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.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10037
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 26 Apr 2018 11:34

Hot air with regard to “Regional Game Changer” CPEC aka Conning Pakistan to Enrich China is dissipating as it comes out of the realm of feelgood fantasy and in touch with economic reality.

Express Tribune reports that project financing from the Taller than Himalayas, Deeper than Indian Ocean, Sweeter than Honey, As Close as Lips to Teeth, Stronger than Steel, Iron Brother of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Peoples Republic China, is expected to dip by more than half to only USD 906 Million during the next fiscal year due to “completion of work on some major China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects and a snail’s pace progress on other schemes”. ET reports that “One of the main projects that is at the verge of collapse is up-gradation of Pakistan Railway’s Existing Mainline-1 (ML-I) project”.

The below bit valuing the very much overhyped “Regional Game Changer” CPEC initiate in toto at USD 60 Billion caught my eye because that USD 60 Billion amount was about the level of the FDI that India pulled got in 2016-17 (India’s FDI inflows at a record $60.1 billion in 2016-17) and less then the remittances of about USD 69 Billion India received in 2017 (India remains world's top remittance recipient country in 2017, says World Bank). I hope that the Punjabi Uniformed Jihadi Military Dominated Deep State of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan understands that given those figures, touting CPEC as a Regional Game Changer particularly to an Indian audience makes the Islamic Republic look ridiculous:

The mainline project’s initial cost of $8.2 billion was part of $60 billion total CPEC investment and loans.


See here:

Chinese project financing will dip to $906m in FY2018-19

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 28 Apr 2018 01:18

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Another major CPEC project delayed

ISLAMABAD: The Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) of the federal cabinet decided to extend the financial close of the 660 kilovolt high-voltage direct current (HVDC) Matiari-Lahore transmission line by seven months till the 1st of December, 2018.

The extension means that the project—initially slated to become operational in September 2017—now faces a three year delay, ostensibly to align it with the coal-fired projects under development in Thar and near Karachi.

The project is also plagued by squabbling over wheeling charges and tax concessions, and the initial cost of the project has now risen from US$1.5 billion to US$1.7 billion.

The Chinese companies China Electric Power Equipment and Technology Company Limited (CET) of State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC) are executing the project.

Moreover, the ECC also borrowed Rs 100 billion from commercial banks to ease the circular debt that had started creeping up a mere month before Ramazan.

This is the second time in the past one month that the government has been forced to resort to commercial borrowing to improve the circular debt, which is estimated to have crossed Rs 1 trillion.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 28 Apr 2018 20:05

Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat & OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Threads

China will not push India on BRI: Vice foreign minister

WUHAN: China on Saturday said there is no fundamental difference with India on the issue of "inter-connectivity" and Beijing will "not be too hard" with New Delhi on the issue of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The BRI, a multi-billion-dollar initiative launched by President Xi Jinping when he came to power in 2013, has become a major sticking point in the bilateral ties. The BRI also includes the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which India opposes as it goes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

At the end of the two-day informal summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi in the central Chinese city, Chinese vice foreign minister Kong Xuanyou said, "We feel that there is no fundamental difference between China and India on the issue of supporting inter-connectivity."

"The Indian side does not exclude this cooperation. It is also continuing to advance on interconnection. India is also a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). It is the second largest shareholder of our region," Kong said.

"As for whether India accepts the expression Belt and Road, I think it is not important and China will not be too hard on it," he said.

India had boycotted last year's Belt and Road Forum organised by China.

The BRI, a pet initiative of President Xi, is aimed at promoting network of roads, ports and rail networks all over the world to spread China's influence.

Kong said both China and India seek a fair settlement of their border dispute.

The two countries will also enhance military and security communication mechanisms, Kong said, referring to the India-China boundary issue.

Leaders of the two countries believe that China and India are friends and the development of China-India relations is trend of the times, he said.

Regarding the bilateral cooperation, the two sides agreed to sort out the existing mechanisms between the two countries to make communication between the them more effective, start bilateral negotiations as soon as possible, further expand bilateral trade, promote cultural cooperation and exchanges between the two countries as a whole, seeking fair and reasonable solution of border issues, he added.

To a question on Tibet, Kong said "the position of the Indian government is that Tibet is an inalienable part of China. This has not changed. In the process of promoting mutual political development, it is also an important political consensus reached by both sides."

He said there was no disagreement between the two leaders at the meeting. "The two sides can handle these issues on the consensus reached," he said.

China and India are both major global powers in this region. In the process of contact between the leaders of the two countries, it is inevitable to talk about the relationship between the two countries, and it is also a question that will inevitably be touched upon, Kong said.

To another question, he said both China and India pursue the idea of sharing and building a global governance.

"China-India relations are not targeted at third parties. They will never engage in obsolete and out-of-date zero-sum games. They will not engage in closed and exclusive circles," he said.

"Sino-Indian relations will not be affected by other factors, either China or India. Both are major powers with great influence. Positive communication among great powers has injected positive factors into regional and world peace and stability," he said.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 02 May 2018 23:27

X Posted on the Terroristani Thread

Businessmen fear dumping of Chinese goods under CPEC

KARACHI: Though government officials have been highlighting the gigantic China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a great achievement for the past around three years, the project has also sparked fears that domestic industries will be crippled in future as China will dump its commodities in Pakistan.

A few months ago, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics’ CPEC Centre of Excellence Executive Director Dr Shahid Rashid predicted that investment in CPEC projects would eventually swell to $100 billion by 2030 compared to the existing estimate of around $60 billion.

“China has already eaten half of our economy, what else it could do,” Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) President Mufassar Ata Malik told The Express Tribune while referring to the business community’s apprehensions about CPEC.

Malik is a business tycoon having diverse ventures including security services, real estate, product branding, solar power generation and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

The KCCI recently hosted the “My Karachi – Oasis of Harmony” exhibition at the Expo Centre Karachi with the aim of portraying a soft image of Pakistan’s financial hub before the international business community.

“The aim of the festival was to portray a soft image of the country and show the world that the city is open for business. It was not only meant to highlight Karachi or Pakistan’s products only. Anyone could have hired a stall either for B2B or B2C purpose,” explained Mufassar.

The exhibition is being organised since 2004 in an effort to paint a positive image of the city and dispel investor apprehensions. Mufassar emphasised that Pakistan’s business community needed to learn how to compete in the market and add value to their products, adding it should not always look at the government for a helping hand. “CPEC is not a one-way road as it will also give access for Pakistan’s businesses to Central Asian markets. So, there’s opportunity for Pakistan as well,” he said.

However, economist Akbar Zaidi pointed out that Chinese investors and companies had been given preferential treatment and when they would start manufacturing goods at the Special Economic Zones (SEZs), it would wreak havoc on Pakistan’s industry.

“Imports from China have been increasing that has forced many industries in Pakistan to shut down and when they start manufacturing here, imagine what will happen?” asked Zaidi.

Citing an example, he said “when we buy a Chinese motorcycle assembled here, it costs Rs50,000, but when a Chinese firm will start manufacturing bikes here, then it will cost much less, may be Rs35,000. As buyers, we may enjoy the bike at a lower price, but local manufacturers will certainly suffer.”

In competition with China in goods manufacturing, Pakistan is not the only country that has lagged behind, even the US and India have not been able to compete with Beijing.

“Pakistan needs to find industries where China doesn’t want to get involved because of language barrier like IT and services,” he suggested.

Zaidi said the best thing the government could do to protect local interest was to promote joint ventures, meaning Chinese companies should have a local partner. “However, it seems difficult at the moment.” In many of the Middle Eastern countries, foreign companies or individuals must have a local partner for launching a company. The Joke of the Century NATION is now comparing itself with the Middle Eastern Countries!

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 03 May 2018 11:13

Peregrine wrote:Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat & OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Threads

China will not push India on BRI: Vice foreign minister

WUHAN: China on Saturday said there is no fundamental difference with India on the issue of "inter-connectivity" and Beijing will "not be too hard" with New Delhi on the issue of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The BRI, a multi-billion-dollar initiative launched by President Xi Jinping when he came to power in 2013, has become a major sticking point in the bilateral ties. The BRI also includes the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which India opposes as it goes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

At the end of the two-day informal summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi in the central Chinese city, Chinese vice foreign minister Kong Xuanyou said, "We feel that there is no fundamental difference between China and India on the issue of supporting inter-connectivity."

"The Indian side does not exclude this cooperation. It is also continuing to advance on interconnection. India is also a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). It is the second largest shareholder of our region," Kong said.

"As for whether India accepts the expression Belt and Road, I think it is not important and China will not be too hard on it," he said.

India had boycotted last year's Belt and Road Forum organised by China.

The BRI, a pet initiative of President Xi, is aimed at promoting network of roads, ports and rail networks all over the world to spread China's influence.

Kong said both China and India seek a fair settlement of their border dispute.

The two countries will also enhance military and security communication mechanisms, Kong said, referring to the India-China boundary issue.

Leaders of the two countries believe that China and India are friends and the development of China-India relations is trend of the times, he said.

Regarding the bilateral cooperation, the two sides agreed to sort out the existing mechanisms between the two countries to make communication between the them more effective, start bilateral negotiations as soon as possible, further expand bilateral trade, promote cultural cooperation and exchanges between the two countries as a whole, seeking fair and reasonable solution of border issues, he added.

To a question on Tibet, Kong said "the position of the Indian government is that Tibet is an inalienable part of China. This has not changed. In the process of promoting mutual political development, it is also an important political consensus reached by both sides."

He said there was no disagreement between the two leaders at the meeting. "The two sides can handle these issues on the consensus reached," he said.

China and India are both major global powers in this region. In the process of contact between the leaders of the two countries, it is inevitable to talk about the relationship between the two countries, and it is also a question that will inevitably be touched upon, Kong said.

To another question, he said both China and India pursue the idea of sharing and building a global governance.

"China-India relations are not targeted at third parties. They will never engage in obsolete and out-of-date zero-sum games. They will not engage in closed and exclusive circles," he said.

"Sino-Indian relations will not be affected by other factors, either China or India. Both are major powers with great influence. Positive communication among great powers has injected positive factors into regional and world peace and stability," he said.

Cheers Image


Peregrine saar,

Something doesn't sit right.

The hans are not ones to give up so easily.

Something significant has transpired at the Modi-Xi meetings and whatever it is, hope that it doesn't come back to bite us. This detente is consequent to something serious happening in the CPEC/OBOR/BRI ponzi scheme or a serious change in regional/global dynamics that has caused Xi to seek out India's goodwill to quieten things.

We will have to carefully watch all the usual suspects and hope that someone will let slip some details of what actually transpired at the meeting. The paki talki shows are not too happy about the Modi-Xi meetings and I have a suspicion that chabahar is now somehow in this mix.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 03 May 2018 16:12

Peregrine wrote:Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat & OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Threads

China will not push India on BRI: Vice foreign minister

Image
Peregrine saar,

Something doesn't sit right.

The hans are not ones to give up so easily.

Something significant has transpired at the Modi-Xi meetings and whatever it is, hope that it doesn't come back to bite us. This detente is consequent to something serious happening in the CPEC/OBOR/BRI ponzi scheme or a serious change in regional/global dynamics that has caused Xi to seek out India's goodwill to quieten things.

We will have to carefully watch all the usual suspects and hope that someone will let slip some details of what actually transpired at the meeting. The paki talki shows are not too happy about the Modi-Xi meetings and I have a suspicion that chabahar is now somehow in this mix.
chetak Ji :

I couldn't agree with you more!

<Commence Rants>I trust you are aware of "him" who wants Terroristani Ishtiqlal in his Ishtiqbal - or may be it is the other way round - Continuous and Continuously as well as Uninterrupted and Uninterruptedly - negotiated with IRAN for the LNG and fixed the price "Subject to Iranian Parliamentary Approve" at about US$ 3.00 - 3.50 per MMBTU! A similar agreement was made between Iran and China. The Indian Stupido did not put any time LIMIT for the "Subjects to be Lifted".

MMTC, Oil india Ltd, FCI, Food Ministry or their Commercial Enterprises usually agree Subject to "Indian Government Enterprise's Approval with 24 or 48 Hours and even Two Working after completion of Sale and Purchase Agreement.

The prices of LNG started rising and the Iranian Parliament did not GRANT FINAL APPROVAL.

INDIA LOST TOTALLY. CHINESE had also purchased Crude Oil on a Barter Terms of Chinese Building 25 - 30 Very Large Crude Carriers ON A BARTER BASIS wherein Chinese would Build VLCC Tankers in Exchange of Iranian Crude at the then prevailing Rate at the time of the AGREEMENT. These VLCC Purchase Amount is still being paid at the THEN Prevailing Rate. IRAN HAS LOST HEAVILY due to the THEN prevailing Rate WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY Lower than the present Rate.

Now to Cha Bahar - I believe, as per my present knowledge, that the Indian - Iranian Cha Bahar Agreement will either not be extended beyond Eighteen Months or the Iranians will extend by short periods and withdraw at an opportune time and most probably hand Cha Bahar over to the Chinese.

Such , my dear Forum Brother, is the nature of the Iranian - Indian - Chinese Relationship. For the Iranians, along with the Chinese, MUST CHEAT INDIA so that India always loses especially with the Iranian in this relationship and the Chinese willing be laughing ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK!<End Rant>

Apologies for the GLOOM!

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 04 May 2018 00:20

x posted from the OBOR thread.

Their selfish intentions, as well as their extreme self interests in grabbing assets through foreclosure due to some country's inability to service the chinese loans, have been thoroughly exposed. Do the hans really think that SLs example of the hambantota port being duplicitously grabbed by the hans for "99 years" is not something that is worrying everyone??

Are the chinese really expecting the countries of the world to accept their POV and also join this OBOR nonsense??

Apart from other things, this half baked han initiative of the OBOR and its small subset, the CPEC, all have very serious NATSEC implications.

Has the massive opposition to OBOR in europe caused the hans to rethink their BRI stance on India??

The OBOR tentacles are slowly being chopped in almost every country and the OBOR is being seen as a threat and thus inimical to everyone's interests except the chinese.





EU ambassadors band together against Silk Road


EU ambassadors band together against Silk Road

EU ambassadors to Beijing warn that China’s Silk Road project flouts international transparency norms and is aimed at furthering Chinese interests. The paper reflects Beijing’s strategy to divide the bloc.

By
Dana HeideDana Heide Till HoppeTill Hoppe Stephan ScheuerStephan Scheuer Klaus StratmannKlaus Stratmann

Published on April 17, 2018


Twenty-seven of the 28 national EU ambassadors to Beijing have compiled a report that sharply criticizes China’s “Silk Road” project, denouncing it as designed to hamper free trade and put Chinese companies at an advantage.

The report, seen by Handelsblatt, said the plan, unveiled in 2013, “runs counter to the EU agenda for liberalizing trade and pushes the balance of power in favor of subsidized Chinese companies.”

The unusually biting contents, which only Hungary’s ambassador refused to sign, are part of the EU’s preparations for an EU-China summit in July. The EU Commission is working on a strategy paper to forge a common EU stance on China’s prestige project to build roads, ports and gas pipelines to connect China by land and sea to Southeast Asia, Pakistan and Central Asia, and beyond to the Middle East, Europe and Africa. The new Silk Road will run through some 65 countries in six economic corridors.

“We shouldn’t refuse to cooperate but we should politely yet firmly state our terms,” said one high-ranking EU diplomat, adding that Chinese firms must not receive preferential treatment in the awarding of public contracts.

One German economics ministry official said the Silk Road initiative “must take account of the interests of all participants” and was still a long way off.

Chinese politicians have been banging the drum for the vast project, officially called “One Belt, One Road”. They’re mobilizing around $1 trillion in what would be the biggest international development program since the US launched the Marshall Plan after World War Two.

Image

“China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ will be the new World Trade Organization – whether we like it or not,” CEO of German industrial giant Siemens, Joe Kaeser, told the World Economic Forum in January.

In their report, the ambassadors wrote that China wanted to shape globalization to suit its own interests. “At the same time the initiative is pursuing domestic political goals like the reduction of surplus capacity, the creation of new export markets and safeguarding access to raw materials,” it read.

They warned that European companies could fail to clinch good contracts if China isn’t pushed into adhering to the European principles of transparency in public procurement, as well as environmental and social standards.

EU officials said China was trying to divide Europe to strengthen its hand in relations with individual member states. Countries such as Hungary and Greece, which both rely on Chinese investment, have in the past shown they’re susceptible to pressure from China.

Whenever European politicians travel to China nowadays they’re put under pressure by their hosts to sign agreements for the joint expansion of the Silk Road. “This bilateral structure leads to an unequal distribution of power which China exploits,” their report said.

Image

The Silk Road isn’t the only issue between the EU and China right now. Like US President Donald Trump, the EU is also fed up with the obstacles China has put up for foreign investors, including the forced transfer of know-how to Chinese partners.

But the bloc isn’t resorting to one-sided tariffs to push China to open its markets. Instead, it’s working in an investment agreement with China. Progress has been painfully slow, but the EU hopes the looming global trade war may speed up the talks. Negotiators from the two sides plan to meet this week.

One EU diplomat said China was very good at exploiting grey areas in WTO law on the protection of intellectual property, for example, and didn’t shy away from breaking rules. “When we point that out to our Chinese negotiating partners they always show a lot of understanding but in reality hardly anything changes,” the diplomat said.

In a speech last week, President Xi Jinping said the Silk Road project “isn’t a Chinese conspiracy as some people abroad claim.” China, he insisted, has no intention of playing “self-serving geopolitical games.”

However, China has yet to provide exact information on which foreign firms have so far directly benefited from the Chinese development program. The $40 billion Silk Road Fund was set up in 2014 to invest in countries along the road but it’s unclear who is eligible for investment, and on what terms.

A German study released in February by the government’s GTAI foreign trade and investment marketing agency and the Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry concluded that the Silk Road project was often focused on politically unstable countries with uncertain legal frameworks. GTAI’s managing director said that around 80 percent of projects funded by Chinese state banks had gone to Chinese companies in the past.

German government papers seen by Handelsblatt indicate that China isn’t interested in transparency when it comes to procurement. Last May, when former Economics Minister Brigitte Zypries traveled to Beijing for the grand launch of the Silk Road initiative, she and other EU officials were meant to sign a joint declaration with the Chinese government. It didn’t happen.

The Europeans wanted to change much of the agreement’s wording, saying it should guarantee “equal opportunities for all investors in transport infrastructure” as well as international standards of transparency.

The Chinese refused to incorporate any amendments.

Dana Heide is a political correspondent for Handelsblatt in Berlin. Till Hoppe is Handelsblatt’s Brussels correspondent. Stephan Scheuer is the head of Handelsblatt’s features desk. Klaus Stratmann covers energy policy and politics for Handelsblatt in Berlin. To contact the authors:heide@handelsblatt.com, hoppe@handelsblatt.com, scheuer@handelsblatt.com and stratmann@handelsblatt.com


Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 04 May 2018 16:55

X Posted on the Terroristan Tread

ADB raises concern over CPEC’s debt burden on finances

MANILA: The Asian Development Bank (ADB) on Thursday raised concern about the debt burden of China Pakistan Economic Corridor- (CPEC) led infrastructure projects on Pakistan’s fragile finances.

“Countries should realise the economic viability of projects under belt and road initiatives,” Takehiko Nakao, ADB president told a news conference on day one of the ADB’s annual meeting.

“Sustainability, economic viability of such projects are difficult… investing borrowed money for infrastructure projects potentially pile up debt burden.”

Pakistan’s economy has seen growth accelerate in recent years but it has not been without problems. The economy witnessed over a decade-high growth of 5.3 percent during the last fiscal year and provisional 5.8 percent in the current fiscal year ending June 30. Current account deficit swelled to an eight-year high of five percent of the GDP or $12.029 billion in the first nine months of the fiscal year 2018. Government estimated current account deficit for the outgoing fiscal year at 4.4 percent or $13.7 billion, while it set a target of 3.8 percent or $12.5 billion for the next fiscal year.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have warned that the country’s macroeconomic picture has been deteriorating as its current account deficit widens.

Foreign reserves have also been dwindling for the last couple of years amid a spike in imports, including machinery for more than $50 billion worth of CPEC projects. Machinery imports account for almost a quarter of annual import bills of $53 billion.

Brokerage Topline Securities estimated that Pakistan needs to annually pay three to four billion dollars for a decade in loan repayments under CPEC after the fiscal year of 2019/20.

Machinery imports are, however, decelerating as CPEC-related projects are progressing to advance stage. China has remained a major thrust to foreign direct investment into Pakistan as it accounted for more than half of $2.094 billion of FDI in the July-March period.

Nakao said China-Pakistan economic cooperation is very impressive and “it has stabilised the macroeconomic indicators which have showed encouraging performance during recent years”. “The IMF is assessing the economic outlook of Pakistan and we will wait for the assessment and after that will see how much budgetary support the country needs for an interim period.”

The IMF has projected Pakistan’s external debt and liabilities could peak to $144 billion in the next five years from $93 billion in the current financial year of 2018. It also estimated that the country’s foreign currency reserves would continue to decline and could touch $7.075 billion by 2023 from $12.09 billion held by the State Bank of Pakistan.

More alarmingly, the total external debt servicing would reach $19.7 billion by 2023 against $7.739 billion in the FY 2018. The foreign debt servicing is projected to rise from $7.7 billion to $19.7 billion, indicating immense pressure on the country’s external accounts.

ADB President further said the bank wants to collaborate with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to meet the region’s growing investment needs and does not see the emerging China-led lender as a rival.

Nakao said although China is an important international lender and borrower, its rise and that of the AIIB would not be motivating factors behind any changes in the ADB’s future strategy. He said the two institutions are different in many ways, which mean they could collaborate more effectively.

“AIIB, it’s not the kind of threat to us,” he added. “We can cooperate with AIIB because we need larger investment in Asia and we can collaborate.”

He said the AIIB had observed very high standards in terms of its programmes and the AIIB and the ADB this year hoped to approve several projects which they would co-finance. He did not elaborate.

The two have so far jointly provided combined loans of more than $700 million for four infrastructure projects, three of them in South Asia.

Nakao, referring to US-China tensions, said the ADB is concerned about protectionism and trade troubles as Asia would suffer, but there are so far no signs of that.

The ADB has forecast growth of six percent for developing Asia this year, fuelled by solid export demand, but it has warned that US protectionist measures and subsequent retaliation could undermine trade.

“If trade is interrupted, it will have large damage to Asian countries as well as to other countries in the world. If this continues to escalate, it will have negative impact,” Nakao said. “At this moment it does not have impact on sentiment of people, investors and market players.”

The May meeting comes as the Japanese-led ADB, formed in 1966 to help pull millions of Asians out of poverty, is watching closely as China asserts itself internationally via its vaunted Belt and Road Initiative and pushes regional infrastructure plans with support of its state-owned banks and the AIIB.

Key topics to be discussed are free trade, globalisation, ageing populations, environmental degradation, gender equality and the trend towards automation.

Nakao said he was optimistic there were more opportunities in Asia to create jobs rather than lose them to machines and software, and said developments in technology were helping to boost equality among populations.

The ADB estimates developing Asia needs to invest $1.7 trillion per year in infrastructure until 2030 to maintain its growth momentum and the regional lender’s targets on poverty and climate change.

Nakao said along with infrastructure development and poverty reduction, there was a need to introduce social security and universal health care to Asian economies and make progressive tax reforms.

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 04 May 2018 17:16

Peregrine wrote:
Peregrine wrote:Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat & OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Threads

China will not push India on BRI: Vice foreign minister

Image
Peregrine saar,

Something doesn't sit right.

The hans are not ones to give up so easily.

Something significant has transpired at the Modi-Xi meetings and whatever it is, hope that it doesn't come back to bite us. This detente is consequent to something serious happening in the CPEC/OBOR/BRI ponzi scheme or a serious change in regional/global dynamics that has caused Xi to seek out India's goodwill to quieten things.

We will have to carefully watch all the usual suspects and hope that someone will let slip some details of what actually transpired at the meeting. The paki talki shows are not too happy about the Modi-Xi meetings and I have a suspicion that chabahar is now somehow in this mix.
chetak Ji :

I couldn't agree with you more!

<Commence Rants>I trust you are aware of "him" who wants Terroristani Ishtiqlal in his Ishtiqbal - or may be it is the other way round - Continuous and Continuously as well as Uninterrupted and Uninterruptedly - negotiated with IRAN for the LNG and fixed the price "Subject to Iranian Parliamentary Approve" at about US$ 3.00 - 3.50 per MMBTU! A similar agreement was made between Iran and China. The Indian Stupido did not put any time LIMIT for the "Subjects to be Lifted".

MMTC, Oil india Ltd, FCI, Food Ministry or their Commercial Enterprises usually agree Subject to "Indian Government Enterprise's Approval with 24 or 48 Hours and even Two Working after completion of Sale and Purchase Agreement.

The prices of LNG started rising and the Iranian Parliament did not GRANT FINAL APPROVAL.

INDIA LOST TOTALLY. CHINESE had also purchased Crude Oil on a Barter Terms of Chinese Building 25 - 30 Very Large Crude Carriers ON A BARTER BASIS wherein Chinese would Build VLCC Tankers in Exchange of Iranian Crude at the then prevailing Rate at the time of the AGREEMENT. These VLCC Purchase Amount is still being paid at the THEN Prevailing Rate. IRAN HAS LOST HEAVILY due to the THEN prevailing Rate WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY Lower than the present Rate.

Now to Cha Bahar - I believe, as per my present knowledge, that the Indian - Iranian Cha Bahar Agreement will either not be extended beyond Eighteen Months or the Iranians will extend by short periods and withdraw at an opportune time and most probably hand Cha Bahar over to the Chinese.

Such , my dear Forum Brother, is the nature of the Iranian - Indian - Chinese Relationship. For the Iranians, along with the Chinese, MUST CHEAT INDIA so that India always loses especially with the Iranian in this relationship and the Chinese willing be laughing ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK!<End Rant>

Apologies for the GLOOM!

Cheers Image


Peregrine ji,

This is from the Observer Research Foundation.

Why take such a nuanced position and that too via an article in the Daily Pioneer??

The writer is irrelevant.

DIPLOMACY ON BENDED KNEE


Friday, 04 May 2018 | Deepak Sinha | in Oped

Diplomacy on bended knee

Has Modi, by kowtowing to the Chinese, miscalculated? There’s no squeak about China’s intended road work near the Doklam site, which could be a strategic thorn

Remember that erroneous but popular quote “Houston, we have a problem”? It was the innocuous start to the nail-biting drama of retrieving the crew of a badly malfunctioning Apollo 13 back to safety, best encapsulated in the Tom Hanks movie of the same name. In the same vein, surely, someone of importance in the high orbit of Government, must of necessity, have already made the call “Modiji, we have a problem!”

Of course, we would be unaware of such a transmission because, for one, it probably is a cry in the wilderness, and more importantly, because despite his untiring efforts and grand vision, Modiji himself may just be the problem.

Take the case of the recent Wuhan “informal summit.” There was a time when most of us would have whole-heartedly believed that this was a brilliant, non-conformist, out-of-the-box diplomatic initiative by our very own Pradhan Sevak to transform relations between the big two in Asia. But that was before demonetisation and the false narrative put out to justify it, something that the vast majority of citizens appears to have seen through over time.

There will undoubtedly be those, of optimistic bent, who will swallow the swill fed by our Foreign Ministry, but the vast thinking majority may have a sneaking suspicion that all this frenetic activity was aimed not so much at attaining strategic equilibrium, but at ensuring that this Government is not embarrassed by a Doklam 2.0, and that too, just before important State elections this year with the General Election not too far off.

A possibility not to be laughed at, given the manner in which Chairman Mao brought Pandit Nehru down to Mother Earth in short order. Of course, it could also be Mr Modi demanding his pound of flesh for having resolved Doklam, without embarrassing President Xi, prior to the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit as well as the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China held later that year.

Interestingly, there has been not a squeak from either the Government or the media about the purported road construction about 6 km of where the earlier Doklam confrontation occurred which, when completed, will enable the People’s Liberation Army to look into and interdict the strategically vulnerable Siliguri Corridor while providing depth to their communication lines within the vulnerable Chumbi Valley.

Surely, this is not a particularly difficult issue to ascertain one way or the other? If true, our inability and unwillingness to act will only de facto lead to loss of influence in Bhutan, not dissimilar to the situation we now face in our relations with Nepal.

If that were to transpire, then probably within the next decade or so, given China’s increasing heft in Bangladesh, Myanmar and the neighbourhood, there is the very real possibility that the North-East will only be Indian in name, if at all. A classic example of adherence on their part to Sun Tzu’s famous dictum “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

Though what fight a military that is ill-matched can actually put up is questionable, especially given the Pathankot fiasco not so long ago. This is to be expected when the military leadership collectively abdicates its constitutional role and responsibilities.

Somebody, not necessarily more competent, will always step into the breach; even nature, as we are aware, abhors a vacuum. Anybody reminded of that old adage “for want of a nail the kingdom was lost?”

But all this talk of gloom and doom is for the future. What seems to matter the most today, at least to the ruling elite, is that nothing should get in the way of the BJP juggernaut till a successful result is achieved at the hustings due next year. That would allow Prime Minister Modi to get his wish to continue serving us as the Pradhan Sevak for another five years, despite most of his earlier promises turning to dust.

His cause has, however, not been helped by some of those elected on the party ticket, the Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Kumar Deb being the latest, especially their loose talk, immature behaviour and blatant and over-bearing arrogance.

Yet, success seemingly appears to be a distinct possibility given the divided state of the Opposition. Family concerns, led by befuddled and flawed princelings bereft of a vision for a better India, other than one of divide and rule, have cost the Opposition cohesiveness.

Yet, one can only wonder at what a Jaichand, Mir Jafar or a Mir Quasim was looking to achieve when they made their pacts with their respective devils, surely not the ending that they confronted and surely not to be remembered as the greatest traitors to their cause?

Is there a possibility that Mr Modi with his kowtowing to the Chinese has majorly miscalculated and is there a possibility that it may decimate his magic? Only time, I guess, will tell.

(The writer is a military veteran and consultant with the Observer Research Foundation. Views expressed are entirely personal)

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 04 May 2018 18:36

chetak Ji :

Your Post 04 May 2018 17:16 - One appreciates your view of Deepak Sinha's Article and the Observer Research Foundation.

However, Sinha does say :
Of course, it could also be Mr Modi demanding his pound of flesh for having resolved Doklam, without embarrassing President Xi, prior to the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit as well as the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China held later that year.

As such I feel that one will have to "sit this out" and see "which way the cocoon spins".

Nail biting - Yes. So let us watch the developments.

In ending Modi - in my opinion - has been too smart a cookie and I don't think that he has allowed India to suffer the days and ways of the late Jay El En.

Cheers Image

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10443
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 04 May 2018 19:05

Looks like Modi send the Indian Army to salute the Chinese flag as recently as 1st May 2018. May be this was the real outcome of the Wuhan "informal" summit.

Photus are there for all to see in the other thread
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7610&p=2270627#p2270146

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 04 May 2018 19:09

Peregrine wrote:chetak Ji :

Your Post 04 May 2018 17:16 - One appreciates your view of Deepak Sinha's Article and the Observer Research Foundation.

However, Sinha does say :
Of course, it could also be Mr Modi demanding his pound of flesh for having resolved Doklam, without embarrassing President Xi, prior to the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit as well as the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China held later that year.

As such I feel that one will have to "sit this out" and see "which way the cocoon spins".

Nail biting - Yes. So let us watch the developments.

In ending Modi - in my opinion - has been too smart a cookie and I don't think that he has allowed India to suffer the days and ways of the late Jay El En.

Cheers Image


Sirji,

the wuhan meeting was setup at extremely short notice and other players like the Foreign minister and the NSA were also in on it and made trip(s?) to china.

Something unexpected seems to have emerged, necessitating such a meet.

Moreover, Modi was received personally by Xi and Xi is not much given to such flowery gestures, meaning that he wants something from Modi.

An earlier and routinely scheduled meet is already on the cards and maybe just about a month away.

No details anywhere. That's is Modi's usual style but the run up to this meet seems very unusual, to say the least.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 05 May 2018 08:50

India-China summit highlights Modi’s hope versus Xi’s strategy



India-China summit highlights Modi’s hope versus Xi’s strategy

May 1, 2018


An unpredictable and transactional Trump administration puts India on the back foot with Beijing

Brahma Chellaney, Nikkei Asian Review

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “informal” summit meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, significantly, began on the same day as the inter-Korean summit on April 27. That Xi chose the same date for the two-day summit might not have been a mere coincidence, given that the historic meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea left China on the sidelines, with little influence over those proceedings.

It was Modi’s government, however, that initiated the effort at rapprochement with Beijing following a rocky year in which new disputes flared between the two Asian giants, including over China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the Dalai Lama’s visit to a Chinese-claimed Himalayan Indian state, transboundary river waters, and the Chinese military encroachment on Doklam plateau, which India’s ally Bhutan regards as its own territory. The relationship between the two countries, which make up more than a third of humanity and almost a fifth of the global economy, is critical to international relations.

The Wuhan summit, with no set agenda other than to improve the relationship, was billed as a chance to “reset” ties. No breakthroughs on major disputes were expected. But no sooner had the summit ended than significant differences emerged on how India and China interpret even the understandings reached at Wuhan.

For example, India said the two leaders “issued strategic guidance” to their respective militaries to avoid further border friction. But China’s statement made no mention of that. India, which has chafed against increasingly lopsided trade with China, said agreement was reached to strengthen trade and investment in a “balanced and sustainable manner.” But that key phrase was missing from Beijing’s version.

Such differences are no surprise: The summit was long on political theater, such as shows of amity, but short on concrete results to fundamentally change the Sino-Indian dynamics. As if to pander to India’s proverbial weakness — confounding symbolism with substance — Xi focused more on diplomatic stagecraft, including receiving Modi with a very long red carpet, taking the Indian leader on a lakeside walk and a boat ride, and engaging in long handshakes while voicing hope the summit would “open a new chapter in bilateral ties.”

Compelling strategic reasons may have prompted Modi to seek reconciliation with China. Yet his abrupt policy shift is fraught with political risk at home, where it could potentially dent his self-cultivated image as a strongman boasting a 56-inch chest measurement. Modi decided to take the risk now because the national election is a year away. His gambit, however, sends confusing signals to India’s strategic partners, including about the country’s commitment to a “free and open Indo-Pacific region” — a key goal of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration.

Behind Modi’s overture to China is India’s strategic imperative to develop a semblance of balance in relations with various powers, largely because his pro-U.S. foreign policy has failed to secure tangible benefits for India thus far. Trump’s increasingly transactional approach to international relations and narrow geopolitical calculations have generated growing American pressures on India, including to slash its $25-billion yearly trade surplus, cut back its ties with Russia and Iran, and maintain full diplomatic relations with Pakistan, despite the latter’s export of terrorists.

The U.S. is also warning that India’s defense and energy dealings with Russia would attract sanctions under the new Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, even as the Trump administration seeks “a flexible waiver authority” from Congress to protect relationships with India and others. Moreover, Trump’s policy to squeeze Iran, despite the 2015 nuclear deal, has emerged as an obstacle in the Indian project to expand and modernize the Iranian port of Chabahar, India’s gateway to landlocked Afghanistan and Central Asia. Trump’s restrictive visa policy, meanwhile, is crimping India’s $150-billion-a-year information technology industry.

A feeling is growing in New Delhi that the U.S. takes India for granted while it handles China with kid gloves, to the extent that Beijing managed to create and militarize seven artificial islands in the South China Sea without incurring any international costs. The Trump administration did not issue a single statement in India’s support during last summer’s 73-day Doklam military standoff, even as Beijing threatened virtually every day to teach India a bitter lesson. By contrast, Japan publicly sided with India.

In fact, U.S. policy continues to drive India’s old partner, Russia, closer to China, while Trump periodically heaps praise on “my good friend” Xi and says he is hopeful of clinching a deal with Beijing that would avert the imposition of punitive trade tariffs. By making China the main beneficiary of its fixation on Russia, North Korea and Iran, Washington is compelling New Delhi to hedge its bets.

In keeping with the old saying, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer,” Modi has sought to arrest the deterioration in Sino-Indian relations, which constricted India’s foreign policy options, including making it dependent on an unpredictable Trump administration. Indeed, with even Japan seeking to mend fences with China and inviting Xi to pay a visit, India could not afford to be an outlier.

Xi has his own strategic reasons to appreciate Modi’s overture, including the threat of a trade war with America. It is hardly in Chinese interest to push India — a critical swing state — into the anti-China camp. In any event, the semblance of better bilateral relations gives Beijing greater space, including by quieting New Delhi’s concerns, to pursue its engagement-with-containment strategy, which has steadily built greater strategic pressure on India.

Make no mistake: Prospects of a genuine rapprochement look anything but promising. This, after all, is Modi’s second effort at a “reset.” The first effort, which Modi launched soon after coming to office, backfired conspicuously. Xi arrived in India on Modi’s birthday in September 2014 bearing an unusual gift — a deep Chinese military incursion into India’s Ladakh region. Relations progressively worsened after that.

In fact, ever since China became India’s neighbor by occupying Tibet in 1951, high-level bilateral dialogue has been no indicator of better relations. For example, New Delhi’s ongoing negotiations with Beijing to settle territorial disputes first began in 1981, when India’s economy was larger than China’s. Now India’s economy is five times smaller, with China’s military power dwarfing India’s, yet the negotiations have still to produce real progress toward a resolution.

Little good has come from Modi’s own discussions with Xi, although the two have met 14 times since 2014 in different locations around the world. Since assuming office four years ago, Modi has already traveled to China four times and will be going there again soon for the mid-June summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization security bloc.

Modi actually traveled to Wuhan with weakened leverage. After Modi defiantly stood up to China’s Doklam aggression and forced Beijing to accept a mutual pullback from the standoff, Chinese forces in the past eight months have quietly moved in and occupied much of that remote plateau. Also, on Modi’s watch, China has doubled its trade surplus with India to almost $5 billion a month.

To be sure, Modi went to Wuhan just after the Indian Air Force, deploying its entire warfighting machinery and flying 11,000 sorties, conducted its largest ever exercise, which simulated a simultaneous war with China and its ally Pakistan. Nevertheless, with Modi seeking less border trouble and more balanced trade, Xi likely believes that the Indian leader needs him more than he needs Modi — a situation Xi will seek to exploit with the same guile that has effectively made him China’s new emperor.

This suggests that, far from addressing India’s security and economic concerns or reining in its increasing border intrusions, Beijing would like the Wuhan bonhomie to translate into two material gains — a bigger Chinese penetration of the Indian market and greater caution and reluctance on India’s part to challenge, or gang up against, China. In other words, a truly win-win outcome for China from Modi’s Reset 2.0. If this happens, Modi will validate Karl Marx’s statement that “history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce.”


Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and the author of nine books, including the award-winning “Water: Asia’s New Battleground.”

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 11 May 2018 15:29

X Posted on the India-Myanmar news and discussion, Terroristan and Sri Lanka - News and Discussion Threads

After all other cases World Wide in General and Hambantota along with Gwadar in Particular Kyaukpyu is the latest victim - Ab Tera Kya Hoga Terroristaniya?

The fishing port that may become a $10 billion Chinese debt bomb

The town of Kyaukpyu, nestled around a small fishing port on the Bay of Bengal, has the air of a place expecting to get rich soon.

In the seaside market, stalls of seafood unloaded from wooden fishing boats floating in the rubbish-strewn harbor have been joined by stacks of Chinese-made toys and smartphones. Nearby, cattle graze between building sites as high-rise offices and hotels replace weather-stained bungalows. Fine-dining rooftop restaurants and a golf course underline the sense of transition.

Much of the development, and a jump in land prices, are anticipating a gigantic prize for this remote Myanmar town of 50,000 people: $10 billion to build a deep-sea port and industrial zone, financed by China. The investment plan -- seven times the cost of Chinese-built ports in Sri Lanka and Cameroon -- has put Kyaukpyu at the center of a debate in Myanmar and across Asia as to who really benefits from China’s grand Belt and Road strategy.

“The real danger of the port is that its extreme expense could lead the Myanmar government to take out an unsustainable level of debt,” said Greg Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “That, in combination with other current and future projects in Myanmar, could in the coming years lead to a debt trap.”

Those concerns have stalled development since the previous military government chose China’s CITIC Group to build the port three years ago. CITIC, China’s first state-owned investment corporation, has proposed taking a 70 percent stake in the project, with the remainder split between the Myanmar government and a consortium of local firms. The Chinese company would run the zone for up to 75 years and would finance Myanmar’s stake.

“We keep hearing it will be built since 2015, but nothing has happened so far,” said Shwe Shwe Maung, 34, the head of KaBalan, a village of 460 households in the area marked for the economic zone. “We don’t know exactly what the impact will be, but we’re all hoping that it will bring jobs.”

Some senior government officials are concerned that a nation with a smaller economy than the Dominican Republic may struggle to service and repay the billions of dollars Myanmar would need to borrow for the project.

“The amount of interest is quite substantial, and not like the loans we got from the Japanese government -- the loans from China are much more expensive,” said Soe Win, a member of the ruling National League for Democracy’s central economic committee and a candidate to become Myanmar’s next central bank governor. He declined to give details of the proposed loan.

The Japan International Cooperation Agency is helping finance a $3.28 billion economic zone at Thilawa port, south of Yangon. The Thilawa development has raised further questions about Myanmar’s need for such a large facility in Kyaukpyu (pronounced CHOW-pew) or whether it would simply be a conduit for China, run by Chinese companies.

“Is this deep-sea port being made to benefit Myanmar?” said Ken Tun, founder and chief executive of Myanmar’s Parami Energy, the only local firm to be short-listed for the development. “If we have a deep sea port, but it’s not controlled by Myanmar, that’s a problem.”

One major concern for some members of the government is what happened in Sri Lanka. In 2008, a joint venture with China began building a deep-water port at Hambantota. When Sri Lanka couldn’t repay the loan for the project, it ended up ceding the port to China for 99 years last year in exchange for debt relief. “China is trying to influence political events in Myanmar in many ways,” Soe Win said in an interview. “But what we are afraid of is that we will end up like Sri Lanka.”

Lessons for Leaders Eying China’s Belt-and-Road Billions

Toe Aung Myint, permanent secretary of the Myanmar Ministry of Commerce, which oversees the project management committee, rejects the suggestion that the port would entail too much debt, saying construction would happen in stages.

“Myanmar and Sri Lanka are not the same,” Aung Myint said in an interview. “Only based on the success of the first phase, we will do another phase.”

CITIC directed questions regarding the port to the Myanmar government. “We are unable to disclose information regarding the negotiation to the public,” Zhang Yue, the head of CITIC Myanmar, said in an email.

Soe Win isn’t the only one worried about the long-term plans for Kyaukpyu. Located on the eastern edge of the Bay of Bengal, the town is almost directly opposite INS Varsha, where the Indian navy will base its new fleet of nuclear submarines.

A Myanmar government official familiar with China’s plans for Kyaukpyu said military attaches from the U.S., Australia and countries in Southeast Asia have all expressed concern that China wants to build a port that has strategic as well as economic advantages.

“China needs some sort of access or staging facilities in several different places in the Indian Ocean,” said David Brewster, a senior fellow at Australia’s National Security College and an expert on India-China maritime security. “Myanmar would be a good place to have a naval base.”

Myanmar’s government may have little alternative to a Chinese loan if it wants to build the port. The political outrage sparked in the U.S. and Europe over the treatment of the Rohingya minority has left it with few allies among developed nations.

Kyaukpyu, 400 kilometers (250 miles) north-west of the capital, Yangon, is in Rakhine state, where more than 600,000 Rohingya have been driven from their homes into neighbouring Bangladesh since last August, in what the United Nations’ top human rights official has called “ethnic cleansing.” While most of the clashes happened further north, the conflict rattled investors, prompting China to send a group of diplomats to Rakhine in December.

“They wanted to learn more about the security of their investments,” said Aung Dung, 71, chairman of the Kyaukpyu branch of the NLD, who met the delegation. “The Chinese have quite a lot going on down here.”

Pipeline Links

The town already has oil and gas loading terminals, built since 2013, that feed pipelines transporting the fuel directly to Yunnan province in Western China. A rail link is planned to connect the container port.

“Kyaukpyu is definitely growing,” Yan Myo Aung, 54, chairman of Kyaukpyu branch of the Arakan National Party, whose family operates a number of local retail businesses. “We hope that the Special Economic Zone will add to that.”

Shop owner Saw Maung Nu is one of many local residents who are anticipating a windfall.

“I built this house and shop here two years ago because of the development,” said Saw, 58, a father of eight, in Thaing Shaung, a smattering of houses outside Kyaukpyu in the center of the proposed industrial zone. “I thought all the people coming to work here might need to buy things.”

He said land prices have risen from $20,000 an acre to $50,000 an acre and he’s hoping the government will pay the market rate to buy him out.

Even without the potential military benefits of Kyaukpyu, the port’s commercial advantages make it a key part of China’s maritime Belt and Road strategy.

CITIC says the terminal would have an annual capacity for 4.9 million containers, more than the current throughput of Brazil’s biggest container terminal, as well as loading oil for the pipeline. With the rail link, it would give exporters in Yunnan a short-cut to the Indian Ocean, bypassing the disputed waters in the South China Sea and the congested Straits of Malacca. I have stressed this point "many a time"

“Yunnan is very important for them, it’s landlocked,” said Soe Win. “We will be happy if they use their Kyaukpyu port as a commercial port. But if they would like to turn it into a kind of military base, then we’ll be very, very sad.”

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 11 May 2018 16:29

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Pakistan: Lawyer files petition in Supreme Court to stop Chinese from buying land

LAHORE: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has been petitioned by a senior lawyer to stop the Chinese from acquiring proprietary rights of land in the country on the plea that they require it for the multi-billion dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

According to The Nation, the petition was filed by the Barrister Zafarullah Khan of the Watan Party.

Khan claimed that Chinese citizens were being given out-of-turn benefits in the name of CPEC and "were acquiring land on lease which was against the sovereignty of the state."

The over USD 60 billion CPEC is a collection of infrastructure projects started in 2013.

Barrister Khan said the Chinese continue to enjoy many other privileges as recreational parks and residential colonies were being established for them in Pakistan.

He claimed that now Pakistani citizens were equating the CPEC to the East India Company that led to British occupation of the Indian subcontinent between the 18th and 20th centuries.

Khan said that the CPEC agreement between Pakistan and China is a one-sided contract favouring Beijing and severely compromising Islamabad's sovereignty.

He asked the apex court to issue immediate directives to the government to review the terms and conditions of the CPEC accord and to stop the Chinese from directly investing in Pakistan.

Cheers Image

dhyana
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 May 2011 10:56
Location: sindoor

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby dhyana » 17 May 2018 12:32

Several cities left without power in Pakistan

A major breakdown in the country’s electricity transmission system early on Wednesday led to blackouts in major parts of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), as well as the federal capital Islamabad.


Now, CPEC is supposed to help with power generation, but that doesn't solve the power distribution problem, does it?

And even in the case of power plants purportedly implemented, it would seem that the 'truth' is a figment of the government's imagination...

For instance, I picked a random project from a list of a NGO website (for CPEC projects), generously selecting a Green solar plant... the "900MW" Quaid-e-Azam Solar Park in Bahawalpur.
http://www.cpecinfo.com/energy-generation

That same website states "100% energization achieved". But, let's go check Wiki and other sources, and the sordid tale of incompetence and outright thievery comes to light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/298250-sale-to-be-concluded-on-april-19-govt-gets-nine-bids-in-100mw-solar-power-plant-privatisation

Only the original 100MW online, and not a single watt more added in 3 years, despite the efficiencies of non-competitive bidding. Have they been sitting on their collective Musharraf's? Their Water and Power Development Authority did offer up this explanation:
Entire deal is shrouded in mystery and would create legal and contractual problems for everyone.


And a guaranteed tariff $0.15 per kWh? Seems to be about double what it should be.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 25 May 2018 03:56

X Posted on the Terrroristan Thread

Is China making Pakistan a client-state with its ‘debt-book diplomacy’?

Image

In Pakistan, China is the most active and positive economic force. So much so that continued cooperation between the two countries is supported by virtually all sides of this otherwise deeply divided country. Everyone from the Taliban to the secularist military leaders view Chinese investment as a boon to the country, the main source of job creation, and, in all truth, the most promising source of kickbacks for themselves.

It certainly is the case that the infrastructure projects part of China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative are the most significant economic development stimulus in the economically underdeveloped country, and the most likely to also have significant upsides for the people themselves, not just a handful of corrupt officials.

But it must also be acknowledged that China is not doing this out of the goodness of their heart. One aspect of this is quite uncontroversial: the strategic rival of China in Asia is India, which historically opposes Pakistan, so it makes sense to both China and Pakistan that they should align themselves geopolitically. The investments along the Indus River both strengthen Pakistan and entrench the country firmly in the Chinese sphere of influence, much to the perceived benefit of both parties.

What is less well-advertised are the terms of the cooperation, and the costs. Many of the infrastructure projects are financed through debt. They are Chinese projects built for China’s geopolitical and economic advantage, but they will be ostensibly owned by the Pakistani state, so the Pakistani state will pay for them – with loans from China.

By June 2019, Pakistan will owe Beijing $19 billion. But the interest rate on those loans average an astronomical 7% per annum, payable over 25-40 years. According to experts’ calculations, the cost of servicing the debt owed to China will average $7 to 8 billion per year, for the next 43 years, starting from now. To begin with, that will be between 0.5 to 1% of Pakistan’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

There is a reason why Pakistan is becoming increasingly dependent on Chinese loans. That is because the normal financial channels for sovereign debt would not extend such loans to Islamabad. No western investor would expect Pakistan to be able to pay off these kinds of debts on these kinds of terms.

Well, nor does China. But that is not an issue. In fact, that is the point. China has been extending loans on unsustainable terms throughout South-East Asia and the Pacific region. So what happens when things come to a head? Beijing will extend payment terms, or underwrite those parts of the debt which the debtor countries cannot afford – provided the local governments understand Beijing’s point of view on this issue of infrastructure, or that issue of geopolitical alignment, and so on.

Should any of the 16 countries identified by the US State Department as already under the sway of Chinese “debtbook diplomacy”, 17 now if we include Pakistan, try to wiggle free of Chinese impositions, they will most likely be confronted by the prospect of sovereign debt default. This would make any further economic development virtually impossible, and severely undermine their political stability in a region which is already volatile enough.

Pakistan, like so many other countries in the region, has its own good reasons for wanting closer relations to China at this moment in time. But if things go along the current trajectory, “cooperation” with China will become much less voluntary in the near future.

For now, this serves the interests of Pakistan, and especially the interests of the political decision-makers in Islamabad. But when China will come in and ask for concessions, Pakistan will have no choice but to acquiesce. And when that happens, the price will, of course, not be paid by the political elite. As always, it will be paid by the average citizen.

Cheers Image

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4662
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Neshant » 25 May 2018 13:03

The joke is going to be on China because Pakistan never pays it's debts.

Debt for equity swap will land China in even deeper red ink as the carrying costs of non performing loans grow.

China thinks it will profit from it down the road. But they are in for a surprise.

That 60 billion figure sure sounds bogus too - an inflated bill handed to Pakistan by claiming Chinese companies did a whole lot of work on projects worth billions when the bill in reality should be 10X lower.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 25 May 2018 15:09

Neshant wrote:The joke is going to be on China because Pakistan never pays it's debts.

Debt for equity swap will land China in even deeper red ink as the carrying costs of non performing loans grow.

China thinks it will profit from it down the road. But they are in for a surprise.

That 60 billion figure sure sounds bogus too - an inflated bill handed to Pakistan by claiming Chinese companies did a whole lot of work on projects worth billions when the bill in reality should be 10X lower.
Neshant Ji :

TATHASTU :D

Cheers Image

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8157
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 27 May 2018 09:54

And, that's how it is done. Han the carpenter always believed in the dictum: Measure once, cut twice.

China to roll over $500m loan to shore up Pakistan’s reserves

China has agreed to roll over a loan of $500 million that it has placed with the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) as the country’s official foreign currency reserves remain in a precarious position despite taking $44 billion in foreign loans in the past around five years.
The People’s Bank of China, through China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), had deposited $500 million with the SBP in June 2012. The loan is going to mature in the first week of June this year, but China has agreed to roll it over for one more year, said sources in the Ministry of Finance.
Pakistan cannot use the $500-million Chinese deposit and its only purpose is to shore up foreign currency reserves.
The reserves are barely enough for two months of imports


The gift that keeps on giving (well, at least twice in the past six years).

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1719906/1- ... -reserves/

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4662
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Neshant » 28 May 2018 03:52

^^ Its money down a rat hole.

China will be begging India to normalize trade relations with Pakistan in the years ahead as its (alleged) 60 billion investment in that country (more like 1/10th the amount of the inflated bill they handed pakistan), runs deep into the red.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 28 May 2018 22:27

Neshant wrote:^^ Its money down a rat hole.

China will be begging India to normalize trade relations with Pakistan in the years ahead as its (alleged) 60 billion investment in that country (more like 1/10th the amount of the inflated bill they handed pakistan), runs deep into the red.


Neshant ji,

This seems to be the paki army's maximalist position on CPEC now. It is also a ploy to extract money from china by the crore commanders to "accommodate" India and drag us into the CPEC scam. But this is the result of hard pushing by the hans to get the pakis to agree to and also to consider making such a proposal to India.

If India takes the bait then they will drop the demand for "reciprocal transit rights to Nepal and Bangladesh" in a spirit of friendly cooperation so that it appears to be a win win for all sides. Its pure taqiya and snake oil.

The pakis and the hans have just floated a trial balloon to see the reaction by the GoI.

Normalising ties with India


India’s participation in CPEC could be agreed without prejudice to Pakistan or India’s positions on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. However, India would need to extend Pakistan reciprocal transit rights to Nepal and Bangladesh.

Expansion of bilateral trade could be mutually beneficial so long as Pakistan is provided assurances against deindustrialisation by subsidised Indian exports.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 29 May 2018 02:42

India’s participation in CPEC could be agreed without prejudice to Pakistan or India’s positions on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. However, India would need to extend Pakistan reciprocal transit rights to Nepal and Bangladesh.

Expansion of bilateral trade could be mutually beneficial so long as Pakistan is provided assurances against deindustrialisation by subsidised Indian exports.
chetak Ji :

Methinks could might be that the Chinawala having got no favourable response from India on joining CPEC have asked their minions to try and invoke India to join CPEC along with India's conditions to do so.

I would hope that India goes into the Maunvrat Mode on the Subject! As they say "Heard Unheard"

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 29 May 2018 20:32

Peregrine wrote:
India’s participation in CPEC could be agreed without prejudice to Pakistan or India’s positions on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. However, India would need to extend Pakistan reciprocal transit rights to Nepal and Bangladesh.

Expansion of bilateral trade could be mutually beneficial so long as Pakistan is provided assurances against deindustrialisation by subsidised Indian exports.
chetak Ji :

Methinks could might be that the Chinawala having got no favourable response from India on joining CPEC have asked their minions to try and invoke India to join CPEC along with India's conditions to do so.

I would hope that India goes into the Maunvrat Mode on the Subject! As they say "Heard Unheard"

Cheers Image


Sirji,

the main push will still come from the hans only, being the malik and all. The paki is just the naukar assuring the preferred customer that they will not cause trouble, mostly because the malik is carrying a very big stick :wink: .

Do you remember those days, many moons ago when the hans kept saying publicly that they would never allow India to participate in the CPEC, those early days when India did not even attend the big CPEC summit that was being pushed by the hans as a world beating project whose economic benefits would be reserved only for the "favored few".

why are the hans expecting India to fund paki projects?? Are we crazy to fund our enemy??

have the hans run out of money?? Is that why they are turning to India to try and drag us into their scam??

In case of default, are we in any position to take over paki assets for a 99 years like the hans did for hambantota??

The pakis will not default on han funded projects because of the fear factor but they will purposely default on Indian funded projects because of taqiya and sharia.



Beijing wants India, others to join CPEC due to Pakistan's appetite, says Chinese media


Dec 30, 2016,

"There is an endless demand for investment in Pakistan, and although it is possible that Chinese investment in the economic corridor will increase, funding from just one country is unlikely to satisfy Pakistan's appetite," an article in the state-run Global Times said.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

The article comes days after a top Pakistani Army General said India should "shun enmity" with Pakistan and "join the CPEC along with Iran, Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries and enjoy its benefits".



Why China is pressuring India to join OBOR meeting

Mar 30, 2017,

BEIJING: China is putting pressure on India to participate in an international conference on its One Belt, One Road or Silk Road programme next May after realizing that showcasing the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) would not be enough to sell the OBOR idea.
This is evident from several comments from Chinese officials and experts about the Indian reluctance to join the OBOR program that involves creating road, rail and port infrastructure connecting China to the world.

A Chinese expert has now accused India of taking a “biased view” of the OBOR program. The expert, Lin Minwang of the Institute of International Studies at Shaghai's Fudan University, even tried to shame India by citing some reports about Russia expressing interest in it.

"New Delhi may also feel embarrassed as Moscow has actively responded to the Belt and Road (OBOR) initiative and will build an economic corridor with China and Mongolia,” Lin said adding, “Since the beginning of this year, there have been reports on Russia and Iran seeking to join the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which will likely put India in a more awkward position".

However, Russia has not sanctioned any specific programme for connecting with OBOR apart from making a few statements about its interests.

China expects heads of at least 20 countries to participate in the OBOR conference, when it will try to persuade governments in Asia and Europe to join the programme. Beijing desperately wants India to participate because that would make it attractive to other South Asian countries.

China is sore because India's reluctance has made it difficult for China to extend the OBOR network to Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. But Lin maintained that these countries are also interested in joining the program.

He said, "Beijing has expressed, on various occasions, its anticipation to see New Delhi join the grand project and to make concerted effort with India in building economic corridors involving China, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Myanmar."


Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4662
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Neshant » 29 May 2018 23:31

OBOR has no end user market.

Building expensive roads, ports that hardly see any traffic is a money losing venture. Overland routes to the Indian ocean are way too expensive from production centers in China even if they could find an end user market to dump their surplus capacity on.

They want India on board this scheme to use access our market to offset the losses these project are and will continue to face. But who would be dumb enough to underwrite their strategic expansion plans?

In the next global economic crash, all this overpriced infrastructure is going to be on an 80% off sale.

Even then one has to think whether it is worth buying into a road passing thousands of KMS through nowhere with no clear plan of how its going to make money.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 442
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby VKumar » 29 May 2018 23:41

And passing through hostile territory with low consumer base, also difficult terrain that makes both travel as well as maintenance expensive.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 30 May 2018 00:12

Peregrine wrote:chetak Ji :

Methinks could might be that the Chinawala having got no favourable response from India on joining CPEC have asked their minions to try and invoke India to join CPEC along with India's conditions to do so.

I would hope that India goes into the Maunvrat Mode on the Subject! As they say "Heard Unheard"

Cheers Image
chetak wrote:Sirji,

the main push will still come from the hans only, being the malik and all. The paki is just the naukar assuring the preferred customer that they will not cause trouble, mostly because the malik is carrying a very big stick :wink: .

Do you remember those days, many moons ago when the hans kept saying publicly that they would never allow India to participate in the CPEC, those early days when India did not even attend the big CPEC summit that was being pushed by the hans as a world beating project whose economic benefits would be reserved only for the "favored few".

why are the hans expecting India to fund paki projects?? Are we crazy to fund our enemy??

have the hans run out of money?? Is that why they are turning to India to try and drag us into their scam??

In case of default, are we in any position to take over paki assets for a 99 years like the hans did for hambantota??

The pakis will not default on han funded projects because of the fear factor but they will purposely default on Indian funded projects because of taqiya and sharia.

..................{Rest Snipped}.................
chetak Ji :

Your have made a great analysis of the Chinese Imperatives to need India’s presence in the CPEC-GOBAR Grand Design.

I fully agree that Beijing wants India to join the CPEC-GOBAR, but we must take into consideration why do India, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Myanmar need this system.

INDIA : It has already started the Chabahar Link – So no need for the CPEC GOBAR!

What are the benefits of CPEC GOBAR that will be reaped by Sri Lanka, Nepal, Nepal and Myanmar i.e. how will it benefit their Exports and make the Transportation of their Imports more Economical via the CPEC GOBAR.

Think Hard Sir, Think Deep!

The Answer is : FIDDLESTICKS! BASTA!!

What are to the Benefits of China joining CPEC GOBAR to China? Ah! That is the what we must consider.

An invasion of the Indian market for Goods from Xinjiang – mostly Textiles and Chinese products from South Central China i.e. Yunnan, and it neighbouring “Provinces" in South Central China. The Big Prize will be TERRORISM BEING PERPETRATED BY TERRORISTANIS in India.

Thus India should stay away from CPEC GOBAR and leave Terroristan and the other like minded Countries to wallow in the Bovine, Canine, Equestrian and all other Faecal Droppings!

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 05 Jun 2018 19:14

X Posted on the Terroristani Thread

CPEC 2018 Summit: Business? Yes. As usual? No!

CONCLUSION

To sum up, the above analysis shows that CPEC projects are most likely to bring positive net economic and social benefits to Pakistan, provided we strengthen our response and absorptive capacity in terms of business model, institutions and policies.

Those who think that CPEC would be a game-changer should wait to make such bold claims until we are able to design and implement export led investment in the manufacturing sector in the nine industrial zones to be built under CPEC. At present, the average annual investment of $3-4 billion under the CPEC amounts to only 6-8pc of our annual investment spending of $45-50 billion.

Similarly, those who are propagating unnecessary fear and despair by arguing that Pakistan would become so entrapped in debt burden that it would lose its economic sovereignty and forced to cede its territory i.e., Gwadar port to China are sadly mistaken.

The analysis above clearly shows that Pakistan can easily absorb even the peak payments from its own foreign exchange earnings but it would require concerted efforts to keep the export growth rate above 10pc annually. This is not such a difficult goal to achieve as we have done so in the past and under the new energy supply scenario, which pushed our exports down the curve, it is possible to get back on that path.

Image

Cheers Image

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10948
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 11 Jun 2018 21:58

[size=85]CROSS POSTED FROM TERRORISTAN [/size]

Rude Shock For The Pakis ! Sulplise Sulplise ! CPEC Is Not A Gift- Chini Official :mrgreen:

'CPEC is not a gift': Professor Jia Yu at the CPEC 2018 Summit
By Dr. Jia Yu

THE economic relations between the two countries have been phenomenal, especially since the turn of the century. Early economic cooperation was based on political and security interests, like Karakoram Highway, nuclear capability, arms trade etc. Also, it was focussed on energy and mining, but there is now a need for diversification. Pakistan has to take advantage of China’s rise on the global scene. There is a tendency towards having even better economic relations based on market forces and there is a lot of under-exploited potential. Pakis can flex their Islami muscles on the coat-tails of the atheist Chinese :roll:
When it comes to win-win cooperation, of course there is a lot at stake for both countries. Pakistan’s interests lie in promoting growth, private sector investment, employment, exports, technology and transfer of skills as well as in the relocation of Chinese firms. China’s interests lie in overseas production bases, new export markets, energy cooperation, and its need for production capacity relocation.
So, Pakistan- specially Gwadar - is essentially going to be a Chinese re-supply base. And probably a sub headquarter for the Chinese firms to deal with Middle East and European customers . And of course to unload the surplus Chini maal into the Paki domestic market to capture market share from the domestic producers . Did not know that this is what the Pakis were signing into , when they went gung-ho about the CPEC :mrgreen:
A successful execution of CPEC will ensure economic progress and stability for both the countries, particularly along the border region.
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a $900 billion investment, with finance channels targeting green development. It connects more than 60 countries, 60pc of the global population, 30pc of global GDP, and 35pc of global trade.CPEC, a central link of BRI, cuts 10,000 miles of shipping by sea, and connects ports from Shanghai to Africa and Europe through Gwadar.
So, there goes the Paki assumption that China will "defend" Pakistan against "Indian agression" :D
If things work out smoothly, Pakistan could use the FDI in its power and transport infrastructure and then in the manufacturing sector with the experience of leveraging SEZs to unlock this trio’s potential for rapid gains in job-rich industrialisation. This can be done without unrealistic pre-requirements as the work to lay the foundations for industrialisation has already begun.
Again what she is saying is that CPEC is not a "gift horse". The Pakis will have to WORK !!!
The potentials are outlined below along with policy options needed to convert them into actions. At regional level, Pakistan has been growing steadily in terms of GDP per capita since 2010, according to the World Bank. Investors are very keen to a growing economy. Consistent growth of purchasing power (GDP per capita) really matters for domestic consumption; therefore the growth rate must be maintained to catch up with competitors.Pakistan is one of the world’s largest reservoirs of human capital and has a tremendous potential consumer base. In 2016, the country was home to 193,203,476 people, being the world’s 6th most populous country. World Economic Forum estimates that it will be among the top five populous countries in the world by 2060.
Water, food, power, education, shelter etc etc - who is going to "take care" of these basic needs. And of course, there is the Mullah factor to "worry about" :roll:
However, a large population is necessary but not sufficient to attract investors. The population has to be equipped with adequate skills to meet industrialisation needs. Effort is also needed to attract global buyers.Thirdly, China and Pakistan have long hailed each other as “all-weather friends”, or “iron brothers” as close as “lips and teeth” in the words of The Economist. There is already solid trust between the two countries, but the Pakistani officials need to visit China more often to convince the private investors for investment opportunities in Pakistan.
Already the Chinese have grabbed Paki market in some sectors , so what "private investment opportunity is she talking about ?
The CPEC will improve road, air, sea, and energy infrastructure. It will ensure land, sea and air security. It will enhance trade and investment facilitation and will establish free trade areas that meet high standards, maintain closer economic ties, and deepen political trust. Also, it will enhance cultural exchanges and promote mutual understanding, peace, and friendship between the people of the two countries. :((
Having said that, the CPEC should not be considered just a ‘gift’ from China, but the Pakistani government should also establish an FDI Advisory Board that shall promote the new image of the country. This includes visiting China more often and ensuring that investors understand the opportunities and benefits available under the CPEC.
Cut ties with Massa, forget about the Islamic Ideology . Is this what she is suggesting :eek:
There are six steps to identify the right industries, as narrated by Prof. Justin Lin. They include identifying countries with consistent growth, with GDP per capita three times as Pakistan’s or was at the same level as Pakistan 30 years ago.
So, she is again "hinting" that Pakistan hitch its economic wagon to the Chinese mother -ship :mrgreen:
Development can start from ‘low-hanging fruit’ through SEZs. The government should attract first movers to invest and help the pioneers succeed.CPEC should not be taken for granted. Proactive and systematic approach is needed for attracting investors, together with strong market factors.Despite long-term and solid trust at the government level, more mutual dialogues and exchanges need to be enhanced in the private sector. Let the peoples get to understand each other.CPEC and SEZs are open for all investors, including those from other countries beyond China.

My take: Under the gamechanger CPEC , Pakis will be the "wage-earners" while the profits will go to the Chinese ! ( But only if the Pakis "work" and not goof off as they have been doing for the last 71 years !)

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4662
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Neshant » 17 Jun 2018 21:20

No way is China made goods getting duty free access to India via Myanmar.

End duty free status for Myanmar trade if that occurs.

-------

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/op ... 155720.ece


While Myanmar has resisted Chinese pressures to undertake projects on its soil that face public opposition, like the $6 billion, 6,000 MW Myitsone dam, China will keep up the pressure to get its way, as it has done in the case of the Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka. China is in the process of building massive energy, industry and transport corridors through Myanmar to its landlocked Yunnan Province.

Beijing is set to invest $7.3 billion in building a deep-sea port in Kyaukpyu in the Bay of Bengal and $2.7 billion for an industrial park in a Special Economic Zone at Kyaukpyu. This port is also the terminal for an oil pipeline and a parallel gas pipeline from Kyaukpyu to Kunming, the capital of China’s Yunnan Province. These projects are designed to bypass the Straits of Malacca, by enabling supply of oil and gas to the landlocked Yunnan Province by the pipeline.

Moreover, efforts will be made to export Chinese products manufactured in the Kyaukpyu Industrial Park to India, while getting duty-free access by benefiting from the free-trade agreement between India and Myanmar.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8157
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 21 Jun 2018 23:51

Circular debt and late-payments: ‘Chinese investors may withdraw from Pak power sector’
:((

Amid the ballooning power sector’s circular debt, private sector investors have expressed the apprehension that Chinese investors may withdraw their investment from the sector due to late payment of their dues.
Mansoor said that due to delay in payments to the bank, they are paying extra mark up and the government is not ready to pay it. Chinese investors also have reservations over late payment interest and they may withdraw their investment, he said.
Due to delay in payments to the bank, they are paying extra mark up and the government is not ready to pay it. Chinese investors also have reservation over late payment interest
HUBCO CEO further said that America has changed its policy regarding coal power projects and China is the only country that is providing help for the coal projects.
He said that the average price of electricity in Pakistan is Rs 13 per unit which is only Rs 7 in India, he added.
there is presence of oil mafia and the country is being kept on the ventilator (Ganja Sharif effect?)
He said that the power sector debt is more than Rs 1000 billion :eek:
“if we didn’t change the practice the country will be in big crises”.


https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/331650 ... wer-sector

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10948
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 23 Jun 2018 05:58

CROSS POSTED FROM TERRORISTAN THREAD

CPEC ( AKA Colonizing Pakistan To Enrich China !) "Warning Alarm" Being Sounded By European Think Tank :twisted:

China trying to colonise Pakistan via CPEC, says European think tank

AMSTERDAM – Pakistan’s growing dependence on China for development projects such as a $62-billion economic corridor under the Belt and Road Initiative could turn Islamabad into a “colony” that will require Beijing for its day-to-day survival, a European think tank has warned in a new report.
Pakistan is always looking for a "free lunch" ever since inception . That is why they had enlisted for CENTO, SEATO, and more recently the so-called War On Terrorism. And in the process they and their fauj got a lot of "free goodies" from Massa , but still they lost half of their country and Kashmir is still Indian owned :mrgreen: The Chinis operate on a "plane" different than the Amreekis . As experience with other countries prove, they do not believe in the concept of "free lunch" . The so -called game-changer ( CPEC !) will come with a heavy price for the future generation of Pakis !
Image

In a report titled “CPEC – an unfair deal for common Pakistanis?” issued on Thursday, Amsterdam-based European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS) said the connectivity project would bring funds to Pakistan but it was unclear whether it would positively impact the local people.
The local industry is already "screaming" that the Chinis are going to flood the local market with cheaper goods made in China . And of course, the contamination of Malsi plus the potential of cultural clash is bound to occur with the presence of so many Chinese in Pakiland . And how long before the Mullahs start screaming about the "polluting influence" of the Chinese :twisted:
“The Chinese master plan conceives a picture where the majority of Pakistani socio-economic sectors are deeply penetrated by Chinese companies and Chinese culture; thus, Islamabad puts itself at risk of facing its finances and societal structure experiencing a colossal wreck,” the report said.
IMO, the recent foreign exchange crisis has largely been because of the large loan payments to Chinese companies for purchase of CPEC products and materials and "expert" Chini advice . Due diligence of the potential outflows was obviously not done !!!
China has taken advantage of Pakistan’s isolation on the global stage because of allegations of sponsoring terrorism and “this patronising attitude will only turn Pakistan into a colony which will always require China for its day-to-day survival”, it cautioned.
But it seems that the Pakis do not mind being "embraced" by the Chinese . ( as long as they can get "protection" from India :mrgreen: )
China describes Pakistan as an “all-weather friend”, but the “truth is that their ‘friendship’ has always had an embedded enduring imbalance; Pakistan is in China’s debt and the debt will only deepen”, the report said.
Again, no free lunch in "international relations" !
The 15-year megaproject shows how Pakistan is voluntarily becoming “progressively subjugated by China” and Islamabad has “subscribed to an unfair deal for which common Pakistanis will eventually suffer”, it said.
To date, the Paki National Assembly has not been privy to the detailed CPEC Agreements !!
The report noted China’s history of trade relations with African nations, which showed it is very careful about investments and “quite rigid in receiving its money back”. :D
It is possible that Land of Pakistan will fall in the ownership of the Chinese. They will extract a heavy price in case of loan default !
A combination of high upfront tariffs, interest rates and surcharges will complicate Pakistan’s efforts to repay loans, and this could force the country to increase its domestic and export prices, making it difficult to compete with neighbours and other countries which have lower prices, the report argued.

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10948
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 28 Jun 2018 16:14

X POSTED FROM TERRORISTAN
Another Paki Anal-ist Sounds CPEC Alarm ! Points Out Similarities Between Hambantota And Gwadar.

Lessons of Hambantota
June 28, 2018
Khurram Husain

A LARGE number of people have once again begun asking whether Pakistan is walking in the footsteps of Sri Lanka in its growing engagement with China. The new talk has been sparked by a long article in the New York Times that, for the first time, provides details thus far unknown about how the Hambantota Port project was conceived and executed.
People have long looked upon this project, which saddled Sri Lanka with debts so large that the country was forced to go to the Chinese asking for rescheduling some of the payments. The request was granted in a deal that saw China swap equity in the project for debt, effectively taking over the port and 15,000 acres of surrounding countryside on which to build an industrial zone. In effect, Sri Lanka had to cede control over strategic territory to China in return for debt relief. So, naturally, many are now asking: might the same thing happen in Pakistan in the case of Gwadar?
The Chinese have "suggested" the use of their own currency in the Gawadar area. The Pakis have shot down the idea for now !
One of the most damning details revealed in the article relates to payments made by China Harbour, the company that built Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka, to the close associates of the president Rajapaksa who had approved and launched the project. He was ousted from power after losing an election in January 2015 to one of his own close associates.
There were some earlier reports in the Paki press that the brother of Nawaz, Shahbaaz was money from the Chinese for the Lahore or Multan Metro project . He has obviously denied this !
“Chinese officials and the China Harbour company went to great lengths to keep relations strong with Mr Rajapaksa” the article says. “At least $7.6 million was dispensed from China Harbour’s account at Standard Chartered Bank to affiliates of Mr Rajapaksa’s campaign,” it continues, citing a government document that the reporter has seen.
One by-product of the IMF approach was that much of the financing details of Chinese projects had to be opened up before fund authorities, who need a detailed picture of all inflows and outflows scheduled from any economy that they are bailing out before they can commit any funds.
As far as Pakistan is concerned , if they go begging to IMF again, they may see this condition imposed. Even the Paki MNA members have not seen the detailed CPEC agreement - the concessions that may have been given to the Chinese !
In short, the numbers of the Sri Lanka story are far larger in Pakistan. Exactly how large we do not yet know, but I have a feeling we will soon enough. Add to this the fact that payment-related outflows on CPEC projects have now commenced since most of them have begun commercial operations, and the figures are set to rise further. Recall that the last IMF report saw Pakistan’s external financing requirements rising to $45bn by end of 2018, and you’ll get the idea.
In any event, the financial story of these projects needs closer scrutiny. Now that Pakistan is approaching a moment that Sri Lanka passed in 2015, and Malaysia passed in May, perhaps an opportunity to more publicly evaluate the financials of these projects is opening up before us. There are genuine grounds to be concerned about what exactly we have signed up for in all the CPEC projects, and those concerns deserve to be addressed in a more open manner than what the PML-N government allowed for.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10443
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 28 Jun 2018 16:43

Why oh why are the bakis worried?

Is any price high enough to pay when it has the possibility to play havoc (In the baki imagination) with the Indian desire for regional hegemony.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 28 Jun 2018 18:44

pankajs wrote:Why oh why are the bakis worried?

Is any price high enough to pay when it has the possibility to play havoc (In the baki imagination) with the Indian desire for regional hegemony.


The hans have used the hyped up anti India sentiments by our ever greedy neighbors to inveigle their way into the inner political circles of the targeted OBOR countries, bamboozle them and get them to sign on the dotted line. Now the very same neighbors are realizing that, warts and all, India was being practical and was never venomous or fatal to their cause.

schadenfreude comes to mind but we should mind our own business.

Our day will come and soon.

The han economy is slowly but inexorably heading toward the crapper.

Many bullets will be used there before some solution is found.

In the meanwhile, backed subtly by the implied threat of military muscle, the han's "hambanthota" flag is being stealthily unfurled in many of our neighbor's backyards, a living symbol of the han's military deceit and also their dubious political intent. Where hitler had the grace of a sledgehammer, the hans have floated in on the wings of hope, of bringing in economic prosperity where ever they land and having landed, the han sledgehammer becomes visible.

In their minds, the hans would have seen the CPEC in pakiland going very differently to the complete and deep mess that they seem to have landed themselves in now.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 30 Jun 2018 23:37

CPEC is no gift and China’s brotherhood is no favour

China’s friendship towards Pakistan should not be taken for granted, as any country’s policies are always guided by national interests. CPEC is indeed a Chinese policy guided by its wider strategic and economic interests in the world

The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has come to symbolise a strong bond of friendship between the two countries. Pakistan has ardently welcomed Chinese investment under CPEC and described it as a sign of the brotherly relations between Beijing and Islamabad. However, in international politics friends and foes are determined by national interest. The same principal applies to CPEC as far as China is concerned. Chinese investments under CPEC are not a gift. They are a manifestation of China’s vision and farsightedness in pursuing its national interest. It needs CPEC as much as Pakistan does, if not more.

Strategically, CPEC enables China to escape its so-called Malacca Dilemma. Presently, a major bulk of China’s trade, including 80 per cent of its oil imports, is routed through the Strait of Malacca in the South China Sea. The United States has a strong military presence in the region. In 2012, the then US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta revealed that America would shift 60 per cent of its naval fleet to the Asia Pacific region by 2020. America is also supporting China’s neighbours in territorial disputes over various islands in the region. China’s rival India also possesses a well-equipped naval base at the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal. American military presence in the region and its strategic ties with New Delhi, has stoked fears in China of a possible blockade of the Strait of Malacca. CPEC provides an alternative route through the friendly territory of Pakistan. Moreover, the Gwadar Port places China at the mouth of the Persian Gulf through which it imports most of its oil. Therefore, in the future China can be expected to station its naval forces at the port in order to guard its oil supplies.

Economically, CPEC offers many dividends to China. The corridor reduces China’s trading distance by around 8,000 km. This will also decrease the transportation time from 30 days to less than a week. Thus, the corridor provides a shorter route to markets in the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Besides, it is a land-based route offering greater safety and security compared to the oceanic route.

The so-called ‘Security through Development’ is also possible through CPEC. The corridor will be a major source of development in China’s restive province of Xinjiang. Economic growth leading to jobs and prosperity reduces the incentive for people to join militant organisations like the East Turkestan Islamist Movement. The Chinese have often been irked by terrorists infiltrating its territory from Pakistan. If CPEC accrues well distributed development in Pakistan, particularly Balochistan, peace and stability is likely to prevail in the country. In this way, China can also ensure a peaceful neighbourhood and prevent cross-border terrorism.

China is likely to receive the lion’s share of revenue from CPEC. Pakistan’s ex-Minister for Ports and Shipping has already declared that China will get 91 per cent share of the revenue from Gwadar port. The bilateral balance of trade already favours Beijing. The corridor can be expected to usher in a flood of Chinese products into Pakistan. Besides, Beijing will also reduce the cost of its imports and exports due to the reduced trading distance and transportation time.

Iran has expressed a keen interest in becoming part of CPEC. It is eager to export its oil and gas while China needs energy resources to drive its vast economy. CPEC provides an ideal linkage between the two countries. China can also offset the strategic cooperation between Tehran and New Delhi through robust economic interdependence with Iran. Additionally, CPEC provides an outlet to landlocked Central Asian States. In this way, it enables Beijing to expand its economic and strategic clout in the region.

China’s capacity to grant loans also places the country in a position of strength. Sri Lanka is already reeling from the effects of Chinese debt. It had to lease out its Hambantota port to China for 99 years as a consequence of not being able to honour its debt commitments. Pakistan is also borrowing loans from China to finance projects under CPEC. If it too fails to return the loans in time, one can expect Beijing to dictate terms to Islamabad to its own advantage.

Finally, CPEC is a flagship project of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Whether BRI will translate into reality or remain a farfetched dream is likely to be determined by the fate of CPEC. Therefore, Beijing is eager to write CPEC off as a great success story.

China’s friendship towards Pakistan should not be taken for granted. A country’s policies ought to be guided by national interests. CPEC is indeed a Chinese policy guided by its wider strategic and economic interests in the world. On the contrary, the lack of transparency on CPEC shown by the former government in Pakistan raises an important question: Is Pakistan’s CPEC policy guided by national interest or personal motives?
Cheers Image

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10037
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 03 Jul 2018 11:09

A Blast from the past.

Old-time BRF favourite, retired Uniformed Jihadi of the Punjabi Dominated Military of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, “Pagal Sehgal” aka Ikram Sehgal, pops up after a long hiatus, at least to my knowledge as I have not seen any literary output from him for a few years.

So here Pagal Sehgal touting CPEC :

Misconceptions about CPEC

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23125
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 05 Jul 2018 07:17

‘Rising discontent against CPEC in Pakistan’ - Saibal Dasgupta, ToI
The International Crisis Group has reported widespread discontent with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) among the local people over issues like inadequate employment and the overbearing presence of the military in civilian life along the 2,700km corridor.

“People in Gwadar area have borne the aggressive actions of the military in the past. They are now worried about the overbearing military presence,”
Richard Atwood, ICG’s director of policy, told TOI over the phone from Brussels.

Gwadar port is a key element of the CPEC as China hopes to access the Arabian Sea and use it to open up an alternative sea route for its exports. The area falls in restive Balochistan province, home to a major insurgency problem that has resulted in heavy military presence.

The ICG report is likely to force politicians to pay attention to the rising discontent since it comes weeks ahead of July 25 elections in Pakistan.

The Brussels-based non-profit organisation said the $62 billion CPEC may result in political tensions and animosity unless Pakistan and China take immediate steps to mitigate existing concerns of common people.

“Pakistan’s economy clearly needs reform to better serve its people, and many officials say CPEC will help in this regard,” it said. “But as currently rolled out, the corridor risks aggravating political tension, widening social divides and generating new sources of conflict in Pakistan.”

China is desperate to avoid incidents that can upset the project because it the best showcase for Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative which it wants to spread across all continents. Some areas along the corridor has seen a rise in anti-Chinese sentiment due to the displacement of communities to make way for infrastructure projects, without clear details or resettlement plans, the report said. Besides, militants have killed scores of Pakistanis for being involved with the CPEC,
it said.

ICG even raised doubts about CPEC’s ability to deliver economic gains to Pakistan despite repeated claims along those lines by politicians in Pakistan and China.

“While it is too early to assess if CPEC can deliver the economic gains Islamabad promises, the project risks inflaming long-standing tensions between the centre and smaller federal units, and within provinces over inequitable economic development and resource distribution,” the report said.

The CPEC plan involves constructing a network of transport, energy, industrial and agricultural projects that will stretch 2,700km — from the port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea to Kashgar prefecture in China’s westernmost region, Xinjiang.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1059
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby dinesha » 06 Jul 2018 12:04

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: Opportunities and Risks
The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, opened in 2015, could bring needed jobs and investment to Pakistan. But many projects also risk widening social divides and heightening political tensions along the route. With Beijing’s support, Islamabad should seek the public’s input to ensure equity in economic gains.
https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south- ... -and-risks

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2668
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby kit » 07 Jul 2018 03:16

the CPEC for dummies

movie dialogue from the Fast 5

Let me tell you a true story. Five hundred years ago, the Portuguese and the Spanish came here, each trying to get the country from their natives. The Spaniards arrived, guns blazing, determined to prove who was boss. The natives killed every single Spaniard. Personally, I prefer the methods of the Portuguese. They came bearing gifts. Mirrors, scissors, trinkets. Things that the natives couldn’t get on their own, but to continue receiving them, they had to work for the Portuguese. And that’s why all Brazilians speak Portuguese today. Now, if you dominate the people with violence, they will eventually fight back because they have nothing to lose. And that’s the key. I go into the favelas and give them something to lose. Electricity, running water, school rooms for their kids. And for that taste of a better life, I own them.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sunnyP and 19 guests