon

NEW DELHI: Inching closer to making the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) a reality — connecting India with Russia and Europe via Iran — a dry run of container movement via the green corridor (smooth customs facilitation) will be conducted during the next fortnight, marking the 70th anniversary of Indo-Russian diplomatic ties.

INSTC will substantially reduce time taken and cost for transport of 1.18 % goods between India and Eurasia once fully functional and increase economic activities between India and resource-rich Russia as well as markets of Europe.

The INSTC has moved closer to implementation after India decided to join international customs convention TIR following cabinet approval. The modalities of making INSTC functional was a discussed at a multi-stakeholder meeting on Monday, people familiar with the developments told ET.

INSTC is one of corridors that Delhi is working on as part of connectivity initiatives parallel to China's One Belt One Road strategy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi might visit Astrakhan entry point of INSTC in Russia during his June trip to St Petersburg for International Economic Forum. India and Russia celebrates 70 years of diplomatic ties on April 13 and a series of events and visits are planned through the year.

INSTC is a land-and sea-based 7,200-km long network comprising rail, road and water routes that are aimed at reducing costs and travel time for freight transport in a bid to boost trade between Russia, Iran, Central Asia, India and Europe. The network is expected to provide faster and more efficient trade connectivity between Europe and Southeast Asia.

Mods : Please consider opening an International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) Thread.

Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 05 Apr 2017 22:08

X Posted on the CPEC Thread
CPEC indo-china relation and Pakistan (chinese media)

Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20644
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 06 Apr 2017 14:17

Mystery of CPEC payments - DAWN

These are two unscrupulous countries, not for them are accounting etc. They are united by a common enemy, India. That's all. Pakistan doesn't realize that the fate of Sri Lanka, Djibouti, Maldives would befall it too but with an even bigger force in the next few years.

The latest quarterly report by the State Bank of Pakistan points out an intriguing development regarding the payments connected with CPEC projects. This year, the gap between import recorded by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS) and the State Bank has widened to a historic high. The report says that over a 10-year period, this gap has been an average of $1.6 billion, but this year it climbed to $3bn.

There are good reasons why there should be a gap between the figures reported by the PBS and those reported by the State Bank. The PBS uses customs data, where goods landing at the port are valued by the customs authorities before being assessed for duty, while the State Bank uses banking data, where banks report how much they have paid for imports through letters of credit.

Often goods that land at the port have been paid through means other than a banking channel, or in some cases they are paid under a deferred payment plan, so the goods arrive and their value is registered as an import by customs, but the payment is sent much later through banks.

But there are no good reasons as to why this discrepancy should be so large, and why this massive gap should materialise so suddenly in the first half of the current fiscal year. A closer look shows some interesting developments. Here is what the report says: “a large share of this discrepancy can be explained by the surge in import of power generation machinery, which is being recorded by customs but is not fully visible in import financing data available with SBP. The gap in import data for power generation equipment also widened dramatically to US$ 1.1bn in H1-FY17, from the previous 10-year’s average of just US$ 193 million. Since most power sector activity in the country is taking place under the CPEC umbrella, it is highly probable that the widening gap between the two import datasets is linked with the CPEC”.

So it appears that power-generation machinery is landing at the port but the corresponding outgoing payments for this machinery cannot be seen. Either the payments will be due much later, or the companies responsible for the projects are simply making the payments directly in China, after taking a loan from a Chinese bank. This is how the report puts it: “Typically, banks report import financing data to SBP after importers make payments against L/Cs. However, that appears not to be the case with imports of power generation machinery over the past two and a half years: there has been a relatively minor increase in these imports based on L/C-level data provided by commercial banks to SBP. Hence, it appears that the bulk of these machinery imports are being financed from outside the Pakistani banking channel.”

Translation: we’re not sure what’s going on. How are we seeing large-scale imports landing at the port, but not seeing any payment going out for them? If the settlement is being made “outside the Pakistani banking channel”, what does that imply for the “investments” we were supposed to see from China? Surely the outflows on debt servicing will go from the Pakistani channel, but the inflows are not being routed through it.


“This difference indicates that capital equipment imports into the country, FDI and loans from China are not being fully captured in BoP data,” says the report. So our balance-of-payments accounts is now way off, and we have an ever-diminishing idea of how much is coming and going. But what happens once these projects begin commercial operations and their debts and repatriation of dividends gets going? Will that bill arrive with a bang?

Connected to this is another intriguing development: the level of Chinese foreign direct investment coming into the country appears to have fallen, even as the project’s implementation is gathering pace and large-scale machinery imports are getting going. Inflows from China as direct investment actually dropped this year by 54 per cent compared to last year, with the bulk of this decline in the power sector.

So how come the power sector is seeing massive amounts of Chinese activity, with projects gathering speed and momentum and large amounts of machinery landing at the port, while imports and investment from China are either stagnant or declining sharply? Connected with this is the fact that loans from China are rising, particularly for balance-of-payments support. In the first half of the fiscal year, the government has received $848m in loans from a Chinese bank, presumably as balance-of-payments support to help pay for whatever Chinese imports are coming, for which payments are being sent through the Pakistani banking system.


Given the massive scale of the funds involved, the State Bank is right to feel a little puzzled as to why the banking system has not felt the stress from these payments. For now, we can rejoice that material is landing in the country seemingly for free, but project documents make clear that these are commercial projects, so it should be equally clear that soon outflows will begin to pay their cost. So if the stress hasn’t manifested itself yet, that could mean it will arrive later, in magnified form, because we will have to pay not only for the equipment, but interest on top {This guy has got it!}.

This is further evidence that we do not fully know how CPEC is really going to work once it gets going. If the government knew that this is how the procurement would work, it would have been a good idea to inform the State Bank in advance so they would not be taken by surprise in December of this year and have to launch a rather large reconciliation exercise. And if they didn’t know that this is how things were going to work, then one can only wonder what else they don’t know about these deals. {Ma'sha Alla'h}

The writer is a member of staff.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5228
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 06 Apr 2017 17:39

CPEC is a land grab, loan-to-own scheme. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.A few pakis are slowly getting it.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8730
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Apr 2017 18:07

I think If China can use its influence to transfer Gligit -Baltistan, Askai Chin, area under Trans karakoram pact to Indian control, drop its claim to Arunachal pradesh , give Indians better access to Tibet and presuade Pakistan to withdraw from the Indus Waters Treaty, then India should join CPEC.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 06 Apr 2017 18:59

arun wrote:Talk of Gwadar and CPEC enabling a significant “bypassing “ of the Malacca Straits is a load of nonsense as the Peoples Republic of China is faced with the geographic reality that the 15 inch Isohyet line ends a very long way to the east of areas contiguous to territory occupied by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan such as Xinjiang. That reality of rainfall has resulted in a clustering of population and economic activity on the PRC’s eastern regions. In turn PRC needs to use the Malacca Straits or Sunda or Lombok to cater to import and export needs of the significant part of its population.

Note PRC’s high population density to the east of the 15 inch Isohyet and the very low population density west of the line:

Image
arun Ji

The Chinese have solved their "Malacca Straits" Problem by developing and commencing operations in the Myanmar port of Kyaukpyu - about 60-80 Miles South East of Akyab - now called Sitwe. Please note that the Pipeline for Myanmar Off-Shore Natural Gas as well as Crude Petroleum to Kunming in China - up to VLCC size have made the Chinese need of Malacca Straits redundant. Oil Tankers bigger than "Malacca Max" size have been using the Lambok Straits. Thus "Gwadi wadi yaar" will not be used for Oil Transportation to Xinjiang whch Exports Oddles of Oil and Boodles of Natural Gas to Eastern China. Lambok and Sunda Straits are both in Indonesia.

The earlier ULCC Vessels of 350,000 to 450,000 Tonnes were using the Lambok Straits.
Cheers Image

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5228
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 06 Apr 2017 19:41

Aditya_V wrote:....then India should join CPEC.


Buyer beware. CPEC is a "one way dalal street", strategically conceived by the chinese (read: indirectly paid for by the pakis) to provide urgent economic access to Xinjiang and other remote territories in that part of restive china. With low tech jobs drying up in china, CPEC allows these workers to earn a living in pakiland. Otherwise, they will revolt.

A majority ownership of Gwadar with a strong naval presence will ensure that chinese container ships will get preferential treatment over others on matters of trade with the gulf and east African nations. If India were to sign on to this one-sided deal, its western flank would be open to chinese trade and influence. I am not even sure if Gwadar serves India's purpose in any way. It will damage India's relationship with Iran, and undermine the Baloch freedom movement.

The chinis are not fools. They already have a fifth column in India and are already working to use it. Why not let the pakis suffer, alone?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rajsunder, shivatar, sudeepj and 20 guests