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.
Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3578
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Kashi » 21 Jan 2019 13:51

chetak wrote: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.


Could be because Soviets were parked on the Northern border?

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??

chetak wrote: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.


That's bestowing upon the Han too much foresight. Doubt that access to warm waters of the gulf was in the forefront of their mind

chetak wrote: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.


As we've discussed CPEC is a ponzi scheme, makes no sense economically. Gwadar probably did not even exist in someone's imagination back then.

chetak wrote: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.


CPEC is economically, logistically and even militarily unviable, how does it help bypass the trap of Malacca?

chetak wrote: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.


How does a land access via BeeDee work without going through India? They have Myanmar for that.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 23 Jan 2019 22:26

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread!

IT IS OFFICIAL NOW!

Image

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 31 Jan 2019 00:19

X Posted on the OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Thread.

Souring deals put China's Belt and Road dreams under pressure

Chinese President Xi Jinping already had plenty of reasons to rethink his grand plan to build railways, ports and other infrastructure across the globe. Malaysia has given him "20 billion" more.

The Malaysian government's move to cancel a China-financed high-speed rail link across the Malay Peninsula raised new questions about Xi's so-called Belt and Road Initiative. The cabinet decided the $20 billion project was "beyond the government's financial capability," economic affairs minister Mohamed Azmin Ali said Saturday, previewing a move that could be formally announced by next week.

The deal's collapse adds urgency to a debate already growing in Beijing about the potentially $1 trillion programme, the main engine of Xi's effort to convert China's economic might into global influence. In recent months, countries across Asia have suspended, scaled back or terminated projects amid concerns over corruption, influence-peddling and rising debt.

"We are seeing more backlash and challenges," said Pang Zhongying, an international relations professor at Macau University of Science and Technology. "China needs to draw conclusions from its experience and absorb the lessons from the all these incidents, because the external landscape is changing rapidly and its internal economic challenges looming."

‘Vanity projects'

Xi will have a chance for a reset in April, when he is expected to convene leaders in Beijing for his second BRI summit. In September, the Chinese president promised African nations he wouldn't pursue "vanity projects," and last month the country's top regulator of state-owned enterprises published a report calling for greater "overseas social responsibility" in investments.

The growing wariness toward Chinese largess adds another complication to Xi's effort to manage an economic slowdown at home and a more confrontational US abroad. The Trump administration has seized on the doubts to bolster its own regional clout, with Vice President Mike Pence telling an Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in November that US wouldn't "offer a constricting belt or a one-way road."

China's efforts have also spurred the US to set up a new agency to lend as much as $60 billion for infrastructure in developing countries.

Malaysia emerged as a particular headache last year, after a scandal over embezzlement allegations at the country's 1MDB wealth fund helped Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad oust his one-time protege, Najib Razak. Mahathir put a series of deals under review, including the East Coast Rail link, and warned against a " new version of colonialism" during a trip to Beijing.

Skepticism about Beijing's intentions was fed by a Wall Street Journal report earlier this month that Malaysia was investigating whether China offered to bail out 1MDB in exchange for infrastructure deals. Mahathir struck a conciliatory tone on Tuesday, saying the government's reason for canceling the rail was simply a lack of funds.

"Concern about its development model, Malaysia's high debt and allegations of impropriety around 1MDB all weighed on this decision," said Oh Ei Sun, a senior fellow at Singapore Institute of International Affairs. Beijing was learning that its model of infrastructure-led economic growth might be difficult to export, Sun said.

Domestic politics

Chinese projects — big, disruptive and debt-dependent — inevitably get tangled in domestic politics and fiscal considerations of the countries they're intended to help.

Nepal, for instance, canceled and then reinstated a $2.5 billion dam project after a series of government changes. In Pakistan, the government declined to include a pre-existing $14 billion dam project in the broader $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, reportedly due to onerous financing terms.

Myanmar's minister of investment and foreign economic relations said the country would scale-down a $7.5 billion plan for a deep-sea port built by CITIC Group in the town of Kyaukpyu. Thaung Tun told a news conference in the capital Naypyidaw the Myanmar didn't want to repeat the experience of other countries and build infrastructure without sufficient demand.

"We do not have any concerns about the debt trap," he said. "We are not going to borrow to the extent where we can't repay."

Moreover, places like Southeast Asia may have less appetite for large infrastructure projects than expected. The value of new large investment and construction projects dropped by half to $19.2 billion in the six largest members of Asean last year, the lowest in four years, a Citigroup analysis found.

"China's overarching geostrategic imperatives suggests it will be incentivized to be more sensitive to Asean's pushback going forward," Citigroup analysts said. They anticipated that China would show more interest in co-financing projects with multilateral development banks.

Xiao Gang, a former head of China's securities watchdog, said during a speech in Washington last week that projects built solely with Chinese funds weren't sustainable. Xiao said that China needed to ensure that more of its investments meet international standards, according to the South China Morning Post.

The criticism could also wind up strengthening the Belt and Road effort. Dane Chamorro, a senior partner at the Control Risks Group, said Beijing might decide it needs to make state-run companies meet higher standards to secure financing for overseas projects.

"There's been a huge reputational blow for China, but don't underestimate their ability to learn fast and change course," Chamorro said. "BRI 2.0 won't have anywhere near the same numbers of huge, high-profile projects as the first version and they'll be more more sustainable."

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2019 10:29

looks better equipped than gwadar is today.


India Formally Establishes Shipping Lines To Chabahar Port; Afghanistan All Set To Send Its First Cargo To Indian Ports



by Swarajya Staff - Jan 30 2019,

India Formally Establishes Shipping Lines To Chabahar Port; Afghanistan All Set To Send Its First Cargo To Indian Ports

Image

Chabahar Port (Alireza numberone/Wikimedia Commons)


Afghanistan is all set to ship its first cargo of five containers to India through the Chabahar port within a months time, as per Iran’s ministry of Roads and Urban Development, reports DNA.

The delivery of the cargo, containing mung beans and weighing about 22 tonne, will be carried out under the International Road Transports (TIR) system. TIR system streamlines procedures at borders and reduces the administrative burden for custom authorities.

According to the report, Iranian ministry quoted Afghanistan’s ministry of foreign affairs as saying, “This cargo will be shipped as a pilot project from Afghanistan to India.”

Meanwhile, an Iranian Prime Minister’s office release announced that India has formally established shipping lines to Chabahar with the first ship arriving on Sunday (27 January).

It has been reportedly decided that ships from 3 Indian ports - Mumbai, Kandla and Mundra - will now regularly go to the Iranian port every 2 weeks.

"With the arrival of the first 3700TEU container at Shahid Beheshti Chabahar port, for the first time, the shipping line between the ports of Mumbai-Mundra-Kandla have opened," director general of Sistan-Baluchestan Ports and Maritime Organisation Behrouz Aqayee said in the release, as per the report.

The development comes a month after India, in its first such venture outside its territories, took over the port’s operations.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 31 Jan 2019 15:24

chetak Ji :

Gwadi - wadi - yaar is a Chinese Project for Xinjiang's Exports - most probably Cotton Textiles - and to Chinese control of Terroristan - especially in Areas in which the CPEC, OBOR Ityaadi Projects encompass. Chinese Textiles will be labeled "Made in Terroristan" and passed on mostly to India under Terroristani-Indian Trade.

This also gives the Chinese THE FREEDOM & RIGHT to Station 500,000 Chinese in Terroristan.

For your information here are the Performances of Gwadar in the last Four Years - all the quantities ARE UNDER THE HEADING Imports!

TERRORISTAN ECONOMIC SURVEY 2017-2018 - TABLE 13.1 D - PORTS-Cargo Handled IN THOUSAND TONNES - Page 406 / 432

2014-15 "438.9" - 2015-16 "50.6" : 2016-17 "80.4": 2017-18 "23.8" (Jul-Feb (P)

Cheers Image

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4069
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Lilo » 31 Jan 2019 17:57

chetak wrote:looks better equipped than gwadar is today.

India Formally Establishes Shipping Lines To Chabahar Port; Afghanistan All Set To Send Its First Cargo To Indian Ports

by Swarajya Staff - Jan 30 2019,

India Formally Establishes Shipping Lines To Chabahar Port; Afghanistan All Set To Send Its First Cargo To Indian Ports

Image

Chabahar Port (Alireza numberone/Wikimedia Commons)


That pic is of Shahid Rajaee Port in Iran - it not a pic of Chabahar , the Swarajya guys didnt do due diligence.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2019 21:42

^^^^^^^
@Lilo

Understood, saar.

Which is why I included the original photo credits, a thing I don't normally do.

Thanks for the input.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3828
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chola » 01 Feb 2019 16:36

Peregrine wrote:
chetak Ji :

Gwadi - wadi - yaar is a Chinese Project for Xinjiang's Exports - most probably Cotton Textiles - and to Chinese control of Terroristan - especially in Areas in which the CPEC, OBOR Ityaadi Projects encompass. Chinese Textiles will be labeled "Made in Terroristan" and passed on mostly to India under Terroristani-Indian Trade.

This also gives the Chinese THE FREEDOM & RIGHT to Station 500,000 Chinese in Terroristan.

For your information here are the Performances of Gwadar in the last Four Years - all the quantities ARE UNDER THE HEADING Imports!

TERRORISTAN ECONOMIC SURVEY 2017-2018 - TABLE 13.1 D - PORTS-Cargo Handled IN THOUSAND TONNES - Page 406 / 432

2014-15 "438.9" - 2015-16 "50.6" : 2016-17 "80.4": 2017-18 "23.8" (Jul-Feb (P)

Cheers Image


Diluting a muzzie fundoo state with 500000 pork-eating chinis is for the better.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2945
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ArjunPandit » 12 Feb 2019 19:09

came across this goldmine on BRI
BRI report card: deeper linkages, greater caution

https://www.moodys.com/researchdocument ... BC_1157652

while it is sinic view. For some charts and headings are interesting, will post key details on twitter and then tag over here on sunday night. This is really fun. Even two chinese analysts in it can't hide their paap

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2493
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby darshhan » 12 Feb 2019 19:52

ArjunPandit wrote:came across this goldmine on BRI
BRI report card: deeper linkages, greater caution

https://www.moodys.com/researchdocument ... BC_1157652

while it is sinic view. For some charts and headings are interesting, will post key details on twitter and then tag over here on sunday night. This is really fun. Even two chinese analysts in it can't hide their paap


What's your twitter handle?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 12 Feb 2019 20:08

darshhan wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:came across this goldmine on BRI
BRI report card: deeper linkages, greater caution

https://www.moodys.com/researchdocument ... BC_1157652

while it is sinic view. For some charts and headings are interesting, will post key details on twitter and then tag over here on sunday night. This is really fun. Even two chinese analysts in it can't hide their paap


What's your twitter handle?


Isn't the link behind a paywall/needs subscription??

please post in full when you post details here.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 12 Feb 2019 21:34

darshhan wrote:What's your twitter handle?
chetak wrote:Isn't the link behind a paywall/needs subscription??

please post in full when you post details here.
chetak Ji :

Registration is FREE!

Cheers Image

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2945
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ArjunPandit » 16 Feb 2019 18:37

darshhan wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:came across this goldmine on BRI
BRI report card: deeper linkages, greater caution

https://www.moodys.com/researchdocument ... BC_1157652

while it is sinic view. For some charts and headings are interesting, will post key details on twitter and then tag over here on sunday night. This is really fun. Even two chinese analysts in it can't hide their paap


What's your twitter handle?

https://twitter.com/BhukkhaBhediya/stat ... 5342188544

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 09 Mar 2019 08:20

CPEC concerns making China apprehensive about supporting ban on Masood Azhar: Report


CPEC concerns making China apprehensive about supporting ban on Masood Azhar: Report

This is the fourth time that a proposal has been moved to brand Masood Azhar a global terrorist. The previous three attempts have been blocked by China

OPINDIA STAFF
MARCH 8, 2019

China apprehensive about changing minds on Masood Azhar's terror designation


The People’s Republic of China, which has repeatedly blocked India’s efforts to designate Masood Azhar a terrorist, is reportedly apprehensive about changing its mind, as it thinks it will make the multi-billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) prone to attacks by Jaish-e-Mohammed.

According to an Economic Times report, China is thinking about changing its stand on Masood Azhar and not use the veto to prevent him from getting listed as a terrorist on March 13th when the proposal moved by France and supported by other UNSC permanent members under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267 goes under consideration.

For this, it is reported that it will have to exert pressure on Pakistan to tie down security guarantees regarding CPEC. China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kong Xuanyou’s visit to Pakistan, this month, is also said to be have been done in this regard.

The $62 billion CPEC project, part of China’s giant programme Belt and Road Initiative, intends to construct modern infrastructures in Pakistan, including highway and railway networks, energy projects, to bolster the country’s economic backbone. According to reports, around 10,000 Chinese nationals are working on the project. Last week, China also sent socio-economic development experts to Pakistan to gear up projects in areas like education and water.

The corridor passes through Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and also Mansehra district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where Balakot is present. It is considered a hotbed of activities of JeM and was recently hit by air strikes conducted by India.

China, reportedly, has acquired a large amount of land near Balakot and the Karakoram Highway that connects Pakistan with China through POK also crosses Mansehra making them prone to JeM’s terror activities.

India has been persistent in its approach to declare Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. In 2009, India had moved a proposal to ban Azhar. In 2016 again, India moved a similar proposal with the P3 nations: The United States, the United Kingdom, and France in the UN’s 1267 Sanctions Committee. The P3 nations had moved the same proposal in 2017, too. However, all proposals brought no fruit for India, as all of them were blocked by veto-wielding China. Even after the Pulwama attack last month, China has shown no difference in its position.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 15 Mar 2019 23:42

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Pakistan owes $10 billion debt to China for Gwadar port, other projects: Top US general - PTI

WASHINGTON: Pakistan owes its "allweather friend" China at least $10 billion debt for the construction of the Gwadar port and other projects, the top US general has said, as he underlined Beijing's "predatory economics" to expand its global influence.

The strategic Gwadar Port in Balochistan province on the Arabian Sea is being built by China under the multi-billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and is considered to be a link between Beijing's ambitious One Belt, One Road (OBOR) and Maritime Silk Road projects.

"Let us look at just a few examples. Saddled with predatory Chinese loans, Sri Lanka granted China a 99-year lease and 70 per cent stake in its deep-water port," General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

The Maldives owes China roughly $1.5 billion in debt - about 30 per cent of its GDP - for construction costs, he said.

"Pakistan owes China at least $10 billion in debt for the construction of Gwadar Port and other projects," Dunford said.

"China is diligently building an international network of coercion through predatory economics to expand its sphere of influence," he said, adding that nations around the globe are discovering the hard way that China's economic "friendship" via OBOR can come at "a steep cost" when promises of investment go unfulfilled and international standards and safeguards are ignored.

In Africa, Djibouti owes China over 80 per cent of its GDP and in 2017, the country became host to China's first overseas military base. In Latin America, Ecuador agreed to sell 80 to 90 per cent of its exportable crude oil to China through 2024 in exchange for $6.5 billion in Chinese loans, he said.

And after leasing land tax-free to China for 50 years, Argentina is denied access and oversight to a Chinese satellite tracking station on its sovereign territory, unwittingly allowing the facility's use for military purposes, the US general said.

Dunford warned that if China's predatory debt tactics are left unaddressed, they will have serious implications on the US's military.

Alleging that China is extending its reach by increasing its overt military and coercive activities through its neighbours, Dunford said China's increasingly provocative behaviour in the Indo-Pacific, particularly the South China Sea (SCS), should concern all.

Between 2013 and 2018, China increased its air and sea incursions into the SCS twelve-fold. Within those five years, it also increased deployments of offensive and defensive weapons systems to the SCS by the same order of magnitude, he said.

China's land reclamation and militarisation far exceed that of other claimants combined in the South China Sea, he said.

Between 2013 and 2015 alone, China created more than 3,200 acres in the SCS, building features within its self-proclaimed 'nine dash line' - a claim the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in 2016 has no legal basis, Dunford told the lawmakers.

Dunford also accused China of interfering in the freedom of navigation.

"China habitually threatens this freedom, using both conventional military force projection and 'gray zone' or irregular warfare activities," he said.

Citing an example, he said Chinese military vessels came dangerously close to the USS Decatur, a destroyer of the US Navy, off the coast of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

"China's force projection inside and outside the SCS disrespects and undermines our rules-based international order and threatens regional stability and security," Dunford said

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 18 Mar 2019 23:57

X Posted on the Teroristan Thread.

CPEC Birdies come Home to Roost! :rotfl:

CPEC transparency – Editorial

THE Special Committee of the Senate on the China Pakistan Economic Corridor has raised the demand for greater transparency in the execution of work under CPEC.

The government would be well advised to heed its words. The chair of the committee, Senator Sherry Rehman, said that her committee gets more information from the media than it does from the government, a state of affairs that is entirely unacceptable.

The ruling party, while it was in opposition under the previous government, used to regularly join in the chorus of demands for greater transparency on CPEC, and its representatives in parliament used to make the same demands at the time.

Now when they are in power they seem to have reverted to the same practice as their predecessor of keeping the country in the dark as large-scale work progresses under the CPEC banner.

Only last week, for example, Planning Minister Khusro Bakhtiar announced a series of decisions taken by the cabinet committee on CPEC from which it was quite evident that major changes will be made to Pakistan’s policy environment in order to take the corridor project forward.

He mentioned that a series of projects in agriculture, education, health, poverty alleviation, water supply and vocational training is about to be finalised and will be shared with Chinese counterparts soon.

Apparently, Chinese experts have been consulted extensively in drawing up this list. Sadly though, Pakistan’s own parliament remains unaware of what is being planned and how the projects will be paid for.

In addition, the minister also revealed that plans to shift the financing of the massive railway up-gradation project known as ML1, which is the largest under the CPEC umbrella at $8.2bn, have gone back to where the previous government had left them.

The then PML-N government intended to finance the project through a Chinese grant which would be repaid with interest from the government of Pakistan’s resources. The PTI, upon coming to power, said it would like to renegotiate these terms to Build-Operate-Transfer instead, so that the repayment burden does not fall on the government and the Chinese can be asked to finance the project with their resources and recover their investment by operating the railway line themselves for a specified period of time.

It seems like the Chinese have refused this offer. Naturally, the government now has to consider the terms of repayment carefully, given the size of the project, and figure out how to manage them at a time when it is going to the IMF for balance-of-payments support.

Under an IMF programme, the government’s economic priority would be to build foreign-exchange reserves and narrow the fiscal deficit, which could become a challenge if massive projects are launched with borrowed money.

The Senate committee is right to emphasise its stake in the enterprise, and the government should move to allay its concerns.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 20 Mar 2019 16:11

X Posted on Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat & Terroristan Threads

India signals to boycott China's Belt and Road Forum for 2nd time – PTI

BEIJING: India on Wednesday signalled that it will boycott China's second Belt and Road Forum for a second time, saying no country can participate in an initiative that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.

India boycotted the first Belt and Road Forum (BRF) in 2017 after protesting to Beijing over the controversial China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which is being laid through the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) overriding New Delhi's sovereignty concerns.

Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi recently said that next month China plans to hold a much bigger, second BRF which will also be attended by Pakistan Prime Minster Imran Khan.

Speculation is rife whether India would attend the second BRF as China has deepened its commitment to expand the $60 billion CPEC, which aims to connect China's Xinjiang province with Pakistan's Gwadar port with a host of road, rail, gas and oil pipelines.

China has also undertaken a host of energy projects under the aegis of the CPEC.

India's ambassador to China Vikram Misri told the state-run Global Times that "above all, connectivity initiatives must be pursued in a manner that respects sovereignty, equality and territorial integrity of nations".

"No country can participate in an initiative that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity," he replied to a question about India's concerns over the BRI and whether India would take part in the second BRF meet.

The Indian envoy's interview was carried by the daily on Wednesday.

"To be honest, we have made no secret of our views and our position on the BRI is clear and consistent and one that we have conveyed to the authorities concerned.

"India shares the global aspiration to strengthen connectivity and it is an integral part of our economic and diplomatic initiatives. We ourselves are working with many countries and international institutions in our region and beyond on a range of connectivity initiatives," Misri said.

"However, it is also our belief that connectivity initiatives must be based on universally recognised international norms, good governance and rule of law. They must emphasise social stability and environmental protection and preservation, promote skill and technology transfers and follow principles of openness, transparency and financial sustainability," the Indian envoy said.

India along with the US and several other countries have been highlighting the concerns over the BRI projects, leaving a number of smaller countries in debt traps.

The concerns grew louder after China took over Sri Lanka's Hambantota port on a 99-year lease as debt swap. Several countries including Malaysia and even Pakistan have wished to reduce the Chinese projects over debt concerns.

Asked whether India-China ties are back on track, Misri said: "the bilateral relationship between India and China is of great significance not just to the two countries, but also to the larger region and the international community".

He said that the Wuhan summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping in April, 2018 was a "milestone in bilateral relations during which the two leaders exchanged views on overarching issues of bilateral and global importance, and elaborated their respective visions and priorities for national development in context of the current international situation".

Last year, the two leaders also met on the sidelines of multilateral summits.

"These meetings have reinforced strategic communication between the two countries at the highest levels and helped in elaborating a road map for continuing contacts. China is India's biggest neighbour and we assign a very high priority to this relationship," the Indian envoy said.

"Unlike some 50 years ago, when our relationship had a much narrower basis and there was not much communication, today we have what one would call a full spectrum relationship.

"This has been possible because our respective leaders have realised that mutually-beneficial cooperation responds to the most urgent developmental needs of our people and these needs to be prioritised over other issues," Misri said.

Asked about the impact of India's elections on India-China ties, Misri said: "my own feeling is that on foreign policy issues there is a broad political consensus in India on where our national interests lie. I do not think therefore that the outcome of the elections will impact the broad contours of India's foreign policy in general or the very important relationship with China in particular".

Cheers Image

IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7041
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby IndraD » 21 Mar 2019 19:19

https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-j ... dh-2731702

China deploys soldiers within 90 kms of Indo Pak border in Sindh: this news has been doing rounds, looks like China doesn't believe Pakistan will be able to protect its CPEC project and has deployed over 10,000 soldiers in its protection.
CPEC is also protected by 4000 men from special forces of Pakistani army.
Pakistan becoming a vassal state of China sooner than thought.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ramana » 21 Mar 2019 19:39

Folks I read somewhere that India has signed agreement to link by rail Delhi with Kathmandu and another agreement to link Kathmandu with Dacca.

Kathmandu is already linked by rail to Beijing.

These links will open up Mumbai and Chittagong as entry ports to Beijing.

Shippers can use these if they want to bypass risky CPEC.

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

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 21 Mar 2019 20:30

ramana wrote:Kathmandu is already linked by rail to Beijing.



Incorrect. No part of Nepal is linked by rail to PRC Occupied Tibet or for that matter any other bit of PRC.


Folks I read somewhere that India has signed agreement to link by rail Delhi with Kathmandu and another agreement to link Kathmandu with Dacca.


Correct:

India and Nepal sign agreement to build railway line between Kathmandu and Bihar’s Raxaul
Last edited by arun on 21 Mar 2019 20:35, edited 1 time in total.

IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7041
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby IndraD » 21 Mar 2019 20:31

interesting nitpick: Balakot where India struck is where CPEC passes through, looks like feel of insecurity in China has been fueled by India's strike hence PLA deployment.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 21 Mar 2019 20:36

IndraD wrote:interesting nitpick: Balakot where India struck is where CPEC passes through, looks like feel of insecurity in China has been fueled by India's strike hence PLA deployment.


so what, saar??.

it will get chalked up to collateral damage, no??

one time they said we hit trees, next time some cheeni peoples, who can say what will happen??

There will be much commiseration and bowing by some faceless baboo(n) from the external affairs ministry, some Indian tea ceremony, in traditional white vesty and angavastram of course, along with some stale humble pie and fresh, hot and really spicy samosas.

until the next time and more cheeni collateral damage, right??

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1482
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby yensoy » 21 Mar 2019 20:52

ramana wrote:These links will open up Mumbai and Chittagong as entry ports to Beijing.

Shippers can use these if they want to bypass risky CPEC.


Huh? Shippers can already send their stuff by sea to Tianjin port, which is very close to Beijing.

We all know that CPEC/Gwadar has zero purpose of providing China with a sea port, even Sinkiang region of China. So the fact that our ports have overland transit into China is meaningless.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ramana » 22 Mar 2019 00:52

arun thanks for that link.
In same link it has this

The pact comes two years after China agreed to go ahead with a strategic railway link with Nepal, passing through Tibet. A feasibility study for the 70-km railway link between Gyiron in Tibet and Kathmandu has already been conducted, reported Reuters.


yensoy we will see.

siqir
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 20 Mar 2019 08:32

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby siqir » 22 Mar 2019 14:40

re the discussion about chinese cpec security

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q5gURCNkDE4&t=47

watch from 0:47 to 16:43 vid has english subtitles

it is a cctv4 report on obor from 2016 or so from balochistan
note the reporters naivete and shock at the security and the news reports of terror attacks at end of segment
in the end they are prevented from going to the mine or even filming outside

shashankk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 03:53

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby shashankk » 01 Apr 2019 14:54

Baloch Liberation Army attacks Chinese assets - Several Chinese Engineers Killed


In yet another attack on Chinese nationals on Pakistani soil a convoy of 22 vehicles comprising Chinese engineers employed in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has been targeted in Balochistan resulting in number of casualties.

This was the third attack on Chinese assets during the past six months by Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) which has been protesting China's growing presence in Balochistan. BLA, which is also opposed to CPEC targeted Chinese consulate in Karachi last November, in a dare devil act.

The attack on the convoy occurred near Hamdard University in Karachi city, ET has learnt. While the figures are not known number of casualties of workers and engineers have been reported by Pakistani news channels.


Jeeyand Baloch, a spokesperson for BLA in a statement noted,“BLA fighters attacked the convoy of Chinese engineers-consists of 22 vehicles, with a remote control bomb in front of Hamdard university in Karachi city. The attack resulted in killing of several Chines engineers and workers”.

“This attack is the continuity of the BLA’s policy of not allowing any force including China, to plunder the Baloch wealth in Balochistan. Our fighters had carried out deadly attacks on Chinese interests and engineers in the past and series of such attacks will continue with intensification until China terminates the nexus with Pakistan, regarding Baloch land” he added.

Earlier BLA carried out an attack on Chinese consulate in Karachi city in November last year and claimed responsibility for an attack last August on a bus carrying Chinese mining workers in Balochistan.

The attack coincides with the visit of PM Imran Khan to Balochistan, including Gwadar city.

Jeeyan Baloch claimed that the time of this attack was chosen to give a clear message to Prime minister of Pakistan and international investors that Baloch fighters are capable of defending their land.

http://www.defencenews.in/article/Baloc ... led-583898
Last edited by shashankk on 01 Apr 2019 14:56, edited 1 time in total.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23743
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 01 Apr 2019 14:56

Pakistan diverts CPEC corridor funds; China ties under pressure - Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, Economic Times
A controversy has erupted over the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) ahead of the second Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) summit in Beijing following allegations that the Pakistani government has diverted Rs 2,400 crore (around $171.6 million) meant for joint infrastructure development projects with China under BRI to other projects.

China had given the money as part of the $62-billion infrastructure funding to build the CPEC. However, Pakistan’s planning and development ministry issued an order diverting Rs 2,400 crore to projects to be identified by local legislators under the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals programme, according to sources.

The move could be part of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf ’s efforts to appease its lawmakers by allowing them to make decisions on development projects, said one person.

“The government committed theft by spending Rs 2,400 crore out of Rs 2,700 crore meant for BRI on other development projects,” Opposition leader Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman was quoted by local media.


Differences between China and the Imran Khan government over the CPEC have persisted since the former cricket captain was elected as the PM last year. Razak Dawood, a cabinet member, had demanded that the CPEC projects be put on the back burner for a year because he claimed they were of little benefit to Pakistanis. Besides, the Khan government included new sectors like agriculture under CPEC. According to the Sindh-based business lobby, only Punjabi business houses benefited from CPEC projects under the erstwhile Nawaz Sharif government.

Russian news agency Sputnik recently reported that China has deployed troops closer to the India border to safeguard the CPEC. Safeguarding the CPEC was the primary reason behind China’s veto in the UN Security Council against declaring Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar a global terrorist despite global outrage, according to the people cited earlier. China fears terrorist attacks on the CPEC, which will be its key transportation link to the Indian Ocean Region to connect West Asia and Africa.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23743
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 01 Apr 2019 15:11

shashankk wrote:Baloch Liberation Army attacks Chinese assets - Several Chinese Engineers Killed


"We counsel China to act cautiously and avoid forcefully moving forward. China should allow further discussion and resolution of the issue through dialogue. The Baloch issue involves a series of complex factors, and everyone, including China, should work to seek proper solution through dialogue. China and Pakistan must act in a prudential way to play constructive role and create necessary time and space for the relevant parties to conduct dialogue and negotiations. It is hoped that the mention of the Pakistan-based outfit was only in ‘general terms’ and does not represent a judgment. India hopes all parties will work to find the truth about this attack. We hope Pakistan and China will engage in dialogue to jointly safeguard regional peace and stability. China should adopt a constructive attitude to work with all sides because there is no clear stipulation on the listing and procedure of calling any entity as a terrorist organisation. We also want to stress that both China and India are victims of terrorism. We have the same purpose and share the same goal on the issue of counter-terrorism and we hope to enhance cooperation and communication with the Chinese side to uphold peace and security of the region."

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 03 Apr 2019 20:34

Explained: Why China is shielding the Jaish-e-Mohammad and Masood Azhar


Explained: Why China is shielding the Jaish-e-Mohammad and Masood Azhar

China has refused to lift its “technical hold” on a proposal to declare Masood Azhar a global terrorist under UNSC Resolution 1267, which prescribes a sanctions regime against designated terrorists and terrorist groups.

Apurva | New Delhi |
March 14, 2019


Explained: Why China is shielding the Jaish-e-Mohammad

India’s proposal, put forward in February 2016 after the Pathankot attack, to designate Azhar as a global terrorist under the 1267 regime has been blocked four times by China, most recently in January 2017.

Soon after a suicide bomber killed 40 CRPF personnel in Jammu and Kashmir on February 14, the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad claimed responsibility. The terrorist organisation has carried out multiple attacks on India over the last nearly two decades, but its leader, Maulana Masood Azhar, eludes international sanctions.

The reason is China. Beijing has refused to lift its “technical hold” on a proposal to declare Azhar a global terrorist under UN Security Council Resolution 1267, which prescribes a sanctions regime against designated terrorists and terrorist groups. India’s proposal, put forward in February 2016 after the Pathankot attack, to designate Azhar as a global terrorist under the 1267 regime has been blocked four times by China, most recently in January 2017.

Why is China so keen to shield Azhar, blocking a global consensus at the behest of Pakistan? Its standard line is that it wants to “uphold the authority and validity of the 1267 Committee”. But its real reasons are far less lofty — and range from protecting its “all weather” ally in South Asia to its business interests in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and from making things difficult for its Asian rival India to making a point to western powers led by the United States.

Where does the CPEC come in?

This is the brightest jewel in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to connect Asia, Europe and Africa by building and upgrading road, rail, and sea infra on a massive scale. CPEC runs across the length of Pakistan, linking Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang province to the Gwadar deep-sea port on the Arabian Sea near Pakistan’s border with Iran. Chinese firms have invested close to $40 billion in around 45 CPEC projects, about half of which are nearing completion. China is determined to protect this gigantic investment of money, personnel and time. Access to the sea through Gwadar will remove the need for it to take the long route west through the Straits of Malacca and around India, and dramatically increase its proximity to the oil shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Good relations with Pakistan, and international protection for ISI proxies like Jaish provide China with insurance against terrorist attacks on CPEC infrastructure and the thousands of Chinese working on them. The project has been targeted by Baloch separatists as well as the Pakistani Taliban, who have claimed to be protesting China’s treatment of its Muslim Uyghur minority in eastern Xinjiang. Pakistan has attempted to reassure Beijing on the security of CPEC. In 2015, it established a 20,000-personnel Special Security Division drawn from the Army and paramilitary forces, and headed by a Major General-rank officer, exclusively to secure CPEC in addition to the local police.


EXPLAINED VIDEO https://youtu.be/ljOX9tiBtd4




But if security has been provided, why does China still not budge on Azhar?

China has had a tacit understanding with the Afghan Taliban from the days of their predecessors in the 1970s, said Prof Srikanth Kondapalli of the Centre for East Asian Studies at JNU’s School of International Studies. The Chinese military had trained the mujahideen against the Soviets, and China subsequently made a deal with the Taliban (many of whom, including Mullah Omar, were former mujahideen commanders) that “as long as they don’t support the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, they won’t harm them”. This deal, Prof Kondapalli said, is still on: “Don’t train the Uyghurs and we won’t interfere.”

Nearly 10 years ago, a top leader of the Islamist Uyghur East Turkestan Islamic Movement who was allegedly involved in a bombing in Xinjiang was tracked to Pakistan, which handed him over to Beijing. “Compare this with Pakistan’s response to India’s demands that it hand over terrorists wanted in India,” Prof Kondapalli said. “Broadly this is the situation.”

On Azhar, China insists there isn’t enough evidence to designate him a “global terrorist”, though the rest of the P5 believes otherwise. “China takes a different position because of the larger understanding it has with such organisations… as long as you don’t disturb me, we will not penalise you. If you are expanding your international base, it must not be at my expense. That’s China’s attitude,” he said.

Also, China enjoys overwhelming popularity on the street in Pakistan — surveys show 88% Pakistanis view China favourably, compared with only 33% Indians. It is not in Beijing’s interest to disappoint this constituency by giving in to India’s repeated demands to list Azhar. China, experts said, remains conscious that relations between Pakistan and the US had been strongly impacted by the killings, first by al-Qaeda of American-Israeli journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 and then, by US special forces of Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Does China’s stand have to do with India’s emergence as a competitor?

Yes. India is part of a short list of economic giants who have refused to participate in the BRI. New Delhi’s opposition stems from the CPEC, which runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. And since China views India as a competitor, Beijing looks to tie down New Delhi to South Asia using issues like Azhar. By supporting Pakistan on UNSC Resolution 1267 and blocking India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group by tying its bid to Pakistan’s, China seeks to needle and frustrate India. Such tactics are also intended to send out a message to the US, which seeks to build a relationship with India to contain China in the Indo-Pacific.

Has this always been China’s position?

Before Azhar, Beijing had blocked on three occasions India’s moves to designate Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed as a terrorist. But in 2008, as global outrage intensified in the aftermath of the 26/11 attacks, Beijing was forced to back international action against Saeed. But 26/11 was an extraordinary attack; it remains to be seen if India can drum up enough international support over Pulwama to push China on Azhar.

Is there a reason for Beijing to budge?

Not budging on Azhar will probably not directly affect China’s bilateral ties with India. But Beijing may have to contend with the abstract impact of a shift in public opinion. The gains from last year’s Wuhan Summit may dwindle if public opinion turns against China. “This time, it is not really defensible… they (Jaish) have said they were involved. China’s image will take a beating and the Indian public will have an increasingly negative view of China,” Prof Kondapalli said.

State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi was in India in December for the high-level people-to-people and cultural exchange mechanism. “They want to sell the China story and tap the Indian consumer market… this may boomerang. In diplomacy, this cannot be quantified, but it is very significant,” Prof Kondapalli said.

If India does want to raise the pitch against China, it could begin by taking a page from America’s playbook and initiate action against Chinese companies like Huawei. “It will not affect India-China ties, but the overall talk about China in India will reduce. With the negative public opinion, there may be restrictions on some companies, like what (US President) Trump did,” he said.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 03 Apr 2019 20:48

India needs to respond economically to this open assault on her sovereignty, in a way that the dense hans understand and feel pain.


China’s real intentions behind its ‘technical hold’ on Masood Azhar

China’s real intentions behind its ‘technical hold’ on Masood Azhar

AYJAZ WANI
FEB 21 2019


Masood Azhar-led Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) is one of the many terror groups Beijing considers as important cogs for security and stability in its restive Xinjiang province.

Masood Azhar-led Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), responsible for the attack on the CRPF convoy on 14 February, is one of the many terror groups Beijing considers as important cogs for security and stability in its restive Xinjiang province. Masood Azhar is also Beijing’s go-to man to ensure security of its geostrategic investments under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), China’s flagship project under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in the Af-Pak region, one of the world’s most crowded terrorist landscapes.

Sadly, China’s self-appeasing approach towards their quixotic man has not changed after the recent suicide attack at Pulwama, in which over 40 CRPF personnel were martyred. Though the attacker was a local Kashmiri, his ideological indoctrination was done by the JeM chief and his cadres. China was virtually the last country to condemn the attack. Its official statement lacked any direct reference to either Azhar or his terror group. Genh Shaung, spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, simply mentioned that China has “noted the reports of suicide terrorist attack” and expressed “deep condolences and sympathy to the injured and bereaved families”. He reiterated China’s official stand on Masood Azhar being named as global terrorist by the UN Security Council: “as for the issue of listing, I could tell you that the 1267 Committee… has a clear stipulation on the listing and procedures of the terrorist organisations”.

The attitude of Beijing was further exposed when the state-run Global Times published a news brief under the headline “Indian Army officer killed in blast in Indian-controlled Kashmir” on 16 February 2019. This brief merely made a passing reference to the Pulwama attack: “on Thursday as many as 40 security personnel were belonging to the paramilitary force … were killed, and many others injured in a massive blast in the Pulwama district”.

China’s romance with terrorists in the AF-Pak region has a historical legacy based on its vested economic, security and geostrategic interests. China’s Uyghur Muslim-dominated Xinjiang province came under religious and cultural influence of Pakistan as it was opened up post the reform period of 1978.

Pakistani mullahs started teaching the fundamentals of Islam and their distorted interpretation of jihad to inflame the Uyghurs in the wake of the Afghanistan situation. Such misplaced religious awakening created centrifugal tendencies among Uyghurs who started anti-China agitations in Xinjiang in 1980, 1981, 1985 and 1987. The situation changed after the collapse of the Soviet Union as the Afghan mujahedeen gained power in their country. Provoked by Pakistani mullahs, separatism in Xinjiang gained momentum and demonstrations erupted in certain places at Urumchi, Kashgar, Khotan, Kucha, Aksu and Artush. The tipping point for the Chinese was the Baren incident, where Uyghurs started mass protest on 6 April 1990 to wage jihad against the Chinese and establish the East Turkestan state. The ensuing riots – where the Uyghurs used bombs and pistols against the police and government officials – resulted in the deaths of six police officers. China blamed foreign interference for the unrest and alleged that the rioters were trained in the Af-Pak region. Post USSR’s disintegration, fears that foreign powers will use the Taliban and Pakistan-based terrorists against China grew in Beijing.

Beijing’s response was two sided. Internally, they resorted to a state response that was nothing short of an ethnic cleansing. Even today, over one million Uyghurs are reportedly imprisoned in re-education camps (concentration camps) across Xinjiang.

Externally, China courted with the Taliban and other terror groups to contain any “spillover” of terrorism to Xinjiang. China hoped that its romance with extremist groups in the Af-Pak region would prevent them from supporting Uyghur separatism and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM).

China’s “narrow approach” and “self-driven diplomacy” became visible when China’s ambassador to Pakistan Lu Shulin met Taliban leader Mullah Omar in November 2000. This was first time when a senior diplomat of any non-Muslim country had a meeting with the Taliban leader. Mullah Omar promised that Taliban will not allow Uyghurs to launch attacks on China in Xinjiang, with a conditionality that they will continue to remain in the Taliban ranks. Even after the US’ attack on Taliban in 2001, China continued to maintain its relationship with quetta shura and provided arms and ammunition to Taliban by adopting a “narrow approach” and a “self-driven diplomacy that gave China good fallouts”. After the Gulja incident of 1997, Xianjiang has neither witnessed any major terrorist attack, nor have automatic weapons been used by the Uyghurs in the restive region.

Economic and geo-strategic interests

Located in northwest China, Xinjiang is the starting point of China’s much-hyped BRI projects, especially the controversial CPEC. The motives behind CPEC are clearly to serve China’s own geostrategic and economic interests than helping Pakistan’s ailing economy. CPEC’s infrastructure projects connect Kashgar in Xinjiang to Balochistan’s Gwadar port, giving China ready access to West Asia and Africa for its energy imports. CPEC thus greatly reduces China’s dependency on the traditional route through the narrow Strait of Malacca, which, if cut, can choke Beijing economically.

It is estimated that 5,00,000 Chinese nationals will be living in the Gwadar port city by 2022. China is courting Azhar to secure the CPEC and the Chinese living in Pakistan.

Although China largely believes that Pakistan is willing to fight terror groups for its interests, the crowded terror landscape in Af-Pak region has made Beijing sceptical of Islamabad. China forced Pakistan to act against the seminary at Lal Masjid in 2007 as the fundamentalists living in that seminary were involved in abduction of Chinese girls who ran a beauty parlour. The Lal Masjid episode and the death of Abdul Rashid Ghazi inspired terror groups to wage global jihad. Within six months after the Operation Sunrise following Lal Masjid episode, more than 40 terror leaders – who held sway over 40,000 militants – gathered in Waziristan on 14 December 2007. They formed a united front – Tehrik-I-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) – that vowed to avenge the killing of Abdul Rashid. Lal Masjid episode became a rallying cry of the TTP to fight the Pakistani establishment. The resulting acts of terror accounted for the deaths of 1,188 people, with 3,209 wounded in 88 bombings in just one year after the Lal Masjid siege.

Masood Azhar formed the JeM in 2000 to weaken India’s control of Kashmir through concerted terror attacks on government targets. Azhar, owing to his oratory skills and reputation as a jihadi recruiter, became an asset for Pakistan. However, after the formation of the TTP, the JeM joined its ranks with the coalition and operated in Pakistan as part of the TTP. However, the Pakistani army and the ISI revived the JeM once again in 2008 under its “good” versus “bad” terrorists’ strategy. After 2011, ISI accommodated all “good terrorists” who had joined the TTP before the operation Zarb-e-Azab, wherein Pakistani armed forces carried out operations against the terror coalition. These so-called good terrorists joined the JeM to wage jihad in Kashmir and aid the Taliban in Afghanistan. Thus, the revival of the JeM transformed bad terrorists into good terrorists under Azhar’s leadership. Besides being a member of United Jihad Council (UJC), Azhar has close links with radical religious groups like Jamait-i-Ulema-I-Islam – Fazlur Rehman faction (JUI-F), Sipah-e-Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Harkatul-ul-Mujihideen.

China recognised Azhar’s influence over radicalised elements and used him to safeguard its own strategic and economic interests in the region.

China is also not happy with India’s warm relationship with the Afghan government. Azhar’s influence is therefore covertly used by both Pakistan and China to strengthen the Taliban, who are averse to Indian interests in Afghanistan as well as in Kashmir. Exposing its double standards on terrorism, Beijing also held direct talks with Baloch terrorists, who are considered “bad terrorists” and are not under the influence of the JeM, in February 2018. India’s relationship with the US after 2001 and the signing of Logistic Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) are the other factors that have provoked China to appease Masood Azhar and also to court the Taliban. In August 2016, Global Times carried an editorial which stated: “if India hastily joins the US alliance system, it may irritate China, Pakistan and even Russia. It may not make India safer, but will bring strategic troubles to itself and make itself a centre of geopolitical rivalries in Asia”. The same newspaper published an editorial on 10 November 2017, saying: “when India criticises the world of double standards on terrorism, it has itself long supported separatist groups in Pakistan’s Balochistan province who launch terror attack in the country”. As if on cue, Pakistan conveniently blamed India for the 23 November 2018 attack by Baloch militants on the Chinese consulate in Karachi.

Post the Pulwama carnage, there is a feeling in some sections that increased pressure from the Indian government may force China to rethink its stand on Masood Azhar. However, considering Beijing’s “narrow approach”, such a move at this juncture will only make China and the Chinese people living in Pakistan more vulnerable to terrorism. China’s U-turn on Masood Azhar, therefore, seems unlikely.


Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 09 Apr 2019 03:30

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

The geoeconomics of CPEC Muhammad Amir Rana

GRAPPLING with a crippling economic crisis at home, Pakistan is compelled to tread slowly and carefully in the emerging geoeconomics and politics of the region. Although financial help and support from China, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have contributed to partially resolving the country’s balance of payments crisis, yet an IMF bailout seems inevitable. Some would translate it as a return to old partners in the West — or the US to be more precise.

The outgoing government used the investment under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) not only to overcome the energy crisis and infrastructure-building but also to counter pressure from the US, which was growing with the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The previous government also tried to maintain Pakistan’s traditional policy of keeping a balance in its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Iran and, therefore, withstood pressure to send Pakistani troops into Yemen.

The government of Prime Minister Imran Khan has apparently completely revised Pakistan’s Middle East policy. There is an impression in national and international policy circles that, in the process of economic recovery, Pakistan has lost its geopolitical equilibrium as well.

CPEC, which was until recently being projected as a game-changer for the country and the region, has lost its attraction in policy discourse.

In the process of rationalisation of CPEC projects, Pakistan has put many projects on hold, thus discouraging private Chinese companies and individuals from investing in the special economic zones (SEZs). Beijing has supported Mr Khan’s idea of rationalising CPEC projects for two major reasons. First, the aggravating economic situation in Pakistan has made China concerned about the repayment of the loans it has provided for CPEC projects. Second, China wanted to give time to Pakistan’s new government to overcome its economic challenges, for which it also provided a couple of bailout packages. The government also tried very hard to diversify its options for the foreign investment, and succeeded to a certain extent — but with a heavy price.

Pakistan is fast losing balance in its relationship with Iran and Saudi Arabia. The $10 billion Saudi pledge for a refinery and petrochemicals complex in Gwadar has not only come as cause for caution for Iran, but also China. The latter has concerns that it may lead to Saudi-Iranian proxy warfare in the coastal region, at the bottleneck of CPEC. The Baloch in Gwadar also see the refinery in the context of Iran-Saudi Arabia rivalry. They believe it will bring in US influence due to the common strategic objectives of the Saudis and Americans against Iran. Though the refinery would be set up about 100 kilometres away from the Pakistan-Iran border, it will continue to perturb China.

Pakistan’s support for talks between the Afghan Taliban and the US is widely welcomed. It could become a hugely positive contribution to regional peace if reconciliation is achieved. But many in Pakistan are also arguing about what this country has achieved so far through the facilitation of a peace process. An IMF bailout package could be one but, at the same time, the US is not willing to reduce pressure on Pakistan on multiple strategic fronts. It is believed Pakistan could have gained much more had it extended its support for the peace process a few years ago, when the Obama administration was desperate to achieve a peaceful resolution in Afghanistan.

It is not the economy alone that has pushed Pakistan to a restricted geopolitical position but also the militant groups. Some analysts even suspect that the Afghan Taliban will remain a reliable ally of Pakistan after entering into a peace agreement in Afghanistan. Certainly, by bringing the Taliban to the table, Pakistan has done what it had been avoiding for several years. Internal security and economic challenges notwithstanding, international compulsions and obligations are also bearing upon Pakistan’s policy responses.

Looking ahead, Pakistan needs to develop a geoeconomics framework of engagement with its neighbours and allies. This country can make sure that Saudi investment is coming with no geostrategic strings attached, and that it would be for economic purposes only under the compulsion of the Saudi Vision 2030. Pakistan must not allow any proxy group to use its soil against neighbours. Though it would be difficult to maintain such a relationship with an assertive Saudi regime, Pakistan can maintain a balance through a China-Pakistan-Iran economic partnership.

To balance the Iran-Afghanistan-India bond of Chabahar port, China and Pakistan can work towards connecting Chabahar and Gwadar ports. China and Iran have both hinted at the ports’ connectivity through joint initiatives. Chinese academics consider a trade relationship with Iran via Gwadar as one of the major outcomes of CPEC. Pakistan also needs to speed up transnational energy projects with Afghanistan, apart from taking initiatives to boost bilateral trade.

Though CPEC has not fulfilled the expectations of the common man, especially in Balochistan – where it has not generated the expected economic activities and employment opportunities for the local people – yet speedy development on the SEZs in Gwadar can address their many grievances. The Balochistan government is inviting domestic and foreign donors and investors for infrastructure projects, which can attract private Chinese investors, who are moving towards East and Central Asia. New Chinese investors are desperately looking for investment avenues across the world, mainly in Asia.

The US role in the region is not expected to subside even after a peace agreement with the Taliban is reached. Pakistan will remain an important working partner, if not strategic ally, for the US in the Indian Ocean and in neighbouring regions. For that, the relationship has to be taken out of the shadows of mistrust and non-state actors.

It is often heard in strategic policy discussions in the federal capital that Pakistan is changing its focus from geostrategic to geoeconomics, but this transition needs a clear direction. Pakistan has to set out priorities of a traditional zero-sum game to ensure that its relationship with one nation do not come at the cost of its relationship with another. This country does not have a multiplicity of options to attract foreign investment, and those that are available need to be fully harnessed.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 25 Apr 2019 04:01

X Posted on the OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Thread

India to stay away from Belt Forum as China tries to build influence - Saibal Dasgupta

BEIJING: China is using the three-day Belt and Road Forum, which opens on Thursday, to exert its political muscle and establish itself as a rallying point for international business exchanges. This is besides the stated goal of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is to construct infrastructure projects across the globe.

India is likely to be the only major country to not participate in the event which will attract leaders and officials from 150 countries. India has chosen not to avail of the economic opportunity because the BRI hurts India’s sovereignty; a part of the BRI passes through disputed areas of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

Significantly, India has also objected to other aspects of the BRI programme, saying it it opaque and has the potential of pushing developing countries into a debt trap as they borrow heavily to support massive projects.

India’s stand has been vindicated as several countries like Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Sierra Leone have either cancelled or renegotiated contracts with Chinese companies.

“A lot of the forum will be an attempt at restoring the Belt and Road brand, which has been tarnished over the past two years, ” said Jonathan Hillman, director of the Reconnecting Asia Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The US has objected to the BRI on several counts and has decided to send only a low-level delegation. But China is using the event to emerge as a countervailing power to the US by showing off its ability to attract heads of state/government and senior leaders of 40 countries besides officials from 110 others.

“It is a political show of strength. In a sense, it is about China slipping itself into American clothing which the US itself has discarded. It is about mainstreaming China as a leader of the global development system, ” said Sourabh Gupta, senior fellow at the Institute of China-America Studies in Washington.

For its part, China objects to criticism that it has political and military objectives behind the plan to build seaports, airports, roads and railways across dozens of countries, including Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

“The Belt and Road Initiative is not a geopolitical tool but a platform for cooperation. We welcome all parties to take part in it, ” Chinese state councillor and foreign minister Wang Yi had said at a recent press conference.

At the same time, China has indicated that the forum will discuss issues like the importance of multilateralism and rejection of protectionism in business and world affairs. This is seen as a thinly veiled attempt to build up world opinion against the US

Cheers Image

syam
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby syam » 26 Apr 2019 17:54

this road is supposed to be the largest infra project under CPEC. latest video.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Aditya_V » 26 Apr 2019 20:38

Why is traffic following LHD pattern, will Pakistan change to LHD due to CPEC?

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 26 Apr 2019 21:40

X Posted on the OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Thread

A trap of one’s own
China tries to calm jitters about the “Belt and Road” initiative
Though belt-and-road lending is worrisome, it is not malevolent. The real problem is overreach

Chinese engineers are drilling their way through the green hills of Laos, clearing a path for a railway that one day may traverse South-East Asia. Each time they complete a tunnel—at least three times in the past month—they hold a brief ceremony, waving Chinese flags for the cameras. They are celebrating not just their engineering success but also the evidence before them that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s global infrastructure-building scheme, is making progress. The full railway is a long way off. Work has barely begun in Thailand, the next link. But the section in Laos should be in use by 2021.

It will be a test of what many see as a big economic danger of the BRI: that it will saddle poor countries with unmanageable debts. China insists that its tens of billions of dollars in loans and investments are fostering global prosperity—a message that it is sure to repeat to foreign leaders attending the second Belt and Road Forum, which takes place from April 25th to 27th in Beijing (pictured is a floral display marking the event). But worries about the cost of the BRI, a project closely linked with President Xi Jinping’s foreign policy, have become widespread. Malaysia, Pakistan and Sierra Leone are among a growing list of countries that have delayed or scrapped China-led projects.

There are three main concerns about the BRI’s financial consequences. The most extreme is that the scheme involves what is pithily described as “debt-trap diplomacy”. In this view, China is deliberately overloading weak countries with loans; when they buckle, it seizes their assets and influences their politics. This idea has featured in speeches by some American officials, including the vice-president, Mike Pence, who see BRI as an attempt to undermine America’s global influence.

Yet the investments funded by Chinese cash are not in China, so China has limited ability to grab assets when governments default. If it pushes too hard it may merely stoke antipathy. Instead, it usually responds by reducing the amount of money that debtors have to repay. Countries with longer records of lending to poor countries often do the same: the Paris Club of creditors was formed in 1956 to devise ways of reducing defaulters’ debt loads. The Centre for Global Development, a think-tank in Washington, has counted more than 80 cases between 2000 and 2017 in which China provided relief to its debtors overseas.

An oft-cited example of China’s supposedly predatory approach involves Hambantota, a Sri Lankan port which has flopped commercially. In 2017 Sri Lanka handed control of the port to a state-owned Chinese company on a 99-year lease. But Deborah Brautigam of Johns Hopkins University says that of more than 3,000 China-financed projects that she and others have tracked, Hambantota is the only one that is used in support of the debt-trap theory. It is the exception, not the rule.

What it lacks in malevolence, the BRI may make up in clumsiness. This is the second concern: that China is lending to vulnerable states without sufficient caution. Take a group of 37 poor countries monitored by the IMF. Loans from traditional bilateral lenders, including America and Japan, have declined from 7% of the debtors’ GDP to 2% over the past decade. Loans from China, by contrast, have soared from virtually nothing to 4%.

It is welcome that China is supporting hard-up nations. But its enthusiasm generates foolhardiness. David Dollar of the Brookings Institution in Washington has found that Chinese development lending appears indifferent to political and economic risks. The Centre for Global Development has identified eight countries drowning in red ink that could be further swamped by BRI projects (see chart). A report in December released by Peking University ranked 94 BRI countries based on measures such as the quality of their financial regulation and their openness to trade. Pakistan came second to last. That is awkward for China: Pakistan may receive as much as $60bn in BRI loans, which would make it the biggest recipient of all.

Image

There is truth to claims that BRI credit can be ruinously expensive. Consider China Eximbank’s lending to Kenya for the Nairobi-Mombasa railway. Local reports say half the $3.6bn loan was priced 3.6 percentage points above a floating market interest-rate. That is high for a poor country. It is just one of many such loans by Eximbank, which said this week that its outstanding BRI-related credit was more than 1trn yuan, or nearly $150bn.

The BRI’s success will depend on whether Chinese lenders can tighten their procedures for assessing creditworthiness while making their loans more affordable. There are some promising signs. This week’s forum in Beijing is expected to stress the need for bri debt to be sustainable. In the case of the railway in Laos, caution is already evident. The project involves $6bn of Chinese lending, which is about one-third of the GDP of Laos. So a joint venture has been created. It draws 70% of its capital from China and 30% from Laos. To fund its portion, Laos took a $465m loan from Eximbank. The loan was generous, according to local reports: it matures in 35 years at a 2.3% annual interest rate, well below the commercial price of such debt. Laos has five years before it has to begin making repayments. That is the kind of concession that it might have got from the World Bank. China may offer such generous terms more frequently. Last year it set up an agency to oversee its foreign aid, in part to turn the BRI into a more co-ordinated development programme.

But this points to another concern that will be harder for China to deal with because it relates to the very nature of the BRI: its sheer ambition. Potential benefits look impressive. A recent study by the World Bank concluded that BRI transportation projects could lift global GDP by 3%. That is larger than the benefits that are usually shown to be generated by free-trade agreements. It could yet bear out China’s notion that Westerners (save Donald Trump) just want to lower tariffs, whereas China is trying to build the roads that let trade happen.

This, though, is where the risks come in. The World Bank’s rosy analysis assumes that BRI projects are completed and work efficiently. The scale of the effort is a huge challenge, and such projects are a magnet for graft. Vast sums are being spent quickly in badly run places. The railway in Laos ought to make the landlocked country more accessible. But for it to prove effective, much more will be needed: better roads to link it to existing transport, new urban centres around the stations and freer trade with other countries.

China cannot achieve this alone, but its often overweening approach to the BRI has alienated potential partners. America, India and Japan want little to do with it. One reason is that China is, in effect, asking others not only to sign up to its infrastructure plans but also to endorse Mr Xi’s worldview. It does not help that China reveals so little about its lending and that contracts go mainly to Chinese firms.

Some analysts in China have started to express unease. Economists at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a think-tank, argued in a paper last year that the government must entice other countries to back BRI projects in order to share the risks. Otherwise, it could be China that finds itself trapped. Conservative estimates are that China will spend $1trn within the next decade on its monumental scheme—about as much as it holds today in American government bonds. Mr Xi would be wise not to let such an outlay turn sour.

Cheers Image


SandeepR
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 05 Mar 2019 15:21

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SandeepR » 07 May 2019 21:11

One of key reasons for China Backing down on Azhar is not only economic but geopolitical and the way India is responding to terrorist attacks within the nation as well as within pakistan. The recent showdown with the PAF and the way, Paki nuclear bluff was called. In case of an all out war, the most fragile territory would be POK and CPEC and this is where India will try to gain. India is no where showing any soft spots on border. The way our Nations image has changed, a lot of more from China is expected (territory in Maps atleast). The scenario is favorable for India provided White House remains Republic and New Delhi remains NDA.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8046
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 07 May 2019 21:19

Fully Posted on the OBOR Chinese Strategy and Implications & X Posted on the Terroristan Threads

The U.S. Can’t Make Allies Take Sides Over China

Washington wants its friends to steer clear of Beijing, but they can’t ignore the allure of its Belt and Road Initiative. - MICHAEL SCHUMAN APR 25, 2019

Cheers Image

Rana
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 23:38

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Rana » 10 May 2019 21:29


ashbhee
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 96
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:05

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ashbhee » 20 May 2019 00:39

This Pakistani dare to speak the truth. I hope and pray his family is safe back in Pakistan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcirDrcXQEw


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: devaraya, nithish and 61 guests