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.
Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 18 Nov 2018 23:16

X Posted on the Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat Thread

Pence-Xi showdown at APEC shows US-China divide only widening – Bloomberg

US Vice President Mike Pence traded sharp barbs with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in back-to-back speeches at a regional summit, showing that neither country appears to be giving ground in an escalating trade war.

Xi received applause on Saturday when he told the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Papua New Guinea that implementing tariffs and breaking up supply chains was “short-sighted” and “doomed to failure.” He called for a stronger World Trade Organization and defended his signature Belt-and-Road Initiative, saying it’s “not a trap as some people have labelled it.”

Speaking moments later, Pence told delegates the US offers countries in the region “a better option’’ for economic and diplomatic relations than Beijing’s heavy-handed approach. He warned against taking Chinese loans, saying the US “doesn’t drown our partners in a sea of debt” nor offer “a constricting belt or a one-way road.”

The back-and-forth on a cruise ship docked in Port Moresby, the capital, suggested the world’s biggest economies remained far from a deal to end a damaging trade war even after President Donald Trump said he was optimistic about a resolution. Trump and Xi are scheduled to meet a few weeks from now at the Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires.

Trump told reporters Friday that the Chinese response to US trade demands was largely complete but was missing four or five big issues. Those comments helped US stocks erase losses, as investors bet on whether Trump will impose even more tariffs on Chinese goods than the $250 billion already in place. China has slapped tariffs on $110 billion in imports from the US in retaliation.

On Saturday, Pence warned that Trump could still put more tariffs on China.

“We hope for better, but the United States will not change course until China changes its ways,” he said. Later, Pence told reporters he was “very hopeful” the US and China could reach a deal, but “things have to change” for that to happen.

“We’re in a very strong position,’’ Pence said when asked whether there was a deadline to end the trade war. “The American people know that we have to do something to reset this relationship with China economically. So, I don’t think there’s a timetable.”

Xi gave no indication of giving in on some key US demands, including an end to technology transfer, support for state-run enterprises, and giving up on its Made in China 2025 plan to lead the world in key industries. He said intellectual property rights are important to protect innovation but they shouldn’t widen the digital gap between countries.

Xi also made a veiled reference to a new grouping known as “the Quad” that aims to counter China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific. Consisting of the US, Japan, India and Australia, the group met in Singapore in the past week to discuss ways to cooperate.

“Attempts to form exclusive blocs or impose one’s will on others should be rejected,” Xi said. “History has shown that confrontation, whether in the form of a cold war, a hot war or a trade war, will produce no winners.”

China’s growing military prowess and debt-fuelled economic aid to smaller countries has increased concerns that it could seek a base for its armed forces in the Pacific or Indian Oceans. The nation’s growing influence in Papua New Guinea was on display in Port Moresby: dozens of red Chinese flags line a new six-lane highway built by China, while a giant billboard shows Xi shaking hands with Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

Pence said on Saturday the US would partner with Papua New Guinea and Australia in redeveloping the Lombrum Naval Base on Manus Island.

Still, while US allies like Australia welcome American firepower in the region, they also worry about its tactics on trade. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison used his speech at APEC to strongly criticise the US-China trade war while inviting other nations to participate in a revamped Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“Tit-for-tat protectionism and threats of trade wars are in no one’s interests economically, and undermine the authority of the global and regional trading rules that benefit us all,” Morrison said.

Trump’s withdrawal from the TPP last year and his push for bilateral trade deals are causing concern among allies, according to Ashley Townshend, director of the foreign policy and defense program at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

‘Damaging’

“By withdrawing from multilateral trade agreements and pursuing unilateral tit-for-tat tariffs that are damaging not just for the US and China, but for the broader regional and global trading system, the Trump administration is putting itself at odds with America’s Asian allies and partners,” he said. “That’s the concern.”

Pence is representing Trump at the summits after the president opted not to attend becoming the first US head of state to skip the marquee Asian conferences since 2013.

The vice president said he spoke twice with Xi during the summit, “briefly and candidly,” and told him Trump was looking forward to meeting him in Argentina.

Pence said he encouraged Xi to come to the “G20 understanding that their markets have to open up, that President Trump believes that a deal is possible.”

“But we also believe we’re in a very strong position,” Pence told reporters Sunday. “And we will continue to stand firm to achieve the kind of free, fair and reciprocal trading relationship that the American people want."

Cheers Image

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Neshant » 03 Dec 2018 03:16

Trying to enslave Pakistan through debt.

----

China rules out giving hard cash to Pakistan

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... 911405.cms

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 03 Dec 2018 08:32

^^^ X posted from the Pakistan Economic Stress Watch thread.

The Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s Higher than Himalaya’s, Deeper than Indian Ocean, As Close as Lips to Teeth, Sweeter than Honey, Stronger than Steel Iron Brother, PRC, is loath to bail out the Islamic Republic with Hard Cash. Interview of Long Dingbin, the Chinese Consul-General (CCG) in Lahore by Geo TV.

'Instead of hard cash, China to provide multiple bailout packages to Pakistan'

From here:

Clicky Geo

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21064
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Prem » 09 Dec 2018 02:51

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/06/br ... e-blunder/
One Belt, One Road, One Big Mistake

s Xi’s trillion-dollar development strategy has snaked away from the Eurasian heartland and into the South Pacific, western Africa, and Latin America, concern has grown. Many Americans fear that the Belt and Road Initiative is an extension of efforts by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to undermine the security and economic architecture of the international order. China’s growing largesse, they worry, comes largely at the expense of international institutions and American influence.As the Belt and Road Initiative is only five years old (and many of its main members have been involved for a far shorter time) its full results cannot yet be judged. However, a preliminary assessment can be offered for BRI projects in South and Southeast Asia, the region described by Chinese leaders as the “main axis” of the Belt and Road Initiative. It is here that BRI investment is strongest and has been around longest. The picture is not promising. The hundreds of billions spent in these countries has not produced returns for investors, nor political returns for the party. Whether Chinese leaders actually seek a financial return from the Belt and Road Initiative has always been questionable—the sovereign debt of 27 BRI countries is regarded as “junk” by the three main ratings agencies, while another 14 have no rating at all.Investment decisions often seem to be driven by geopolitical needs instead of sound financial sense.Investment decisions often seem to be driven by geopolitical needs instead of sound financial sense. In South and Southeast Asia expensive port development is an excellent case study. A 2016 CSIS report judged that none of the Indian Ocean port projects funded through the BRI have much hope of financial success. They were likely prioritized for their geopolitical utility. Projects less clearly connected to China’s security needs have more difficulty getting off the ground: the research firm RWR Advisory Group notes that 270 BRI infrastructure projects in the region (or 32 percent of the total value of the whole) have been put on hold because of problems with practicality or financial viability. There is a vast gap between what the Chinese have declared they will spend and what they have actually spent. :lol: .......
. Prolonged exposure to the BRI process has driven opposition to Chinese investment and geopolitical influence across the region. In the Maldives, the pro-Beijing Progressive Party of Maldives was unseated this year by the Maldivian Democratic Party, which ran on an explicitly anti-BRI platform. The Maldives’ new president calls the BRI “a big cheat” and a “debt trap” that must be abandoned or renegotiated.He has a kindred spirit in Mahathir Mohamad, the new prime minister of Malaysia, who has described BRI projects as a form of “new colonialism” that must be rejected. Beijing’s quest to create a stable pro-China tilt in Sri Lanka has only spawned political instability, with President Maithripala Sirisena sliding up to and away from Sri Lankan politicians connected to China as the situation demands. In Bangladesh authorities recently blacklisted China Harbour Engineering Company, one of the region’s most active BRI construction firms, on accusations of corruption.Burma was so alarmed by regional trends that it put a hold on its own BRI-funded port project in Kyaukpyu until the Chinese agreed to cut its scale by 80 percent. Nepal and Pakistan have also demanded that China cancel or completely retool ongoing projects in their countries. In western Pakistan opposition to the initiative has turned violent. Last week Baluchi separatists attacked the Chinese consulate in Karachi, treating Chinese infrastructure investment in their region as a threat to their dreams of independence. Chinese analysts who hoped that the BRI investment would help stabilize China’s borderlands and ease the threat it faces from ethnic separatists inside China now must come to terms with an initiative that is embroiling China in conflict with separatists outside of it.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 10 Dec 2018 04:00

Side business.

Two Chinese nationals arrested in raid at illegal alcohol factory in Islamabad

Two Chinese nationals were arrested by police after a raid at an illegal alcohol factory in Islamabad's sector F-10/4 area, a police spokesperson said on Sunday.
Large quantities of beer of various brands, as well as machinery to brew the alcohol were recovered from the house where the manufacturing unit had been established.
The two suspects were producing as well as selling alcohol of various brands, the police spokesperson told DawnNewsTV. They were arrested after they failed to present a licence or permit to run the brewery.


Some cop did not get paid off.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1450418/two-c ... -islamabad

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 10 Dec 2018 09:11

Balochistan voices concern over its share in CPEC projects

The Baloch­istan government has expressed concern over the dismal share of the province in development projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), saying that during the last five years only two projects — ­­Gwadar port and Hubco coal-based power plant — have been approved for the province.
Even these two projects did not directly benefit the people of Balochistan, a spokesman for the Balochistan government said on Sunday.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1450491/baloc ... c-projects

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 11 Dec 2018 10:43

In short, the Baloch have been screwed (once again!).

Balochistan cabinet shocked by CPEC presentation

The Balochistan cabinet was left shell-shocked at the end of a briefing on the progress of CPEC projects in the province when it was revealed that no progress has been made in any projects outside Gwadar and the meagre share of the province in the overall portfolio of CPEC projects.
The major finding of the cell was that all projects connected with the western route have seen no progress whatsoever, and the overall size of the portfolio of CPEC projects in Balochistan is miniscule where less than 9 per cent of the total committed, around $5.5b billion, is for the province and less than $1bn has been spent in four years. Of this $1bn, around $200m is accounted for by the Hub power plant.
The cabinet members described the CPEC spending thus far as “a joke and they blasted the previous government for its inaction.
Two projects negotiated by the previous government — Quetta Mass Transit and PAT feeder to Quetta water project — will both be revisited by the new government. “The debt and liabilities of both projects will be borne by the Government of Balochistan and the costs revealed in the feasibility are very high,” according to the source.
The Quetta Mass Transit cost, for example, is $912m which is larger than the total development budget of the provincial government. The cost of land acquisition, displacement and resettlement and income tax and customs duties are not included in this figure.
The cabinet members agreed that the Balochistan government will take a bold and firm line for their province in the forthcoming Joint Cooperation Committee meeting scheduled to be held in Beijing next week.


Good luck.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1450773/baloc ... esentation

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23727
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 18 Dec 2018 07:47

anupmisra wrote:In short, the Baloch have been screwed (once again!).
Balochistan cabinet shocked by CPEC presentation

We always knew that the Western Route, which was added to the project after protests from KP & Balochistan, was a mere sop to cool down frayed tempers and that it was never to be taken seriously. Even a second Western route, Western2, was added to CPEC! Not for nothing was CPEC known as China-Punjab EC. One more in the long list of inter-provincial grievances between Punjab and the rest.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 18 Dec 2018 07:51

SSridhar wrote:Not for nothing was CPEC known as China-Punjab EC. One more in the long list of inter-provincial grievances between Punjab and the rest.


SeePack is an elaborate land grab scheme concocted by the chinis with pakjabi politicians and sindhi wadheras.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23727
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 18 Dec 2018 07:59

Balochistan: CPEC - Escalating Threat - Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), South Asia Intelligence Review, Volume 17, No. 25, December 17, 2018
On December 10, 2018, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) Cell, in its briefing to Balochistan Cabinet, revealed that Balochistan’s share in the USD 62 Billion CPEC project was a miniscule nine percent, about USD 5.6 Billion. It was also disclosed that, out of this committed sum, less than USD one Billion had been spent in over five years, since May 22, 2013, when CPEC was launched. The stunned Cabinet members reportedly described CPEC spending in Balochistan thus far, as “a joke”.

In its briefing, the CPEC Cell also disclosed that the current shortfall of 700MW in the Province meant that all the new power injected into the grid as a result of CPEC power projects had not found its way to Balochistan. On October 23, 2018, China engaged the World Bank to undertake a study on the real potential of CPEC investment and its future prospects.

Expressing concern over the dismal share of the Province in development projects under the CPEC, on December 9, 2018, the Balochistan Government disclosed that only two projects — the Gwadar Port and Hubco Coal Power Plant — had been approved for the Province till that point, since CPEC’s launch on May 22, 2013. The Government, moreover, claimed that even these two projects had no direct benefits for the people of Balochistan. Significantly, the Gwadar Port is the epicentre of the entire CPEC project in Pakistan, yet the residents of the city have a hard time getting drinking water on a daily basis. In order to address the drinking-water shortage in Gwadar, the Federal Government has announced many desalination plants, but none has yet materialized.

On December 5, 2018, the ruling Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) founder Saeed Ahmed Hashmi stated, “despite passage of about five years the people of the Province have witnessed no development project initiated under the CPEC.”

The apprehension that CPEC will not benefit Balochistan has rightly been there for long. Indeed, the Senate (Upper House of the National Assembly) was informed on November 24, 2017, that 91 percent of the revenues to be generated from the Gwadar port as part of CPEC would go to China, while the Gwadar Port Authority would be left with a nine percent share of the income for the next 40 years. This was disclosed by the then Federal Minister for Ports and Shipping, Mir Hasil Bizenjo, after senators expressed concern over the secrecy surrounding the CPEC long-term agreement plan, with many observing that the agreement tilted heavily in China’s favour.

Moreover, there is also great anxiety that CPEC will convert the Baloch people into minorities in their own homeland. Noordin Mengal, a human rights campaigner from the Province stated, on March 17, 2017, that with an influx of outsiders as a result of the project, the identity of the Baloch was being threatened.

According to the Census 2017, the total population of Balochistan was 12.3 million. Census 2017 indicates the Baloch population (Balochi language speaking population) has shrunk from 61 percent of the total to 55.6 percent over a period of 19 years (Census 1998 to Census 2017) in the 21 Districts where the Balochi-speaking population form a majority.

Pakistan currently hosts a sizable Chinese population and the numbers are only slated to grow as the project progresses. Concerns about the demographic transformation of Balochistan have been reiterated in a December 28, 2016, report by the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI), which noted that, at the current and projected rate of influx of Chinese nationals into Balochistan, the native population of the area would be outnumbered by 2048 {Very significant statement} .

Since the start of the groundwork on CPEC, more than 39,000 Chinese have come to Pakistan over the past five years, according to official data and documents reported on March 5, 2018. 7,859 Chinese were issued visas in 2013, at the start of the CPEC projects, soon after the Nawaz Sharif Government came to power. Another 69 visas were issued in 2014; 13,268 in 2015; 6,268 in 2016; and, according to informed officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an estimated 12,287 in 2017. In addition, about 91,000 Chinese nationals have visited Pakistan on tourist visas over this period.

Due to these reasons, there is persistent discontent among the ethnic Baloch with regard to CPEC. The Province is at the heart of the CPEC scheme – a massive series of projects that includes a network of highways, railways and energy infrastructure spanning the entire country. CPEC is a flagship project in China's ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This discontent constitutes an enduring threat to Chinese engineers, workers and people associated with the constituent projects, with Baloch nationalists, who consider it part of a 'strategic design' by Pakistan and China to loot their resources and eliminate the Baloch culture and identity, strongly opposed.

In a sign of increasing anger against CPEC, in the first of its kind of attack, the Baloch separatist group, Baloch Liberation Army’s (BLA’s) ‘Majeed Brigade’ suicide squad, on November 23, 2018, carried out a suicide attack targeting the Chinese Consulate at Block 4 in the Clifton area of Karachi, the provincial capital of Sindh. At least six people, including three civilians, two Policemen, and a private security guard, were killed. Three terrorists involved in the attack were killed by the Security Forces (SFs). No Chinese national was hurt. Claiming responsibility for the attack, BLA disclosed that the attackers had been tasked to target the consulate.

On October 31, 2018, five construction workers of non-Baloch ethnicity were shot dead while another three suffered injuries in an attack near Ganz, some 15 kilometers west of Jiwani town in the Gwadar District of Balochistan. According to official sources, the labourers were working at a CPEC-related private housing scheme on Peshkan-Ganz road, which links Gwadar with Jewani, when a group of unidentified assailants riding motorcycles appeared on the scene and opened fire. Security officials identified four of the deceased as Naeem Ahmed and Hunzullah, residents of Karachi (Sindh); Irshad Ali of Sukkur (Sindh); and Muhammad Shakir of Multan (Punjab). The identity of the fifth deceased is yet to be ascertained. BLA 'spokesperson' Azad Baloch, claiming responsibility for the attack, stated,
The site attacked today was part of CPEC project… Today's attack is a clear message to China and all other countries that Balochistan is an occupied territory. We warn all military and other constructions companies to immediately stop working on their projects in Gwadar or they will be targeted by Baloch fighters.

Significantly, on October 29, 2018, Pakistan had organised a conference of 26 countries - the Asian Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Political Affairs - in its attempt assert the legality of its occupation in Balochistan. Warning against the ongoing 'colonisation' of Balochistan Azad Baloch stated, China and Pakistan are settling Punjabis and Chinese in Gwadar and other areas of Balochistan's coastal belt to turn the Baloch into a minority under their expansionist designs… If the international community fails to fulfil their responsibilities and turns a blind eye to the Pakistani and Chinese colonisation of Balochistan, then the Baloch nation will have no other option but to target all non-Baloch settlers in Balochistan… The BLA will continue to resist against the occupation of Baloch Ocean and coastal belt…

He added that China and Pakistan were building around 70 housing schemes under the exploitative CPEC colonisation project.

On August 11, 2018, six persons – among them three Chinese engineers – had been injured in a suicide attack on a bus in the Dalbandin area of Chagai District in Balochistan. The bus, carrying 18 Chinese engineers, was being escorted by Frontier Corps (FC) troops to the Dalbandin Airport from the Saindaik copper and gold mines, when a suicide bomber tried to drive his explosives-laden vehicle into the bus. “The explosives-laden vehicle exploded near the bus on Quetta-Taftan Highway – and as a result three Chinese engineers, two FC soldiers and the bus driver were injured,” an unnamed Balochistan Levies official stated. Saifullah Khatiran, Deputy Commissioner of Chagai District, disclosed that the engineers were working on the Saindak Project, a joint venture between Pakistan and China to extract gold, copper and silver from an area close to the border.

Jiand Baloch, a BLA ‘spokesperson’, had then stated, “We targeted this bus which was carrying Chinese engineers. We attacked them because they are extracting gold from our region, we won’t allow it.” In a statement issued on Twitter, the BLA identified the suicide bomber as Rehan Baloch, who died in the attack, as the elder son of BLA's ‘senior commander’ Aslam Baloch.

On May 4, 2018, six ethnic Punjabi labourers were killed and one was injured in an incident of firing in the Laijay area of Kharan District. Levies sources said the labourers, who hailed from eastern Punjab, were working on a mobile tower and were sleeping in tents at the site when unidentified militants on motorcycles opened fire on them. The assailants escaped unhurt after the attack. There was no claim of responsibility.

Insurgents trying to disrupt construction of CPEC projects in Balochistan have killed 66 persons since 2014. Colonel Zafar Iqbal, a spokesperson for the construction company Frontier Works Organisation (FWO), on September 8, 2016, had stated, “The latest figure has climbed up to 44 deaths and over 100 wounded men on CPEC projects, mainly road construction in Balochistan, which began in 2014.” Since September 7, 2016, according to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), another 22 persons have been killed in different CPEC related projects across the Province (till December 16, 2018).

Meanwhile, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar stated, on December 10, 2018, “the situation of Balochistan is deplorable” despite the Province having huge mineral resources. The CJP emphasised that the people of Balochistan complained that they were being neglected by Islamabad and they did not even have basic rights.

With the CPEC Cell’s revelation of injustices against the Province coming to light, the enduring discontent among the Baloch people is likely to be further aggravated, and CPEC-related projects will come under an escalating threat in the months to come.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby souravB » 18 Dec 2018 08:59

There are so many questions I would have liked to get an answer before I die
- are we going to see sharia compliant CCP?
- will the new generations in Pakiland be Cheenis with Paki character or Pakis with Cheeni character?
- does the Cheenis stop drinking or Pakis start it?
- do they save face or take U-turns?
so many questions and so little time left on earth for me. :(

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23727
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 18 Dec 2018 09:54

souravB, don't be despondent. You will certainly have your answers, Insh'a Alla'h.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 19 Dec 2018 18:11

Delayed payments irritate Chinese companies working under CPEC

Almost eight or nine months have elapsed, but the government has failed to set up revolving fund of Rs22 billion to ensure timely payments to four Chinese power projects installed under CPEC. The inordinate delay has further irritated the Chinese companies.
Chinese companies had earlier threatened the government that they will halt their future investment in power sector if they are not paid on time.
Central Power Purchase Agency (CPPA)... top officials say that it is already facing loss owing to which circular debt has increased to Rs 1.3 trillion, so it has no room available with it for sparing Rs22 billion for the head of revolving fund.
Interestingly, under CPEC framework, the government had extended assurance to the government of China that Chinese investors in power sector under CPEC will not be exposed to the delayed payment on account of the liquidity crisis in power sector.
Finance Ministry is hesitant to extend the sovereign guarantee.


https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/407726 ... under-cpec

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 22 Dec 2018 17:38

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

ADB says it is financing CPEC projects
Image
Bank says it is already financing three projects in Pakistan that are under the umbrella of both CPEC and CAREC.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), while responding to a news story titled “ADB says it will not finance CPEC projects” published in The Express Tribune, has said that it is already financing three projects in Pakistan that are under the umbrella of both CPEC and the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) programmes. “Indeed, the ADB is in a good position to support Pakistan’s industrialisation under CPEC, CAREC programme and other regional initiatives,” it says. The bank says it is introducing ADB Strategy 2030 and has already financed three highway projects, all of which are part of CPEC and CAREC corridors.

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19955
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 22 Dec 2018 20:46

Peregrine saar,

Apart from speculations, are we truly aware as to why the hans wanted/want us to join the CPEC, given the overt and covert animosity displayed by both the hans and the pakis over the decades??

Are there any credible analyses or even position papers by any experts of standing or anyone with undisputed street cred??

i have this niggling feeling that there is something that we are missing or that we only have a picture which is incomplete??

Now that the clandestine military dimensions of the han roll out of CPEC in pakiland are gradually being exposed, what if any, were/are the motives of the surreptitious drawing in, of India, into the CPEC web with a declared intent of commercial betterment, increase in trade volumes and the generally all round kushali haryali etc promised by the hans??

This plan of theirs would have been many long years in the making and execution and is certainly not a spur of the moment decision to invite India to the CPEC table.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 22 Dec 2018 22:29

chetak wrote:Peregrine saar,

Apart from speculations, are we truly aware as to why the hans wanted/want us to join the CPEC, given the overt and covert animosity displayed by both the hans and the pakis over the decades??

Are there any credible analyses or even position papers by any experts of standing or anyone with undisputed street cred??

i have this niggling feeling that there is something that we are missing or that we only have a picture which is incomplete??

Now that the clandestine military dimensions of the han roll out of CPEC in pakiland are gradually being exposed, what if any, were/are the motives of the surreptitious drawing in, of India, into the CPEC web with a declared intent of commercial betterment, increase in trade volumes and the generally all round kushali haryali etc promised by the hans??

This plan of theirs would have been many long years in the making and execution and is certainly not a spur of the moment decision to invite India to the CPEC table.
chetak Ji :

Sir Ji, I have not seen any evidence of credible analyses or even position papers by any experts of standing or anyone with undisputed street cred.

However, IMHO the reasons are staring in our face i.e.

1. India is not amenable to joining the CPEC and / or OBOR System.

2. However India is amenable to joining the India – Bangladesh – Myanmar – China “Road” as it will give India access to Yunan – Guangxi – Guangdong – Sichuan - Guizhou and possibly further Eastern and North Eastern parts of China.

3. From The Times Atlas of the World I note that some sort of a Road Exist from India – Imphal and Dibrugarh via Myanmar to Yunan. This Route does NOT GO VIA BANGLADESH.

3. I am sure that the Chinese want this Road to be extended to the OBOR – CPEC System by which China can use its Terroristani as well as Bong-Bong Terrorists masquerading as Truck Drivers-Cleaners or others to carry out its “bidding” in India.

4. As such I would prefer India to have this road system as India – Myanmar – China Road.

I hope that my above reply will in some way answer your query as to why China – in my opinion – wants India to join the BOAR – CPEC System!

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19955
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 22 Dec 2018 22:52

Peregrine wrote:
chetak wrote:Peregrine saar,

Apart from speculations, are we truly aware as to why the hans wanted/want us to join the CPEC, given the overt and covert animosity displayed by both the hans and the pakis over the decades??

Are there any credible analyses or even position papers by any experts of standing or anyone with undisputed street cred??

i have this niggling feeling that there is something that we are missing or that we only have a picture which is incomplete??

Now that the clandestine military dimensions of the han roll out of CPEC in pakiland are gradually being exposed, what if any, were/are the motives of the surreptitious drawing in, of India, into the CPEC web with a declared intent of commercial betterment, increase in trade volumes and the generally all round kushali haryali etc promised by the hans??

This plan of theirs would have been many long years in the making and execution and is certainly not a spur of the moment decision to invite India to the CPEC table.
chetak Ji :

Sir Ji, I have not seen any evidence of credible analyses or even position papers by any experts of standing or anyone with undisputed street cred.

However, IMHO the reasons are staring in our face i.e.

1. India is not amenable to joining the CPEC and / or OBOR System.

2. However India is amenable to joining the India – Bangladesh – Myanmar – China “Road” as it will give India access to Yunan – Guangxi – Guangdong – Sichuan - Guizhou and possibly further Eastern and North Eastern parts of China.

3. From The Times Atlas of the World I note that some sort of a Road Exist from India – Imphal and Dibrugarh via Myanmar to Yunan. This Route does NOT GO VIA BANGLADESH.

3. I am sure that the Chinese want this Road to be extended to the OBOR – CPEC System by which China can use its Terroristani as well as Bong-Bong Terrorists masquerading as Truck Drivers-Cleaners or others to carry out its “bidding” in India.

4. As such I would prefer India to have this road system as India – Myanmar – China Road.

I hope that my above reply will in some way answer your query as to why China – in my opinion – wants India to join the BOAR – CPEC System!

Cheers Image


Peregrine saar,

The hans seem eager to make their landfall in kolkota.

we should prevent this and limit their access just to Imphal and Dibrugarh, if it comes to that.

Indian transporters should tranship the goods from Imphal and Dibrugarh into the Indian heartland or vice versa as required

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 23 Dec 2018 00:12

Peregrine wrote:chetak Ji :

Sir Ji, I have not seen any evidence of credible analyses or even position papers by any experts of standing or anyone with undisputed street cred.

However, IMHO the reasons are staring in our face i.e.

1. India is not amenable to joining the CPEC and / or OBOR System.

2. However India is amenable to joining the India – Bangladesh – Myanmar – China “Road” as it will give India access to Yunan – Guangxi – Guangdong – Sichuan - Guizhou and possibly further Eastern and North Eastern parts of China.

3. From The Times Atlas of the World I note that some sort of a Road Exist from India – Imphal and Dibrugarh via Myanmar to Yunan. This Route does NOT GO VIA BANGLADESH.

3. I am sure that the Chinese want this Road to be extended to the OBOR – CPEC System by which China can use its Terroristani as well as Bong-Bong Terrorists masquerading as Truck Drivers-Cleaners or others to carry out its “bidding” in India.

4. As such I would prefer India to have this road system as India – Myanmar – China Road.

I hope that my above reply will in some way answer your query as to why China – in my opinion – wants India to join the BOAR – CPEC System!

Cheers Image
chetak wrote:Peregrine saar,

The hans seem eager to make their landfall in kolkota.

we should prevent this and limit their access just to Imphal and Dibrugarh, if it comes to that.

Indian transporters should tranship the goods from Imphal and Dibrugarh into the Indian heartland or vice versa as required
Chetak Ji :

As Hercule Poirot said "Exactement mon ami"!

However, I correct myself. Only Goods emanating from Kolkata and its Hinterland should use the Imphal Route ONLY for South Burma and Thai Destinations. For Chinese Destinations use of Dibrugarh Route MUST be used.

A vast majority of the Goods will be transported in Containers. Being "Sealed" the risk of Pilferage will be minimized as also for carrying BONG BONG Subversive Elements!

Cheers Image

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Bart S » 23 Dec 2018 01:10

The only way that CPEC has a chance (however remote it is) of being economically viable is if Pakis and other nations on our periphery would be able to dump goods from Chinese industries in the Indian market. It's all about more routes to flood our market with their junk and destroy local industry, hence the frenzied attempts to get India to participate. Another, secondary angle would be that but having India inside the tent rather than outside and pissing in, they might have less security troubles with their routes in Pakistan etc.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19955
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 23 Dec 2018 02:21

Bart S wrote:The only way that CPEC has a chance (however remote it is) of being economically viable is if Pakis and other nations on our periphery would be able to dump goods from Chinese industries in the Indian market. It's all about more routes to flood our market with their junk and destroy local industry, hence the frenzied attempts to get India to participate. Another, secondary angle would be that but having India inside the tent rather than outside and pissing in, they might have less security troubles with their routes in Pakistan etc.



The CPEC has very little economic viability in its design, intent and content. Its a predominantly military venture wherein pakiland is an indispensable and the most crucial staging point for the han navy to access the waters of the persian gulf, the Indian ocean and the mediterranean.

pakiland is a vital part in the transition of cheeni from a largish regional military power to a global one. pakiland, is a life-and-death imperative for the cheeni network of ports, roads, railways, pipelines, power plants and is by far the most vital of the OBOR/BRI/CPEC segments.

The commercial angle is a mere attempt to obfuscate and divert the attention of all, especially the paki public from its actual purpose of military specificity.

That is why the CPEC agreements are being kept secret. The exposure of the actual military intent of the CPEC will cause a backlash among the mass of the unwashed abduls who were all led to believe that their permanent hariyali kushali days were just around the corner.

The average jehadi is fiercely anti cheeni because of the ill treatment of the uighur muslims by the godless cheeni.

Their plans for cheeni GPS satellite coverage of pakiland by building a network of stations in pakiland to enhance the location accuracy of beidou, the han GPS. In essence, the pakis are getting the accurate military version of the han gps for their armed forces.

Thailand, China, Laos and Brunei already use the Chinese system, which currently consists of 16 operational satellites, with 30 more due to join the system,


"Chinese officials have repeatedly said the Belt and Road is purely an economic project with peaceful intent. But with its plan for Pakistan, China is for the first time explicitly tying a Belt and Road proposal to its military ambitions — and confirming the concerns of a host of nations who suspect the infrastructure initiative is really about helping China project armed might,"

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19955
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 23 Dec 2018 15:11

China’s ‘Belt and Road’ plan in Pakistan takes a military turn


China’s ‘Belt and Road’ plan in Pakistan takes a military turn

New York Times, Dec 21, 2018,
By Maria Abi Habib
ISLAMABAD:

When President Donald Trump started the new
year by suspending billions of dollars of security aid to Pakistan,
one theory was that it would scare the Pakistani military into
cooperating better with its U.S. allies.

The reality was that Pakistan already had a replacement sponsor
lined up.

Just two weeks later, the Pakistani air force and Chinese officials
were putting the final touches on a secret proposal to expand
Pakistan’s building of Chinese military jets, weaponry and other
hardware. The confidential plan, reviewed by The New York
Times, would also deepen the cooperation between China and
Pakistan in space, a frontier the Pentagon recently said Beijing
was trying to militarize after decades of playing catch-up.
All those military projects were designated as part of China’s Belt
and Road Initiative a $1 trillion chain of infrastructure
China and Pakistan are putting the final touches on a
secret proposal to expand Pakistan's building of Chinese military equipment.
It has come to light that in the hindsight of the Belt and Road Initiative, China is fulfilling its military ambitions

Belt and Road Initiative, a $1 trillion chain of infrastructure
development programs stretching across some 70 countries, built
and financed by Beijing.

Chinese officials have repeatedly said the Belt and Road is purely
an economic project with peaceful intent. But with its plan for
Pakistan, China is for the first time explicitly tying a Belt and Road
proposal to its military ambitions — and confirming the concerns
of a host of nations who suspect the infrastructure initiative is
really about helping China project armed might.

As China’s strategically located and nuclear-armed neighbor,
Pakistan has been the leading example of how the Chinese
projects are being used to give Beijing both favor and leverage
among its clients.

Since the beginning of the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013,
Pakistan has been the program’s flagship site, with some $62
billion in projects planned in the so-called China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor. In the process, China has lent more and more
money to Pakistan at a time of economic desperation there,
binding the two countries ever closer.

For the most part, Pakistan has eagerly turned more toward
China as the chill with the United States has deepened. Some
Pakistani officials are growing concerned about losing sovereignty
to their deep-pocketed Asian ally, but the host of ways the two
countries are now bound together may leave Pakistan with little
choice but to go along.

Even before the revelation of the new Chinese-Pakistani military
cooperation, some of China’s biggest projects in Pakistan had
clear strategic implications.

A Chinese-built seaport and special economic zone in the
Pakistani town of Gwadar is rooted in trade, giving China a
quicker route to get goods to the Arabian Sea. But it also gives
Beijing a strategic card to play against India and the United States
if tensions worsen to the point of naval blockades as the two
powers increasingly confront each other at sea.

A less scrutinized component of Belt and Road is the central role
Pakistan plays in China’s Beidou satellite navigation system.
Pakistan is the only other country that has been granted access
to the system’s military service, allowing more precise guidance
for missiles, ships and aircraft.

The cooperation is meant to be a blueprint for Beidou’s expansion
to other Belt and Road nations, however, ostensibly ending its
clients’ reliance on the U.S. military-run GPS network that
Chinese officials fear is monitored and manipulated by the United
States.

In Pakistan, China has found an amenable ally with much to
recommend it: shared borders and a long history of cooperation;
a hedge in South Asia against India; a large market for arms
sales and trade with potential for growth; a wealth of natural
resources.

Now, China is also finding a better showcase for its security and
surveillance technology in a place once defined by its close
military relationship with the United States.

“The focus of Belt and Road is on roads and bridges and ports,
because those are the concrete construction projects that people
can easily see. But it’s the technologies of the future and
technologies of future security systems that could be the biggest
security threat in the Belt and Road project,” said Priscilla
Moriuchi, director of strategic threat development at Recorded
Future, a cyberthreat intelligence monitoring company based in
Massachusetts.

An Asset on the Sea

The tightening China-Pakistan security alliance has gained
momentum on a long road to the Arabian Sea.

In 2015, under Belt and Road, China took a nascent port in the
Pakistani coastal town of Gwadar and supercharged the project
with an estimated $800 million development plan that included a
large special economic zone for Chinese companies.

Linking the port to western China would be a new 2,000-mile
network of highways and rails through the most forbidding stretch
of Pakistan: Baluchistan province, a resource-rich region plagued
by militancy.

The public vision for the project was that it would allow Chinese
goods to bypass much longer and more expensive shipping
routes through the Indian Ocean and avoid the territorial waters of
several U.S. allies in Asia.

From the beginning, though, key details of the project were kept
from the public and lawmakers, officials say, including the terms
of its loan structure and the length of the lease, more than 40
years, that a Chinese state-owned company secured to operate
the port.

If there was concern within Pakistan about the hidden costs of the
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, also known as CPEC, there
was growing suspicion abroad about a hidden military aspect, as
well.

In recent years, Chinese state-owned companies have built or
begun constructing seaports at strategic spots around the Indian
Ocean, including places in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Malaysia.
Chinese officials insisted that the ports would not be militarized.
But analysts began wondering whether China’s endgame was to
muscle its way onto coastal territories that could become prime
military assets — much as it did when it started militarizing
contested islands in the South China Sea.

Then, Sri Lanka, unable to repay its ballooning debt with China,
handed over the Chinese-built port at Hambantota in a 99-year
lease agreement last year. Indian and American officials
expressed a growing conviction that taking control of the port had
been China’s intent all along.

In October, Vice President Mike Pence said Sri Lanka was a
warning for all Belt and Road countries that China was luring
them into debt traps.

“China uses so-called debt diplomacy to expand its influence,”
Pence said in a speech.

“Just ask Sri Lanka, which took on massive debt to let Chinese
state companies build a port of questionable commercial value,”
Pence added. “It may soon become a forward military base for
China’s growing blue-water navy.”

Military analysts predict that China could use Gwadar to expand
the naval footprint of its attack submarines, after agreeing in 2015
to sell eight submarines to Pakistan in a deal worth up to $6
billion. China could use the equipment it sells to the South Asian
country to refuel its own submarines, extending its navy’s global
reach.

Deepening Debt

When China inaugurated Belt and Road, in 2013, Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif’s new government in Pakistan saw it as the answer
for a host of problems.

Foreign investment in Pakistan was scant, driven away by
terrorist attacks and the country’s enduring reputation for
corruption. And Pakistan desperately needed a modern power
grid to help ease persistent electricity shortages.

Pakistani officials say that Beijing first proposed the highway from
China’s western Xinjiang region through Pakistan that connected
to Gwadar port. But Pakistani officials insisted that new coal
power plants be built. China agreed.

With CPEC under fresh scrutiny, Chinese and Pakistani officials in
recent weeks have contended that Pakistan has a debt problem,
but not a Chinese debt problem. In October, the country’s central
bank revealed an overall debt and liability burden of about $215
billion, with $95 billion externally held. With nearly half of CPEC’s
projects completed — in terms of worth — Pakistan currently
owes China $23 billion.

But the country stands to owe $62 billion to China — before
interest balloons the figure to some $90 billion — under the plan
for Belt and Road’s expansion there in coming years.
Pakistan’s central bank governor, Ashraf Wathra, said publicly in
2015 that he had no clarity on Chinese investments in Pakistan
and was concerned about rising debt levels . It still took him
months after that to secure a briefing from Cabinet officials.
“My main question was, ‘Do we have any feasibility studies of
these projects and a cost-benefit analysis?’ Their answers were
all evasive,” recalled Wathra, who has since retired.

Ahsan Iqbal, a Cabinet minister and the main architect for CPEC
in the previous government, said the project was well thoughtthrough
and dismissed Wathra’s account.

“No one wanted to invest here — the Chinese took a chance,”
Iqbal said in an interview.

But the bill is coming due. Pakistan’s first debt repayments to
China are set for next year, starting at about $300 million and
gradually increasing to reach about $3.2 billion by 2026,
according to officials. And Pakistan is already having trouble
paying what it owes to Chinese companies.

Fighter Jets and Satellites

According to the undisclosed proposal drawn up by the Pakistani
air force and Chinese officials at the start of the year, a special
economic zone under CPEC would be created in Pakistan to
produce a new generation of fighter jets. For the first time,
navigation systems, radar systems and onboard weapons would
be built jointly by the countries at factories in Pakistan.

The proposal, confirmed by officials at the Ministry of Planning
and Development, would expand China and Pakistan’s current
cooperation on the JF-17 fighter jet, which is assembled at
Pakistan’s military-run Kamra Aeronautical Complex in Punjab
province. The Chinese-designed jets have given Pakistan an
alternative to the U.S.-built F-16 fighters.

The plans are in the final stages of approval, but the current
government is expected to rubber-stamp the project, officials in
Islamabad say.

For China, Pakistan could become a showcase for other countries
seeking to shift their militaries away from U.S. equipment and
toward Chinese arms, Western diplomats said. And because
China is not averse to selling such advanced weaponry as
ballistic missiles — which the United States will not sell to allies
like Saudi Arabia — the deal with Pakistan could be a
steppingstone to a bigger market for Chinese weapons in the
Muslim world.

For years, some of the most important military coordination
between China and Pakistan has been going on in space.
Just months before Beijing unveiled the Belt and Road project in
2013, it signed an agreement with Pakistan to build a network of
satellite stations inside the South Asian country to establish the
Beidou Navigation System as an alternative to the American GPS
network.

Beidou quickly became a core component of Belt and Road, with
the Chinese government calling the satellite network part of an
“information Silk Road” in a 2015 white paper.

Like GPS, Beidou has a civilian function and a military one. If its
trial with Pakistan goes well, Beijing could offer Beidou’s military
service to other countries, creating a bloc of nations whose
military actions would be more difficult for the United States to
monitor.

By 2020, all 35 satellites for the system will be launched in
collaboration with other Belt and Road countries, completing
Beidou.

“Beidou, whatever any users use it for — whether it’s a civilian
navigating their way to the grocery store or a government using it
to coordinate their rocket launches — those are all things that
China can track,” said Moriuchi, of the research group Recorded
Future. “And that’s what is most striking: that this authoritarian
government will be a major technology provider for numerous
countries in Asia, Africa and Europe.”

For the Pentagon, China’s satellite launches are ominous.
“The PLA continues to strengthen its military space capabilities
despite its public stance against the militarization of space,”
including developing Beidou and new weaponry, according to a
Pentagon report issued to Congress in May, using a common
abbreviation for China’s military.

In October, Pakistan’s information minister, Fawad Chaudhry, said
that by 2022, Pakistan would send its own astronaut into space
with China’s help.

“We are close to China, and we are getting more close,” he said
in a later interview. “It’s time for the West to wake up and
recognize our importance.”

Wooing Pakistan’s Military

Though the relationship between China and Pakistan has clearly
grown closer, it has not been without tension. CPEC could still be
vulnerable to political shifts in Pakistan — as happened this year
in Malaysia, which shelved three big projects by Chinese
companies.

Campaigning during the parliamentary elections that made him
prime minister in July, Imran Khan vowed to review CPEC
projects and renegotiate them if he won. In September, after
meeting in Saudi Arabia with the crown prince, Khan said that the
kingdom had agreed to invest in CPEC, too.
Pakistan’s new commerce minister then proposed pausing all
CPEC projects while the government


The moves by Pakistan’s new government angered Beijing, which
was concerned they could set back Belt and Road globally.
But in Pakistan, China has a steady ally it can approach to
smooth things over: the country’s powerful military establishment,
which stands to fill its coffers with millions of dollars through
CPEC as the military’s construction companies win infrastructure
bids.

Shortly after the commerce minister’s comments, the Pakistani
army’s top commander, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, hurried to
Beijing for an unannounced visit with President Xi Jinping. The
meeting came six weeks before Khan made his first official visit
with the Chinese president.

Statements from the military said Bajwa and Xi spoke extensively
about Belt and Road projects, though economic talks are usually
the purview of civilian officials.

Bajwa “said that the Belt and Road initiative with CPEC as its
flagship is destined to succeed despite all odds, and Pakistan’s
Army shall ensure security of CPEC at all costs,” read a
statement from the Pakistani military.

Shortly after the Beijing meeting, Pakistan’s government rolled
back its invitation to Saudi Arabia to join CPEC, and all talk of
pausing or canceling Chinese projects has stopped.

But China could face another challenge to its investments: a
Pakistani financial crisis that has forced Khan’s government to
seek loans from international lenders that require transparency.
Throughout September, international delegations traveled to
Islamabad carrying the same message: Reveal the extent of
Chinese loans if you want financial assistance.

In a late September meeting with visiting officials from the
International Monetary Fund, Pakistan’s government asked for a
bailout of up to $12 billion. The fund’s representatives pressed
Pakistan to share all existing agreements with the Chinese
government and demanded IMF input during any future CPEC
negotiations. The fund also sought assurances that Pakistan
would not use a bailout to repay CPEC loans.

But the Chinese Embassy in Islamabad stepped up its
engagement as well, demanding that CPEC deals be kept secret
and promising to shore up Pakistan’s finances with bilateral loans,
Pakistani officials say.

Three months after taking office, Khan still has not made good on
his campaign promises to reveal the nature of the $62 billion
investment Beijing has committed to Pakistan, and his
government has backtracked on an IMF deal.

In early November, Khan visited Xi in Beijing, a trip during which
he was expected to clinch bilateral loans and grants to ease Pakistans financial crisis. Instead, his government walked away with vague promises of a deal “in principle,” but refused to disclose any details.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 23 Dec 2018 18:40

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

China denies any military deal under CPEC – Agencies

BEIJING: China on Saturday outright rejected reports that Beijing had struck a deal with Islamabad on military facilities, including building fighter jets, under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), stressing that the mega project comprises mainly industrial parks and facilities to improve people’s livelihood.

At a daily briefing, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said Afghanistan is China’s close neighbour, and China would continue to contribute to promoting peace and reconciliation process and help stability in the war torn country.

“According to my information, it is a false report,” Hua said in response to a question that China and Pakistan reportedly reached new deals under CPEC on military facilities, including building fighter jets.

The spokesperson told reporters that CPEC is an important cooperation framework set up by China and Pakistan for long-term bilateral cooperation in all aspects. She added that the corridor committee held the eighth meeting in Beijing on December 20.

“Going forward, we will consult with Pakistan to continue to implement the two leaders’ consensuses, reap the early harvest projects, and step up cooperation projects mainly in industrial parks and facilities improving people’s livelihood,” she said.

Commenting on the planned US withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, she said China upholds “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned” inclusive reconciliation process. “We would like to … help resuming a peaceful, stable and safe situation for Afghan people,” added.

However, when asked about the resignation of US defence secretary, reportedly due to his differences with President Donald Trump over plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Syria, she did not offer any comments. “It is the internal affairs of the US, and is decided by the US president.”

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19955
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 24 Dec 2018 00:00

twitter



China's Belt and Road plan in Pak takes a military turn. To jointly build Next generation fighters, navigation system, radars, weaponry at Pak factories. US$23 billion already owed to China. US$ 90 billion with interest. Enjoy.



Image



twitter

Billions in Chinese loans, a project with shaky commercial logic, greased by corruption, an Indian Ocean port as collateral, and any disputes must be settled in Beijing. What could possibly go wrong?



Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1020
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Lisa » 26 Dec 2018 00:39

https://www.maritime-executive.com/arti ... a-to-china

Report: Kenya Risks Losing Port of Mombasa to China

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19955
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 26 Dec 2018 01:37

If India had accepted the cheeni offer of CPEC and all that usually followed such an "offer", I wonder which port(s), highway(s) and railway line(s) we would have been expected to collateralize to appease the greed of dragon and for how many tens of years??

just saying onlee.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2498
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby nam » 26 Dec 2018 01:56

chetak wrote:If India had accepted the cheeni offer of CPEC and all that usually followed such an "offer", I wonder which port(s), highway(s) and railway line(s) we would have been expected to collateralize to appease the greed of dragon and for how many tens of years??

just saying onlee.


Calcutta port. They would have created a rail through Bdesh & Burma on to China.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11143
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Aditya_V » 26 Dec 2018 11:32

Lisa wrote:https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/kenya-risks-losing-port-of-mombasa-to-china

Report: Kenya Risks Losing Port of Mombasa to China


Kenya must ask the Chinese to take a hike, lets see if Chinese can enforce this. In fact an association of BRI countries other than Pakistan must jointly stop repaying the Chinese.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19955
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 26 Dec 2018 11:38

nam wrote:
chetak wrote:If India had accepted the cheeni offer of CPEC and all that usually followed such an "offer", I wonder which port(s), highway(s) and railway line(s) we would have been expected to collateralize to appease the greed of dragon and for how many tens of years??

just saying onlee.


Calcutta port. They would have created a rail through Bdesh & Burma on to China.


Wouldn't they have also wanted a port on the west coast??

The rail and road connectivity is much better than any that is existing in pukiland today.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11832
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 26 Dec 2018 14:12

The context becomes important when answering such questions.

1. Just labeling some project as CPEC related to get a loan wouldn't make any difference.
1a. If the project economics where strong the project would pay back with interest for itself.
1b. If the project was important but un-economical the GOI would factor that into the project assessment and factor that into the loan terms, repayment schedule. Repayment would be planned from GOI's other sources of income.

In both the above case there would be no infrastructure as collateral or future obligation to hand over any infrastructure in exchange of missed payments if our agreements are on the lines of WB/ADB funding.

India has borrowed money from Chinese controlled entities and Indian private firms have had financing arrangements with Chinese banks. Our problem is with the CPEC is about sovereignty. If sovereignty wasn't a concern, we could directly borrow money from China for infra and label it as a CEPC project and proceed in the usual way.

Here is the latest in a series of projects being funded by the NDB bank [BRICS bank] which is partly funded by China.
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/p9T30 ... ts-in.html
BRICS bank approves $525 million loan for infra projects in Madhya Pradesh

Lets suppose India was weak or reckless financially or politically isolated. Even then it would be difficult for China to force a country like India to handover any infrastructure. The most appropriate step would be to re-schedule the repayment.

The trap works only with countries that have weak finances or are reckless or politically reckless or isolated.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 26 Dec 2018 15:25

chetak wrote:If India had accepted the cheeni offer of CPEC and all that usually followed such an "offer", I wonder which port(s), highway(s) and railway line(s) we would have been expected to collateralize to appease the greed of dragon and for how many tens of years??

just saying onlee.
nam wrote:Calcutta port. They would have created a rail through Bdesh & Burma on to China.
chetak Ji & nam Ji :

I think INDIA would rather use Road Transport - via Dibrugarh - and avoid Bangladesh.

Another problem would be the Rail Gauges i.e. India and Bangladesh are Broad Gauge, Myanmar is Narrow Gauge and China is Standard Gauge.

Road Transport System would the Container "Tractor-Trucks" to be Changed at the India-Myanmar Border from Chinese "LHD" to Indian "RHD" so that no Chinese or Myanmarese Enters India as the Transfer Park will be in Myanmar.

On the West Coast they could use Mundra - with 18 Metres Depths - which, can service the MSC and Mærsk 3E 18,000 TEU Giants.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 26 Dec 2018 16:19

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Pakistan to pay China $40b on $26.5b CPEC investments in 20 years - Shahbaz Rana
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will pay $40 billion to China in 20 years in shape of repayments of debt and dividends on a $26.5 billion investment under flagship China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), documents of the Ministry of Planning and Development reveal.
Out of $39.83 billion – to be precise – the debt repayments of energy and infrastructure projects amount to $28.43 billion. The rest of $11.4 billion will be paid in shape of dividends to the investors, showed the official estimates.
Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19955
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 28 Dec 2018 17:10

x posted from the Pakistani Economic Stress Watch thread




After the 1971 war which created beediland, the cheeni who were supposed to help the pakis by deploying their troops against India did not do so for a variety of reasons but mostly it was thought that the uncertainty as to what the russians would do under such circumstances that scared them away. kissinger (and nixon) also repeatedly asked the cheeni to move against India. This cheeni inaction badly disappointed the pakis but the cheeni actually went very much further than even the pakis could have ever imagined in their wildest dreams.

To ensure that India would/could never again break up pakiland, they set in motion an irreversible plan and that was the nuclearization as well as the weaponization of pakiland. There are numerous indications that the amerikis purposely ignored this aspect of the paki cheeni plan as did the europeans and the britshits.

The amerikis and the french inteligence had concrete and specific proof of xerox khan's activities, pertaining to his nuke commerce and supermarket enterprises including his dealings with various mid eastern nutters as well as the north koreans. The paki generals took a major portion of xerox khan's earnings and paki AF transports were used to carry nuke stuff to and from cheeni, north korea and other customers.

the cheeni were key players in all this and that too under the very nose of the amerikis.

The cheeni are long time strategic thinkers and usually, their projects play out with decades elapsing between the plan and it's gestation and the maturation.

gwadar has been in their sights for long decades now and pakiland is critical as well as vital to the military plans that will help them to break out of the relative isolation of their geographic situation and their give wings to their great (only) power ambitions.

The splitting of pakiland, in fact I would go so far as to say that they deliberately sat back and precipitated the paki breakup so that they could seize this most unexpected and golden opportunity, use it as a god sent short cut, to press on with their gwadar/kharkoram highway plans and at the very same time protect their investment and hobble India by nuclearizing and weaponizing the paki army. This was the forerunner to the CPEC/OBOR/BRI strategy that they eventually unfolded and are in the process of operationalizing.

Any perceived commercial spinoff to the CPEC in pakiland is merely incidental to the hans primary military and their supreme national interests. In fact, its this commercial aspect that is now being used as a cover by the hans to try and cloak their real and true intentions from the phata pyjama aam paki abduls. all of whom are having wet dreams and dreaming big of emulating the gulf arabs and thinking that lakhs upon lakhs of migrant labor will come and do their work for them and these phata pyjama aam paki abduls will simply kick back and rake in the moolah like the gulf arabs are doing now with the phata pyjama aam paki abduls.

In fact to pacify the hans the amerikis went so far as to arrange with the UK for rolls royce to sell 50 of its spey turbofan engines to china thereby repeating the hugely major blunder that the UK had done decades ago to sell its prizes and crown jewel aero engines to russia.

When the Soviet Union was given 40 Rolls-Royce Nene jet engines by Clement Attlee's Labour government and the Russians copied the technology to produce their own. This was done amidst great opposition by the stupid govt of the day

This RR Nene engine was the basis for the Klimov RD-45 engine that powered the MiG -15 fighter. This rebadged RR engine first entered russian service as the RD-45, and after initial problems of metallurgy forced the Soviet engineers to develop a slightly redesigned (and metallurgically closer) copy, the engine had then entered production as the Klimov VK-1 (Rolls-Royce later attempted to claim £207m in license fees, without success).

The below quoted article is paywalled. It gives one the general idea of what these "gerat" powers were up to.

If anyone has access, please post the article in full.

INTERNATIONAL COMMENTARY

Don't Sell the Rolls to China

Updated Aug. 27, 2001

By Richard D. Fisher, Jr. Mr. Fisher edits the China Brief newsletter of the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, D.C.

British jet engine maker Rolls Royce is repeating a tragedy: For the second time in about 50 years it is selling critical technology that will aid the military capability of a hostile communist power. And as happened before, this mistake will cost lives.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2498
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby nam » 28 Dec 2018 17:32

chetak wrote:x posted from the Pakistani Economic Stress Watch thread


After the 1971 war which created beediland, the cheeni who were supposed to help the pakis by deploying their troops against India did not do so for a variety of reasons but mostly it was thought that the uncertainty as to what the russians would do under such circumstances that scared them away. kissinger (and nixon) also repeatedly asked the cheeni to move against India. This cheeni inaction badly disappointed the pakis but the cheeni actually went very much further than even the pakis could have ever imagined in their wildest dreams.


India was not expected to win in 14 days. Russians actually wanted us to stop the war and put tremendous pressure on us not to invade West Pakistan.

The reality is US, Soviet, China all valued Pak more than us. It is a perfect client state and very useful in keeping a nation of 1.2 billion in check.

Chinis could not move troops even if they wanted to, because of peak winter. Expectation was we would get bogged down in some insurgency in East Pak, however we were out that place by March 72. Chinis then would have to face the full strength of expanded IA, confident due to the recent victory and well place against Chini invasion as seen in the 68 clash. Add to this Indian airpower will be available. Yes, Russian would have been happy to provide supplies.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19955
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 28 Dec 2018 17:59

nam wrote:
chetak wrote:x posted from the Pakistani Economic Stress Watch thread


After the 1971 war which created beediland, the cheeni who were supposed to help the pakis by deploying their troops against India did not do so for a variety of reasons but mostly it was thought that the uncertainty as to what the russians would do under such circumstances that scared them away. kissinger (and nixon) also repeatedly asked the cheeni to move against India. This cheeni inaction badly disappointed the pakis but the cheeni actually went very much further than even the pakis could have ever imagined in their wildest dreams.


India was not expected to win in 14 days. Russians actually wanted us to stop the war and put tremendous pressure on us not to invade West Pakistan.

The reality is US, Soviet, China all valued Pak more than us. It is a perfect client state and very useful in keeping a nation of 1.2 billion in check.

Chinis could not move troops even if they wanted to, because of peak winter. Expectation was we would get bogged down in some insurgency in East Pak, however we were out that place by March 72. Chinis then would have to face the full strength of expanded IA, confident due to the recent victory and well place against Chini invasion as seen in the 68 clash. Add to this Indian airpower will be available. Yes, Russian would have been happy to provide supplies.



Even if the cheeni had simply moved some forces without intent to attack, we would have to counter that by dividing and moving our own forces to block move that and thereafter commit troops to prevent any expected incursion or in the worst case scenario pursue a three front war in the east, west and also the cheeni border.

This threat was the potential endgame by the kissinger, nixon goonda gang to prevent India from seriously damaging the pakis.

kissinger, in fact, made repeated requests to the cheeni, enquiring as to when they would move against the Indians, fiercely egged on by his boss, nixon.

Failing an actual attack on India, Kissinger (and nixon) wanted the cheeni to do just that, the alternative was to show the threat of what the cheeni could do. The cheeni, however, refused to do that and they would have seen the paki dismemberment to their own advantage, a la gwadar.

The crooked ameriki duo was fearful that India would enter deep into west pakiland and create chaos for the ameriki secret operations emanating from there, essentially against the russians.

The paki genocide of the beedis, and the world wide publicity of the atrocities by IG, made the amerikis very wary of showing their hand in east pakiland, though, belatedly, and in sheer frustration at being bested by a saree clad, brown skinned asian woman, they did send in their 7th fleet threateningly.

The russians deploying a nuke submarine to shadow the US fleet further weakened the already shaky ameriki resolve and that left the amerikis with very few options open to them and almost no will to continue their misplaced belligerency.

just imagine, a superpower like the amerikis literally actually begging the cheeni to attack/threaten India and this very superpower is today our best friend??

The ameriki deep state has neither forgotten nor forgiven India for this.

It looks like hasina has stopped the amerikis from developing a big deep water port on one of the beedi islands to base their warships and military supply chain operations to counter the cheeni incursions into the Indian ocean.

The repercussions of the 1971 beedi liberation war seem to be still playing out in one form or the other.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11143
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Jan 2019 11:23

1971 war was fought in December, End of October and November are last days before movement can take place after that everything freezes for 3 months on the India -China Frontier. That is why even though they wanted to box India and gave Pakis large quantities of weaponry like F-6 Fighters and allowed US to inter grate Aim9B the CHinese could do didly squat in 1971

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 20 Jan 2019 04:05

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread.

Delay: SEZs unlikely to be ready for investment for two more years - Shahbaz Rana

ISLAMABAD: The prioritised Special Economic Zones (SEZs) being set up under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) would not be ready for investment for at least two more years, suggesting that the country’s former rulers wasted the last four years and did not do the spadework.

The Board of Investment (BOI) and the Ministry of Planning and Development on Friday briefed Prime Minister Imran Khan about the implementation status of CPEC projects. The meeting also discussed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s next month visit to Pakistan.

The prime minister instructed the authorities to form the CPEC Business Advisory Council, consisting of leading Pakistani business executives to create an interface with the private sector. However, this will add another layer to an already complicated governance setup.

The BOI is the lead agency in implementation of the SEZ programme while the CPEC Business Council is expected to be stationed in the Ministry of Planning.

The PM is said to have taken the decision of setting up the council in less than a minute without discussing details of the relevant proposal. Imran's Perpendicularity has been IMMEDIATELY reduced to Horizontality!

SEZs

The PM was informed that at least two years would be required to ensure clean titles of land, provision of gas and electricity and guarantee security for establishing and making three prioritised zones operational, officials told The Express Tribune.

The three zones are planned to be set up in Rashakai, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa; M3 Faisalabad, Punjab; and Dhabeji, Sindh.

An official statement said the PM directed the BOI chairman to present comprehensive recommendations for the speedy development of SEZs within four weeks.

SEZ initiative may prove to be double whammy for Pakistan’s economy

About nine prioritised SEZs had been planned to be established under CPEC to relocate dying industries from China to Pakistan. These zones will also be open for investment by other countries. Pakistan is eying to get a share in billions of dollars of investments and millions of new jobs as a result of relocation of Chinese industries to developing countries.

However, the lack of infrastructure development will delay the benefits. One of the reasons for slow progress on the SEZs is the lack of better coordination between federal and provincial governments.

A statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office stated that the premier directed that a timeline-based policy on the provision of utilities to the SEZs should be prepared at the earliest.

“We need to quickly move towards developing an evidence-based plan to make the prioritised SEZs operational at the earliest,” remarked BOI Chairman Haroon Sharif while talking to The Express Tribune.

Despite these difficulties, the government wants to perform the groundbreaking of the SEZs in the first half of 2019.The prime minister directed the officials to make full use of Chinese investors’ visits this year, promote awareness amongst investors of Pakistan’s tax policies, market the SEZs along with their development and ensure ease of doing business.

Of the three prioritised zones, Punjab’s SEZ is moving ahead as it is being developed by the provincial government, which has also allocated funds in the budget.

Minister directs completion of SEZs

Although the K-P government has found a development partner, it has not yet been able to sign the concession agreement. The Dhabeji SEZ is the slowest among the three where the development partner has not yet been found by the provincial government.

The federal government would fast-track the provision of infrastructure and utilities to harness the full potential of industrial growth at the earliest, said Federal Minister for Planning Makhdoom Khusro Bakhtyar.

He said the government was considering providing the utilities through the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) as the setting up of new industries was very critical for sustainable economic growth. A lack of coordination between the federal and provincial governments, which is hampering the early development of the SEZs, is also reflected in the minutes of the 8th CPEC Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) meeting.

“The Chinese side proposed that the BOI should coordinate and unite Pakistan’s land, energy, taxation, customs, law and other relevant departments to conduct research on the most critical issues, such as land prices, park development models, implementation of industrial projects, preferential tax policies and infrastructure support for all the SEZs, including Rashakai, Dhabeji and M3 SEZ in Faisalabad,” said the minutes.

The minutes underlined that it was important to frame preferential policies that could meet the needs of investment companies and promote the construction of SEZs as soon as possible, and actively attract more enterprises to invest and build factories, including the IT SEZ in Islamabad.

The PM directed that the Pakistani side should finalise a road map for promoting the agriculture sector, inviting Chinese companies to explore investment opportunities and leverage agro value chains.

The minutes of the 8th JCC meeting showed that the Pakistani side desired Chinese agriculture and food companies to explore investment opportunities in Pakistan for input supplies as well as food production, processing, logistics, marketing and exports in a vertically integrated way on their own or in joint ventures with Pakistani companies.

But there was no mention of the Chinese response to the proposal.

The prime minister also constituted a high-level committee, comprising ministers for planning, railway and finance, to finalise modalities of the Pakistan Railways’ ML-1 project – a strategic scheme of CPEC.

Cheers Image

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3307
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby kit » 20 Jan 2019 17:05

Aditya_V wrote:
Lisa wrote:https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/kenya-risks-losing-port-of-mombasa-to-china

Report: Kenya Risks Losing Port of Mombasa to China


Kenya must ask the Chinese to take a hike, lets see if Chinese can enforce this. In fact an association of BRI countries other than Pakistan must jointly stop repaying the Chinese.


not a bad idea ., it could set a precedent., lets see what the chinese can do :mrgreen:

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 21 Jan 2019 10:27

WB pause gives India free rein to complete Ratle project

India has restarted work on construction of 850MW Ratle hydropower project on the Chenab River leaving Pakistan clueless about how to stop its eastern neighbor from going ahead with the controversial project.
The work on the dam has been restarted despite a pause announced by the World Bank on December 12, 2016.
(Pakistan) believes Ratle’s design would reduce Chenab flows by 40 per cent at Head Marala causing considerable loss to crops. The dam is believed to be three times larger than the Baglihar dam.
However, in the wake of pause, India has already managed to complete and make 330MW Kishenganga hydropower project functional.


:((

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/421530 ... le-project

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby yensoy » 21 Jan 2019 11:24

^^^^ So is that our strategic plan against the Pakis these days? We let them beg, borrow and steal for 20 years and construct a dam. Then we dam it upstream with a bigger dam and make it go to waste? :mrgreen: somehow doesn't seem Karma compliant to me but I can't seem to care a damn...

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19955
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 21 Jan 2019 11:57

Aditya_V wrote:1971 war was fought in December, End of October and November are last days before movement can take place after that everything freezes for 3 months on the India -China Frontier. That is why even though they wanted to box India and gave Pakis large quantities of weaponry like F-6 Fighters and allowed US to inter grate Aim9B the CHinese could do didly squat in 1971



Nothing was actually required to be done by the hans, except a few well chosen empty gestures, exactly as requested by the desperate US.

Even if the hans had made the token gesture of moving a few units in a symbolic and public flourish, it would have spooked a lot of people and tied up valuable resources.

Given the backdrop of 1962, nobody in India would have taken the chance to do otherwise and especially not IG.

That the hans chose not to, despite being pressurized by the amerikis, by no less a person than kissinger himself, is a cause for some study and reflection. It would have also placed the amerikis under some serious obligation to the hans. Both countries are very transactional and this was the best way for the hans to go.

Merely brushing under the carpet, such a momentous event, and citing "winter conditions" is counterproductive, especially when the world was expecting the hans to make such a move and there would not have been too much of an outcry to support India's position, Any blowback in the international arena would have already been factored in, especially when two members of the UNSC were acting in unison. The britshits and the french were not averse to this stance of the amerikis. Only the russkis were with us. It would have been a 4-1 split in the UNSC, had push come to shove.

Yes, winter was a big factor, but so what?? Do armies go on holiday in winter??

OTOH, letting India breakup the pukiland played right into the han's hands.

It fed the paki paranoia, allowed the hans to play the beplumed knight on the white horse "coming" to the aid of the beleaguered jehadis whose calculation of "bania" Hindus, the ratio of one paki to ten Hindus and all that BS was laid bare before the whole world. It also fed right into the paki's massive inferiority complex as well as their deep seated fear of India and gave the hans a golden chance to infiltrate the very core of the paki psyche and literally gain real estate as well as vital access to the waters of the gulf without firing a single shot.

There was no way that the pakis or the amerikis or the hans could "spin" their way out of this massive public and demeaning spectacle of the 93,000 paki POWs sitting in sullen silence. It was a an all-round diplomatic and a strategic disaster.

I say again that this was engineered by the hans as it greatly eased their eventual way into their prime objective of gwadar and the whole CPEC construct.

To do the same, without subverting the paki state using the CPEC, would have meant a massive effort to subjugate India economically and maybe access the bay of bengal via beediland. Either way, their desired and long standing objective of bypassing the trap of the straits of malacca is about to be achieved.

So, they have achieved their sure shot gulf access via gwadar and are still working on gaining access via a similar and also another risk mitigation land route through beediland, again skirting the contentious malacca straits.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests