Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

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.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21722
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby SSridhar » 06 May 2017 13:46

I am starting this thread to discuss exclusively about the Chinese strategy behind OBOR (alternatively also known as BRI, Belt Road Initiative) and its implications worldwide. As this Chinese project is the most ambitious ever undertaken by a country, it is in the fitness of things that a separate thread is dedicated to it rather than discussing it in the two China-related threads. There could be some overlap at times when x-posting will be needed.

Though CPEC is now officially part of OBOR, we will not discuss that here because there is a separate thread for it because of its stand-alone geo-strategic importance for us.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21722
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby SSridhar » 06 May 2017 13:46

** Place Holder **

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21722
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby SSridhar » 06 May 2017 13:58

China's OBOR initiative could worsen socio-economic difficulties for Africa - DIPANJAN ROY CHAUDHURY, Economic Times
Africa— undergoing a bitter experience in the aftermath of Chinese investments in the continent — may face more trouble after China’s mega One Belt One Road (OBOR) connectivity initiative — that gives Beijing strategic foothold in the region —is rolled out.

Chinese policy to harness raw material and export finished products to African nations have left the locals without fair share of jobs, killed local manufacturing industry, pushed the countries towards debt and created social tensions.
. It is felt that the mega infra projects under OBOR would exacerbate socio-economic difficulties for African nations, some among the fastest-growing economies in the world.

The precarious situation has encouraged some African nations to move closer to India that share decades old bonds with the continent since the days of anti-colonial struggle. Only two African leaders (Ethiopia & Kenya) are attending May 14-15 OBOR meet organised by China but officials across countries from the continent point out that discomfort with Beijing is on the rise.

A senior Chinese official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, noted that India should also send representative to the OBOR meet despite differences on other issues and cited example of Japan, which despite sharper differences with Beijing, is sending an official for May 14-15 forum. China may have built stadiums, airports, hospitals, highways and dams across the continent, but these projects have left many African countries saddled with debts, environmental conflicts and labour strikes, point out the officials quoted above.

Image

“This is nothing but pouring China’s overcapacity overseas. And OBOR wants to further accentuate the situation – by pouring Chinese steel and concrete onto local ecology at recipient cost. OBOR is mediaeval mercantilism in postmodern times,” alleged a scholar who has studied China’s foreign policy and forays into Africa for decades.

India’s development model is gaining traction in Africa as an alternative to the Chinese model. The mega Indo-African summit in Delhi in 2015 and visits by the president, vice president and PM across Africa in 2016 have raised Delhi’s profile in the continent. Africa’s interest in what India stands for and offers have been growing, officials here told ET.

In an opinion piece published in the Financial Times in 2013, Nigeria’s Central Bank governor, Lamido Sanusi, said Chinese investment in sub-Saharan Africa smacked of ‘colonialism,’ in size and style. Beijing was accused of holding back a growing African economy by focusing on the pursuit of raw materials, rather than on the creation of local markets and jobs.

China has been discomfited on occasions. In 2014, South African President Jacob Zuma cautioned that Africa’s somewhat lopsided trade ties with China were turning out to be “unsuitable in the long term.” In Zambia, in 2015, the government had to take control of a Chinese copper mine after numerous complaints of labour abuse. That same year, Botswana’s President Ian Khama called for a reduction in new contracts to Chinese companies, citing poor construction and delays.

Ghana and Angola too have been unhappy over Chinese products and social tensions due to Chinese approach in ignoring local populace. Attempting to change its image before OBOR Summit, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a tour of Africa earlier this year.


India has had centuries-old connections with Africa with brisk travel and trade across the Indian Ocean, colonial linkages and ties forged in the post-colonial days of South-South cooperation and third world solidarity. India has offered developmental assistance and lines of credit to African partners even while undertaking economic reforms at home.

Modi has given a new focus to India’s African interaction in his usual energetic style with a more visible engagement. Yet this outreach is benign in nature and in keeping with India’s soft power approach to international relations. India’s main focus in Africa has been on trade and investment, energy security and developmental assistance; in recent days, maritime security, agriculture and food security have also gained priority.

India is also involved in key capacity building initiatives that include scholarships to hundreds of students from the continent besides hugely successful pan E-Africa project – matched by very few countries even from the developed world. Notably medical tourism to India from Africa is on the rise.

Indian investment in Africa was initiated by government-owned enterprises that have stakes in the mining and energy sector. But it is private sector investment that has fuelled a substantial part of Indian investment as opportunities opened up in the African markets with several high growth economies.

Indian investments in the continent amount to $33 billion.
Trade has been on an upward swing and currently at an estimated $70 billion. As Modi imparts greater energy in India’s African relationship, India-Africa alliance is certainly likely to grow larger and deeper.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 703
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby TKiran » 06 May 2017 14:40

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/2154


Examining the Strategy behind China’s OBOR

Paper No. 6252 Dated 04-May-2017

By Bhaskar Roy

On May 14, representatives of 110 countries would be gathered in Beijing in one of the biggest international summits, to listen and discuss China’s “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) initiative. Around 28 national leaders from Russia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines and Turkey, and several from the West and Africa would be in attendance.

India, which is being pursued by China to join the CPEC, will have a low level representation, if any. India’s neighbour, Nepal which is sandwiched between the two counties, was finally pressured to send a high level delegation, while Sri Lanka appears resigned to its fate. All the benefits of connectivity with positive economic results is being held out to Myanmar.

OBOR in not an entirely new concept. Reaching out to Europe by an overland railway route, through Central Asia to Amsterdam, started in the 1990s. Next came re-enacting Admiral Zheng He’s sea voyage through the Indian Ocean to Africa, touching briefly India’s southern ocean tip, according to some reports. This gave the concept of the New or 21st century Maritime silk Route. The Chinese Communist Party, which formulates policies, does years of research, collecting reactions of concerned foreign governments, China’s growing economic and military capabilities, winning over new friends and allies, to come to a definite conclusion.

Chinese President Xi Jinping packaged the entire input together to unveil the OBOR project in 2013. He put them in an enigmatic package backed by massive official media and contact diplomacy at all levels. Even then, the international community is generally skeptical and would hear out Xi Jinping on May 14 in Beijing. They may even ask some quiet questions, because the OBOR is still a work in progress in Beijing’s Zhongnanhai.

The full scope of OBOR initiative has not been revealed yet. There is a lack of transparency. The only aspect being projected is that economically it is a win-win opportunity for all. China says that it is ready to invest one trillion dollars. The plan is to connect the East and the West through Central Asia. One catch is that partner countries will have to pay up and provide security. Will the economically weaker countries be able to do that and pay back the Chinese investments in 25 to 30 years at interest rates of 3-4 percent, with annual pay back packets? If some of them fail what will be the penalty and whether in cash or kind? Open ended questions, indeed – a perfect example of debt trap.

China would be extending profile and influence in regions that till today were under US influence. The message: If Washington digs in more firmly in the Asia-Pacific region Beijing will show its flag in Europe. In the area of trade and economic relations China stands very high in the priority of all these countries. The Chinese have understood US President Donald Trump well, especially after the Xi Jinping – Trump meeting in Trump, Mara Lago resort. OBOR is part of promise to his party and his people. The drive to be the second super power after the US, though the gap between the two will take several decades to bridge. They are on track to 2050, when the Party celebrates 100 years of the People’s Republic in 2049.

China’s threat perception from Islamic terrorism and separation in its Xinjiang – Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), bordering Central Asian Countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, has risen several folds in recent years. The Uighur Muslims, who are of Turkish origin, are at the centre of this concern. Beijing has managed to close support for them from Pakistan using diplomacy and working with some of Pakistan’s Islamic parties and groups, as well as Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) which is the real enabler of Islamic militants. One sop given by China to the ISI appears to be standing with them against international (and Indian) moves to declare well known ISI supported terrorists like Jaish-e-Mohammad Chief Masood Azhar or terror groups like the Laskar-e-Toiba (LET). This has paid dividends and Pakistan as clamped down on Uighur militants in Pakistan. China has also pressured Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan which have Uighur population.

But with draconian laws for Uighurs in XUAR (such as those which prohibit them for fasting during Ramadan, men not allowed to keep beards, punishing them for not smoking in front of clerics, outlawing the hijab for women among other things), the worry now is that a sizeable number of Uighurs are fighting for Daesh or ISIS, who are yet to attack China or Chinese interests abroad. But China remains one of Daesh’s targets. The Belt with its financial and other support to the Central Asian countries is intended to create a “Crescent” of countries to block infiltration of Daesh. The Belt is planned to create a Chinese extension of Mackinder’s Theory of the importance of Central Asia as a large and critical land island.

Having said that, the belt connections will include a large number of Islamic countries. Given the wide range of radical Islamist groups and anti-China sentiment, the project is not risk averse. China will, of course, expect these countries to provide security as is being down in Pakistan.

The OBOR is mainly designed for its own economic protection. China’s export driven economy is beginning to falter as new centres of low and intermediate range goods production are growing. Its low labour cost advantage is beginning to fade, while idle production capacity is growing, along with unemployment. This initiative together with China’s investment may allow them to locate their companies in the crescent countries and arm twist their governments to give extended tax rebates and high interest rates for the investments.

Chinese security forces are likely to follow and set up centres and port holdings where opportunity allows. Export of Chinese labour and blue and white collar jobs are written in the script. In several countries it can be a virtual Chinese take over.

The Pakistan Case

Whether the China-Pakistan Economic corridor (CPEC) will be a game-changer for Pakistan or an extended disaster is being hotly debated in Pakistan. On the one side is the government arguing in favour but without facts to support it. On the other in a conglomeration of experts, journalists, local politicians and even some industrialists who are asking sharp questions which the government is ducking. Pakistani freelance journalist Salman Rafi wrote in Asia Times (March 10, 2017) “The CPEC continues to look like a mystery, wrapped in an enigma”. Rafi goes on to say the CPEC “appears to become a China only project, stripping it of its game-changing elements for Pakistan and giving China a disproportionate presence in the country and the region”.

Last year (July 2016), Pakistan’s planning and Development Minister Ahsan Iqbal informed the senate that, “Agreement of the economic corridor with China is sensitive and it cannot be disclosed”. He, however, handed a copy of the agreement in a sealed cover to senate chairman Raza Rabbani asking the members to examine the agreement in the chamber of the chairman, if they wished to do so. The initial agreement is not a complete one, according to a number of sources. It is still a work in progress.

The Pakistani government has failed to explain if this is an economic agreement. Why hide it from the people because the money of the tax payers is involved. Or is it a Faustian bargain the Pakistani government has been forced to enter into by China and the Pakistani military? The Chinese investment in the project has increased from 46 billion dollars to 56 billion dollars, according to Pakistani media reports. But how does this play out?

A brief summary of the costs involved for Pakistan is as follows. Pakistan is raising a security force of 15,000, (roughly two divisions) for protection of Chinese personnel and CPEC installations from Gwadar to Kunjerab Pass. The entire cost will be borne by Pakistan. The Chinese refused to share the cost, saying security was not their business.

Islamabad has decided to levy a one percent surcharge on domestic power consumers to help defray security costs.

The special economic zones to be set up along the corridor will be only for Chinese companies, not for Pakistani. Most of the labour, it is feared, will come from China.

Chinese power companies to be set up will charge much more than the domestic producers. The amount has not been disclosed.

Machinery will be procured from China. Chinese companies involved including railways and the Gwadar Port handling Chinese companies, will enjoy a tax holiday for at least 23 years. There are many other hidden elements, people suspect. Interest on Chinese loans is expected to be higher than international financiers like the IMF and World Bank.

According to Pakistani calculations, there will be little or no foreign exchange in flow back into the country, while it pays 90 billion dollars back to China over 30 years against loans and investments of 56 billion dollars. The average annual repayment will be 3.7 billion dollars, according to a Pakistani analyst. What will happen to Pakistan which is already heavily indebted in foreign exchange?

The end scenario looks like this. China will have full control of Gwadar port turning it into a base for the Chinese navy. The corridor will be used for strategic exports and imports for China.

In the process, it is believed that Beijing is preparing to try and enter into the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir, Breaking its own principles China is building the corridor through Pakistan occupied Kashmir which is a disputed territory claimed by India. This is a provocation which India will not accept.

China is pressing hard on Myanmar for such a corridor. Nay Pyi Daw may like to examine the Pakistan case.

The CPEC is very important for President Xi Jinping. OBOR is his flagship project, and CPEC is its crown jewels. He will do anything and everything for its success. Failure would harm him severely.

(The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst. He can be reached at e-mail grouchohart@yahoo.com)

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 642
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Deans » 06 May 2017 15:32

I am cross posting my article on the CPEC, recently published in the Indian military review, as it speaks of the OBOR and the overall Chinese strategy behind such investments, with Pakistan being an example. https://goo.gl/I4cuC2

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby chola » 06 May 2017 16:58

SSridhar wrote:China's OBOR initiative could worsen socio-economic difficulties for Africa - DIPANJAN ROY CHAUDHURY, Economic Times
Africa— undergoing a bitter experience in the aftermath of Chinese investments in the continent — may face more trouble after China’s mega One Belt One Road (OBOR) connectivity initiative — that gives Beijing strategic foothold in the region —is rolled out.

Chinese policy to harness raw material and export finished products to African nations have left the locals without fair share of jobs, killed local manufacturing industry, pushed the countries towards debt and created social tensions.
. It is felt that the mega infra projects under OBOR would exacerbate socio-economic difficulties for African nations, some among the fastest-growing economies in the world.

The precarious situation has encouraged some African nations to move closer to India that share decades old bonds with the continent since the days of anti-colonial struggle. Only two African leaders (Ethiopia & Kenya) are attending May 14-15 OBOR meet organised by China but officials across countries from the continent point out that discomfort with Beijing is on the rise.

A senior Chinese official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, noted that India should also send representative to the OBOR meet despite differences on other issues and cited example of Japan, which despite sharper differences with Beijing, is sending an official for May 14-15 forum. China may have built stadiums, airports, hospitals, highways and dams across the continent, but these projects have left many African countries saddled with debts, environmental conflicts and labour strikes, point out the officials quoted above.

Image

“This is nothing but pouring China’s overcapacity overseas. And OBOR wants to further accentuate the situation – by pouring Chinese steel and concrete onto local ecology at recipient cost. OBOR is mediaeval mercantilism in postmodern times,” alleged a scholar who has studied China’s foreign policy and forays into Africa for decades.

India’s development model is gaining traction in Africa as an alternative to the Chinese model. The mega Indo-African summit in Delhi in 2015 and visits by the president, vice president and PM across Africa in 2016 have raised Delhi’s profile in the continent. Africa’s interest in what India stands for and offers have been growing, officials here told ET.

In an opinion piece published in the Financial Times in 2013, Nigeria’s Central Bank governor, Lamido Sanusi, said Chinese investment in sub-Saharan Africa smacked of ‘colonialism,’ in size and style. Beijing was accused of holding back a growing African economy by focusing on the pursuit of raw materials, rather than on the creation of local markets and jobs.

China has been discomfited on occasions. In 2014, South African President Jacob Zuma cautioned that Africa’s somewhat lopsided trade ties with China were turning out to be “unsuitable in the long term.” In Zambia, in 2015, the government had to take control of a Chinese copper mine after numerous complaints of labour abuse. That same year, Botswana’s President Ian Khama called for a reduction in new contracts to Chinese companies, citing poor construction and delays.

Ghana and Angola too have been unhappy over Chinese products and social tensions due to Chinese approach in ignoring local populace. Attempting to change its image before OBOR Summit, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a tour of Africa earlier this year.


India has had centuries-old connections with Africa with brisk travel and trade across the Indian Ocean, colonial linkages and ties forged in the post-colonial days of South-South cooperation and third world solidarity. India has offered developmental assistance and lines of credit to African partners even while undertaking economic reforms at home.

Modi has given a new focus to India’s African interaction in his usual energetic style with a more visible engagement. Yet this outreach is benign in nature and in keeping with India’s soft power approach to international relations. India’s main focus in Africa has been on trade and investment, energy security and developmental assistance; in recent days, maritime security, agriculture and food security have also gained priority.

India is also involved in key capacity building initiatives that include scholarships to hundreds of students from the continent besides hugely successful pan E-Africa project – matched by very few countries even from the developed world. Notably medical tourism to India from Africa is on the rise.

Indian investment in Africa was initiated by government-owned enterprises that have stakes in the mining and energy sector. But it is private sector investment that has fuelled a substantial part of Indian investment as opportunities opened up in the African markets with several high growth economies.

Indian investments in the continent amount to $33 billion.
Trade has been on an upward swing and currently at an estimated $70 billion. As Modi imparts greater energy in India’s African relationship, India-Africa alliance is certainly likely to grow larger and deeper.



OBOR is aimed at Eurasia not Africa. In fact, OBOR is a replication of the infrastructure building in Africa and South America that had gone on for a decade.

That is a huge fact to get wrong in an analysis piece.

Wall Street had studied and taken advantage of the Africa/SoAm chini road/rail/housing/telecom years ago. Infrastructure building is high risk/low return. If chinis want to do it then let them. But we (Fortune 500) are happy to make use of it to penetrate new markets.

Why are the chinis doing this in Africa, South America and now Central Asia-Middle East-Eastern Europe? Basically the entire turd world? To create markets for their wares that cannot yet compete in the first world and to extract resources for their wares that could. Africa was first target in this strategy because it was the poorest and most readily accepting of chini plans and lucre, then South America and now Eurasia which includes many middle income nations. As chini skills and finances raise they move closer and closer to building for the developed economies in the EU, the Far East and ultimately North America.

I saw this tracked on an animated map over time beginning in 2000. It was at a conference on Trade Turd World trading trends. I saw a network, like blood vessels, ballooning across Africa and South America over the years until it is now sitting at the doorsteps of Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

It is not hard to see why this is enticing. No nation wants to stay turd world. It really boils down to lack of infrastructure and the finances to build it. The chinis are offering their financial institutions to fund their construction ecosystem to build infrastructure in any African/SA country that wants it.

The price is debt to the PRC and the embedding of chini firms into your local economy. But make no mistake, the roads, rails, housing and cellular towers are real. They will facilitate even greater penetration by chini and other MNCs. But if you had nothing before then it will still be a great deal.

Africans and South Americans are the only ones with positive image of the lizard:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/cha ... nas-image/

prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2777
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby prahaar » 06 May 2017 17:26

Cholaji, based on second hand information, Chinese businesses have poor reputation with locals in Africa. Indians have established business in nook and corners, all based on personal entrepreneurship. Chinese entry is top down, and locals hate their non serious approach (no sight of long term engagement). PRC colonization is unlikely to succeed if it does not have the finesse of coopting the locals.

This information is based on discussion with someone who has travelled there often.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21722
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby SSridhar » 06 May 2017 17:33

chola wrote:OBOR is aimed at Eurasia not Africa. In fact, OBOR is a replication of the infrastructure building in Africa and South America that had gone on for a decade.

That is a huge fact to get wrong in an analysis piece.

The Maritime Silk Road (MSR) part of the OBOR certainly encompasses Indian Ocean littorals and the African Continent with Kenya as the hub as the article correctly points out.

OBOR is simply not infrastructure building alone which the earlier Chinese regimes might have done for a while; OBOR, as announced by Xi Jinping in c. 2013, is far more sinister than that. Apart from geo-economics, it has both geo-political and geo-strategic interests of China intertwined with that. It is simply not an extension of the previous 'saintly' Chinese efforts. Let us not be sanguine about that.

Who wants 'useless' projects like Hambanatota Port, Mattala International Airport, Media City etc which do not earn a dollar of revenue and only makes the nation indebted & servile to a powerful country that ruthlessly breathes down the neck and extracts concessions? May be some corrupt politician would engage the unscrupulous Chinese to get his commission and run away but the rest and the people are seeing through the Chinese game. That is what the article highlights.

The Africans don't seem to be so positively inclined towards the Chinese, at least not any more. This is the current reality, not as of c. 2014. Many South American projects also ended up in closure.

manju
BRFite
Posts: 628
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: CA, USA

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby manju » 06 May 2017 18:10

For the agnani's like me... can some one please post a link or describe OBOR/BRI succintly... which I can use to educate others..

I know it is roads, railways tracks, ports and lanes.. but what is the One belt one road?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21722
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby SSridhar » 06 May 2017 19:00

India, US to focus on jointly countering submarine operations at Malabar exercise - Manu Pubby, Economic Times
. . . .
The top US Admiral [Scott Swift, Commander of the US Pacific Fleet] also expressed his concern on the Chinese One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative, saying that the intent of the initiative is still not clear. The officer shared that Chinese vessels had started visits in the Pacific Ocean as part of the OBOR plan :!: but that there was little clarity on what their plan is.

Chinese ships are now doing an OBOR tour but (we are) not sure where they are going. It is the sense of uncertainty, the sense of angst that comes from (not knowing) what exactly the OBOR means,” Admiral Swift said.

Asked for his assessment on the Chinese Navy, in the wake of the recent launch of its second aircraft carrier that is expected to join service by 2020, the Pacific fleet commander admitted that the PLA Navy (PLAN) capacity is increasing.

“I would expect that their capacity will continue to grow as they learn more and more how to conduct operations. I would expect both their capability and capacity will continue to grow,” the officer said.

Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Tuan » 06 May 2017 23:26

In the 21st century, all the great powers of the world once again have acquired their own interest with their ambiguous foreign policy. The USA, Russia, China, and India are the major powers playing their key role in the “New Great Game” in Central Asian landmass and the strategic sea lanes of the world in the Indian Ocean where 90% of the world trade is being transported everyday including oil. It is this extension of the great game race is the reason the Trump administration dropped the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), also known as the mother of all bomb on Islamic State’s cave and tunnel systems in the Achin district of the Nangarhar Province in eastern Afghanistan on April 13 last month. While Lutz Kleveman (2003), argues that the Central Asia is increasingly becoming the most important geostrategic region for the future commodities, Michael Richardson (2004) on the other hand explains that the global economy depends on the free flow of shipping through the strategic international straits, waterways, and canals in the Indian Ocean.

Two third of the global maritime trade passes through a handful of relatively narrow shipping lanes, among which five geographic “chokepoints” or narrow channels that are gateway to and from Indian ocean: (1) Strait of Hormuz (2) Bab el-Mandab Passage (3) Palk Strait (4) Malacca and Singapore Straits and (5) Sunda Strait. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) report published in 2014, “world chokepoints for maritime transit of oil are a critical part of global energy security. About 63% of the world's oil production moves on maritime routes. The Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca are the world's most important strategic chokepoints by volume of oil transit” (p.1). These channels are critically important to the world trade because so much of it passes through them. For instance, half of the world’s oil production is moved by tankers through these maritime routes. Hence, the blockage of a chokepoint, even for a day, can lead to substantial increases in total energy costs and thus these chokepoints are critical part of global energy security.

In a recent analysis of globalization and its impact on Central Asia and Indian Ocean region, researcher Daniel Alphonsus (2015), notes that the twists and turns of political, economic and military turbulence were significant to all great players’ grand strategies: (1) the One Belt, One Road (OBOR), China’s anticipated strategy to increase connectivity and trade between Eurasian nations, a part of which is the future Maritime Silk Road (MSR), aimed at furthering collaboration between south east Asia, Oceania and East Africa; (2) Project Mausam, India’s struggle to reconnect with its ancient trading partners along the Indian Ocean, broadly viewed as its answer to the MSR; and (3) the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, the USA’s effort to better connect south and south east Asian nations. India the superpower of the subcontinent, has long feared China's role in building outposts around its periphery. In a recent essay, an Indian commentator Brahma Chellaney wrote that the fusion of China's economic and military interests "risk turning Sri Lanka into India's Cuba" - a reference to how the Soviet Union courted Fidel Castro's Cuba right on the United States' doorstep. This is clearly evident how important the roles played by even the small nation states in the region vis-à-vis the New Great Game.

Great powers may set the agenda, but geopolitical illustrations are depending on the game the rest of the world play, and it is, in particular, the small states that will decide the fate of their strategies to rethink the new world order. It is against this backdrop one should view why the long term strategic 1000 Kg MOAB bomb killed three birds with one stone. That is while it sent a very strong implicit message to Pyongyang at a crucial point of time, it also echoed in Moscow and Tehran, who are covertly aiding and advising Afghan Taliban, according to a Washington D.C based Middle East Institute (2017), whereas the USA has a long term strategic interest in Central Asia, particularly in the Caspian Region. Thus, it is just another post-Cold War proxy wars between the USA, Russia, China and India in multiple fronts, which is part and parcel of "The New Great Game".

Source: Working Paper

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4003
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Peregrine » 07 May 2017 00:30

Pakistan, India spar over China’s One Belt One Road initiative

Image

NOTE : India’s Finance Minister Arun Jaitley : Suave, Nonchalant looking away from Unshaved, Unbuttoned Jacket wala Dar - who is looking at Jaitley - with a puzzled look on his face!

YOKOHAMA: Pakistan and India sparred over China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) project at a panel discussion in Yokohama, Japan on Saturday, with Finance Minister Ishaq Dar rejecting Delhi’s objections and reaffirming unequivocal support for Beijing’s transnational initiative.

Speaking at the discussion, held during the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank, India’s Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said his country had “reservations over OBOR due to sovereignty issues.” He did not elaborate further but his remarks came in the backdrop of Delhi’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which is part of OBOR.

In response, Dar stressed the importance of the project for regional connectivity. “With due respect to some panelists, we strongly support OBOR. It is a great initiative to connect the region,” he said.


In an otherwise drab discussion on ‘Asia’s Economic Outlook: Talking Trade’ – in which ADB President Takehiko Nakao and Indonesia’s Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati also participated – this was the only time a disagreement arose. Dar, however, reiterated Pakistan’s position unequivocally.

Billing intra-regional trade and connectivity essential for sustainable economic development of Asia and the Pacific, the Pakistani minister said such a gigantic leap was needed to address economic challenges and persisting issues in a lasting manner. He added that ADB had a greater role to play in this regard to achieve ultimate economic goals and objectives.

“The world is now a global village. No region can survive economically in isolation. Cooperation, coordination and connectivity are badly needed to ensure economic development in this part of the planet,” Dar said.

“CPEC can not only ensure economic cooperation between China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and Iran, but also pave a level playing course for all in terms of economic dividends,” he stressed, adding that regional trade and connectivity would ensure prosperity and check the menace of poverty.

Pakistan has achieved macro-economic stability

At a separate round table conference on the theme of ‘Responding to Rising Inequality’, Finance Minister Dar said Pakistan, having achieved macro-economic stability, is now focused on realising higher sustainable growth as part of economic turnaround.

“Pakistan’s Vision 2025, which prioritises investment in human capital and social services, recognises the importance of inclusive and balanced growth, and shared prosperity to redress geographical and social inequality,” he said.

The minister added that the “ruling democratic dispensation in Pakistan strongly believes that benefits of growth must be shared by all segments of society, especially marginalised groups.”
Cheers Image

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3834
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby hanumadu » 07 May 2017 08:58

I watched a video on youtube which was on the chinese moving people once again to create new cities. If the previous round was to move farmers to huge cities, now the aim is to move the migrant farmers in the big cities and other farmers in villages to smaller cities perhaps already constructed or to be constructed. The govt authorities are simply vacating whole blocks of migrant worker buildings by force to build new swanky buildings in their place and forcing the tenants to go back to their villages or move to these smaller cites. I guess a few more years of construction boom is assured.

I wonder if China plans to distribute its population more or less evenly across their entire geography. That would make the OBOR some what viable. I mean throw 50 million people in xingiang, another 50 million bordering the CAR nations, 50 million closer to vietnam and they can kill what ever industry is left in those countries.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21722
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby SSridhar » 07 May 2017 08:59

India and China's Maritime Silk Road (MSR) Project

China has been proposing a USD 40 Billion Maritime Silk Route (MSR) ostensibly to finance infrastructure construction and enhance business cooperation in the countries that will become part of the MSR and invited India to be a part of it during the 17th round of Border Talks between the Special representatives (SRs) of the two nations. In October 2013, during the Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Indonesia, he similarly invited that country to be also part of MSR. In c. 2015, it even wanted to integrate its ‘Belt & Road’ project with India’s ‘Spice Route’ and ‘Mausam’ projects. Earlier, the Chinese Premier Li Keqiang had outlined the concept of MSR in the 16th ASEAN-China Summit in Brunei on 9-10, October 2013 just as Xi Jinping fleshed out the overland Silk Road in Kazakhastan in December 2013. The Chinese have touted this as a move to strengthen maritime infrastructure and trade among partner countries.

In c. 2014, PLAN conducted naval exercises close to Indonesia in eastern Indian Ocean quietly. On March 19, 2016, when Indonesia apprehended a Chinese fishing trawler in its EEZ waters, a Chinese PLAN patrol boat suddenly materialized to challenge the Indonesian Coast Guard. China later maintained that the fishing boat was "in traditional Chinese fishing grounds". The MSR initiative has to be seen in a larger context. For long, the Chinese strategic thinkers had given greater emphasis on a blue-water navy as the most important weapon, even above the possession of nuclear weapons. Alfred Thayer Mahan, 18th century's greatest naval strategist, says, " . . . naval strategy may gain its most decisive victories by occupying in a country, either by purchase or treaty, excellent positions [during peaceful times] which would perhaps hardly be got by war." Apparently, Mahan is venerated in Chinese strategic circles. It is not surprising because China is a manufactuing economy unlike India which is mostly a service-based economy. China has the need therefore to preserve its SLOCs both for its exported merchandize and imported energy products and also handle the various chokepoints that can cause it a great damage (from Malacca Straits to Strait of Hormuz & Bab-el-Mandeb). China’s IOR strategy is also dictated by the presence of other navies in the region, especially the US and India.

With the rapid building up of their naval force with such platforms as the Jin-class SSBNs with their 12000 KM range JL-2 ballistic missiles which have just started patrolling the seas, the conclusion of building the aircraft carrier, and the incremental presence of the PLAN in the Indian and Pacific oceans, the Chinese feel that they now have the muscle to exploit the navy for economic, diplomatic, strategic and military purposes. The MSR is a well-disguised attempt to achieve these objectives. If the US talks of Indo-Pacific, the Chinese want to demonstrate that they have a large presence in both these oceans. It is on the basis if this new-found maritime strength that the Chinese leadership led by Xi Jinping is pursuing an ‘active foreign policy’.

China wants to be able to dominate in the sea in the area it calls as the ‘First Island Chain’, the series of islands that stretch from Japan in the north to Taiwan and the Philippines to the south to Indonesia in the West. It also helps the Chinese to exploit the natural resources of the IOR (Indian Ocean Region) states and undermine the Indian influence there. The Chinese want to establish a multimodal transportation system along the MSR, like for example the railway, energy and road network it is building along the Karakoram linking Kashgar in Xinjiang with the port in Gwadar along the Makran coast of Balochistan. China’s strategic goals behind the Silk Road Fund and other moves, as many analysts agree, are making more efficient use of its huge foreign-exchange reserves, facilitating the yuan’s internationalization, exporting technologies, and deepening the economic and trade relationship with surrounding countries. China expects to exploit its abundant forex reserves to achieve its goals.

In order to fund these projects, China has setup ‘Asian Infrastructural Investment Bank’ (AIIB) to rival the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). In order to mask its real ambitions, China initially intended to setup the Headquarters of this bank either in Jakarta or in Singapore, but ultimately chose Beijing itself as major economies warmed up to the idea of such a bank. In June 2014, during the visit of Indian Vice President Hamid Ansari to China, India was invited to join the Bank. The idea of India joining this Bank was mooted as soon as Narendra Modi took power in May 2014 during the visit of the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to India. This was especially because Modi’s government wanted to accord high priority to infrastructure development and was not averse to seeking Chinese participation in those projects. In the ASEAN meet at Myanmar’s capital Nay Pyi Taw in early August 2014, the Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said that given the existence of the Asia Development Bank, Japan saw no need to establish another similar institution in the region. In c. 2015, the bank’s president, Jin Liqun eased the concerns of the US by agreeing to choose projects that have already been approved by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the European bank. In June 2016, AIIB announced its first four loans, three of which were in conjunction with ADB, WB & EBRD while the $165 M electricity transmission project in Bangladesh was its only stand-alone project.

Overlooking the Taiwan Strait, Quanzhou, a major city in China’s strategic Fujian Province, has emerged as the focal point of the MSR. The city, known to be the starting point of the original MSR, was central to the voyages across South and Southeast Asia, including India, the Maldives and Sri Lanka, by Zheng He, a 15th century mariner.

China’s Silkroad initiatives (both Land Silkroute and Maritime Silk Route) are intended to act as a counter to the Asian Pivot proposed by the US administration led by Pres. Barack Obama. The 12-nation Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) excluded China. Both these are interpreted by China as an attempt to contain China. China is therefore attempting to break out by expanding in the opposite direction, China’s Look West Policy, if one may call it so. It embarked on a mega Free Trade Agreement in Asia Pacific (FTAAP). The two Silk Routes involve Malaysia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Myanmar, Bangladesh. The BRICS' New Development Bank as well as China’s own Asian Infrastructure Development Bank are supposed to play pivotal roles in China’s OBOR development.

In February 2015, China officially announced the formal launching of the USD 40B fund which will be managed by three of its financial institutions. On February 16, 2015 the country's central bank, People's Bank of China said, “The Silk Road Fund designed to finance China-proposed ‘Belt and Road’ initiatives has begun operation”. The Silk Road Fund Co Ltd was established in December, 2014 in Beijing. The company was jointly funded by China's foreign exchange reserves, China Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank of China and China Development Bank. The fund is drawn from China's massive $4 trillion forex reserves. "The priority (of the company) is to seek investment opportunities and provide investment and financing services during the progress of the Belt and Road Initiatives," the Bank statement said. "Belt and Road" refers to the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (MSR) initiatives proposed by China in 2013 for improved cooperation with countries in a vast part of Asia, Europe and Africa. The Silk Road projects involved a maze of roads and ports connecting Asia, Europe and Africa.

In July 2016, the Global Times claimed that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had "expressed support" for China's ambitious Maritime Silk Road plan but his successor Narendra Modi "changed" India's "attitude" towards the initiative by using delaying tactics. "Indian strategists and the government believe there is some geostrategic design behind the 'Belt and Road' (Silk Road) initiative. Now, India has adopted opposing, delaying and hedging measures toward different parts of the initiative. When China initiated the MSR in 2013, then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his national security advisor Shivshankar Menon expressed support and interest. But current Prime Minister Narendra Modi changed India's attitude toward MSR after he came into power. Western scholars forged and hyped China's 'string of pearls strategy' in the Indian Ocean, and some Indians believe that MSR is just an alternative wording that sounds more pleasant and is used to replace the string of pearls strategy. The so-called string of pearls strategy is a military and geostrategic design. But Chinese leaders define the 'Belt and Road' initiative as the top-level design of China's opening-up and economic diplomacy in the new era and Chinese solutions and suggestions toward world peace and development. India's reaction toward the 'Belt and Road' initiative is a part of its Indo-Pacific strategy under which India takes precedence of geopolitics over geo-economics cooperation. Modi's visit to three Indian Ocean countries in March 2015 shows that India is determined to adopt an asymmetrical strategy to secure a dominant position in the Indian Ocean through bolstering military and security cooperation with these island nations. So in the Indo-Pacific region, there is competition between geo-economic cooperation and geopolitical cooperation. India, the US and Japan want to hedge economic and trade cooperation initiated by China with their military and security cooperation. This situation does not benefit the advancement of the 'Belt and Road' initiative. To deal with the situation, China should make clear its purposes in the Indian Ocean, especially the security of sea lanes of energy and trade, the security of overseas investment and the security of overseas Chinese, to build strategic trust with Indian Ocean countries, especially India. Also China should step up efforts to improve maritime economic cooperation, maritime interconnection, civil cooperation, disaster relief cooperation, legal cooperation and other maritime security activities, providing more international public goods collectively with other countries, to ensure the security of sea lanes and freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean. In the long run it is necessary to build a stable regional security architecture. China should continue to advocate new security concepts and make efforts to build an inclusive and democratic regional security architecture". The article is building up a case for a new security architecture in the Indian Ocean just as the US & India called for a similar architecture in Indo-Pacific during PM Modi’s visit to the US in June 2016. The article is also trying to create a symmetrical and non-existent ‘freedom of navigation’ concern akin to similar concerns in the South China Sea. India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, during her visit to Beijing in January 2015 , said India will not give a blanket endorsement to the MSR project but support where the synergies of the two countries meet.

Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Tuan » 07 May 2017 20:46

IMHO, Indians should join hands with Chinese vis-a-vis OBOR project, since it will mutually benefit both parties. In order to survive and succeed in an interconnected and interdependent world, where global south nation states competing with global north, the only choice the regional actors have is to promote toleration, moderation, and coexistence. As the old saying goes "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 775
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Bart S » 07 May 2017 22:21

Tuan wrote:IMHO, Indians should join hands with Chinese vis-a-vis OBOR project, since it will mutually benefit both parties. In order to survive and succeed in an interconnected and interdependent world, where global south nation states competing with global north, the only choice the regional actors have is to promote toleration, moderation, and coexistence. As the old saying goes "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

:eek:

The problem with that is, you cannot 'join hands' with the PRC. That is like 'joining hands' with a Nile Crocodile. Invite crocodile to rip off your arms, sure....but joining hands doesn't work that way in practice. One of the goals of OBOR is to encircle and screw over India, and I am sure the chicoms will be laughing their asses off as they gleefully accept our 'help', if we willingly join them in that enterprise

Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Tuan » 07 May 2017 22:40

Bart, If India can "join hands" with Uncle Sam, then why not with PRC. Out of curiosity, I was wondering what would be the strategic implications in joining hands between the two major global powers.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Neshant » 08 May 2017 04:53

China's objective is achievement of hegemony in East Asia and later South Asia.
The US, India and to a lesser extent Japan are the only powers that stand in the way of this.

You can already see parts of this vision unfold in their annexation of the South China sea through military means.
Their attempted balkanization of South East Asian countries through military control over their maritime region is a template of things to come.
And this Cold War hasn't even got started..

China wants India to be economically weak and distracted with internal and external conflicts while this expansionism continues.
Nothing would please them better than a poor India, harried by terrorists unable to assert its strength while this takeover is underway.

China blocking of moves to ban terrorist Masood Azhar in Pakistan from sanctuary in that country, the violation of India's boarders, their illegal construction of a road through PoK and funding of activities in that region, their military entry in the IOR and building of bases around India are but the tip of the iceberg of what's coming.

That being said, as long as India continues to grow economically and maintain good relations with external powers, we are likely to give them a run for their money. They are not trusted by any Western or Asian country (including Pakistan!). They have no major allies (and Russia with its small population is even more wary of them).

Most importantly, they are enemy #1 to the United States which has buried more great powers than 1 hand can count.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21722
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby SSridhar » 08 May 2017 06:44

Tuan wrote: . . . If India can "join hands" with Uncle Sam . . .

Tuan, can you explain the following to me from the above?
  • What is "joining hands" in the India-US context?
  • What do you mean by "If", that is, how do you draw the equivalence between the US & PRC (assuming that somehow India has "joined hands" with the US)?

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby yensoy » 08 May 2017 08:03

OBOR reminds me of a poem I learnt as a child "The Blind Men and the Elephant" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#John_Godfrey_Saxe.

Just as (quoting from Wiki) "Each in his own opinion concludes that the elephant is like a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan or rope, depending upon where they had touched. Their heated debate comes short of physical violence, but the conflict is never resolved." in the poem, OBOR is whatever the observer makes of it. Even the Chinese aren't sure what it is. If there is an ongoing project in that general area, it is suddenly included into OBOR to bulk it up. Since OBOR is Uncle Xi's pet project, everyone wants to look good by joining the bandwagon.

One reason for the meeting later this month is for the Chinese to hear from the world what it thinks OBOR should be, so they can go back to the drawing board to cook up something that people want; on the other hand, foreign governments are going to send their reps with more questions than answers.

CPEC is probably the best defined and the biggest project under OBOR and of course we all know what the problems are with CPEC.

A few years ago, the Shanghai Free Trade Zone was declared with much fanfare. Everyone was talking about how Shanghai FTZ would change the face of business in China. Not much material benefit emanated from the FTZ, and even the few things that did was because the FTZ got around contrived rules by operating in gray areas, e.g. video game console sales otherwise banned in China were suddenly available "via the FTZ". Go figure!

The one part of OBOR we should vehemently support is BICM corridor from India to Bangladesh, Myanmar and China. Why? Because it will give us India-India connectivity.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby yensoy » 08 May 2017 08:12

Tuan wrote:IMHO, Indians should join hands with Chinese vis-a-vis OBOR project, since it will mutually benefit both parties. In order to survive and succeed in an interconnected and interdependent world, where global south nation states competing with global north, the only choice the regional actors have is to promote toleration, moderation, and coexistence. As the old saying goes "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".


Typical Chinese argument full of rhetoric and little substance. Let me answer you... you go ahead and build OBOR. If it suits our needs and requirements when it is built, we will pay you the toll and use it. Happy?

Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Tuan » 08 May 2017 08:24

Sridhar, what I meant was that India is planning to unite with US and Japan to counter CPEC by engaging in naval exercises in the coming days, as I read here in BRF, I wonder why? Not to mention one of the ten principles of macroeconomics is that trade can make everyone better off, as opportunity cost plays a key role.

Neshant, I didn’t mean that India is weak and thus join hands with a stronger China, rather I envision a united world as one system. It could be a utopian and idealistic thought, but given the status quo of global affairs, including ongoing and upcoming wars, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, climate change, poverty, overpopulation, depletion of natural resources (fresh water, fossil fuel and arable lands), the only way forward is a peaceful coexistence of one world, IMHO.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9214
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Aditya_V » 08 May 2017 10:28

Tuan wrote:IMHO, Indians should join hands with Chinese vis-a-vis OBOR project, since it will mutually benefit both parties. In order to survive and succeed in an interconnected and interdependent world, where global south nation states competing with global north, the only choice the regional actors have is to promote toleration, moderation, and coexistence. As the old saying goes "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".


+1 I agree, But China should first use its influence to solve the sovereignty issues this creates, makes sure that the whole of J&K is in Indian control by forcing hostile persons to leave the territory immediately and recognize Arunachal Pradesh as an intergral part of India. Then definately India should cooperate.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21722
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby SSridhar » 08 May 2017 19:00

Tuan wrote:Sridhar, what I meant was that India is planning to unite with US and Japan to counter CPEC by engaging in naval exercises in the coming days, as I read here in BRF, I wonder why? Not to mention one of the ten principles of macroeconomics is that trade can make everyone better off, as opportunity cost plays a key role.

Tuan, as a keen follower of BRf, you should be aware of the answers as well. The Chinese typically put their foot feet in the mouth easily. Do you really expect an answer from me? Nah, I would rather expect you to flesh out the answer yourself.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21722
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby SSridhar » 08 May 2017 20:09

X-post from Managing China thread

India 'overly interpreting' Beijing's military buildup: Global Times - PTI

A spate of articles everyday about India in Chinese newspapers, sometimes pleading, sometimes threatening and at other times patronisingly advising; China is indeed caught in a cleft.

India must not "exaggerate" concerns on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or "overly interpret" Beijing's military development, a state-run Chinese daily said today, days after the Indian Army chief suggested New Delhi carry out counter-encirclement of its "future adversaries".
The article in Global Times, a ruling Communist Party publication, said India worries that China was intentionally meddling in India-Pakistan disputes, "utilising the CPEC (which runs through the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) to grant legitimacy to Islamabad's control over the disputed region."

"India is viewing Beijing and Islamabad as potential threats and is suspicious of Beijing's One Belt and One Road+ initiative and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor+ (CPEC)," it said, adding that "India is exaggerating the situation".

"Beijing respects New Delhi's sovereignty concerns, and is willing to mediate in India-Pakistan disputes, on the condition that it accords to the wishes of both India and Pakistan," it said. {Now, this is more nuanced articulation of Chinese mediation. It goes one step ahead laying down a condition. It wants to use the CPEC as a fait accompli for it to have the right to mediate}


The remarks in the Chinese daily came after Army chief Gen Bipin Rawat last week said India must have close ties with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan considering the security matrix.

He said such a strategy will create a two-pronged dilemma for Pakistan, and also help tackle issues with the other difficult neighbour China, suggesting New Delhi should "carry out counter-encirclement for our future adversaries."

Referring to his remarks, the article said China advocates peaceful development and it "has and will never seek hegemony in the region." {Oh, yeah?}

China's defence budget will rise by about seven per cent this year, the lowest since 2010 and Beijing's military development is "part of its national construction, and New Delhi should not overly interpret it," it said.

The Indian media suggests that China's military expenditure for 2017, about 1.3 per cent of the GDP, is three times higher than that of India. "Frankly speaking, even if New Delhi's military spending is boosted to the same level, India still lags behind its northern neighbour in its military capability. For instance, India's development of aircraft carrier is very slow despite its early start," it said.

China has one refurbished aircraft carrier and recently launched a homemade carrier, which was expected to take a few years to operationalise. A third carrier is reportedly under construction.

The official media again urged India to join the ambition Chinese project to link China with Eurasia through the Belt and Road (B&R) initiative amid concern here about New Delhi's apparent silence over participation in this week's B&R summit.

The article said "instead of being overly concerned about China's rise, New Delhi should consider taking an early role in B&R initiative. China's infrastructural initiative will not only bring economic benefits, but also fulfil India's ambition to be an influential economic power in the region."
It urged India to abandon its "suspicions" and adopt a pragmatic attitude towards China's and Pakistan's development.


The B&R initiative includes a maze of road, rail and port projects in a number of countries to connect mainland China to markets in Asia and Europe.

While the CPEC is highlighted as the "flagship project" of the initiative, it also includes the Bangladesh-China- India-Myanmar (BCIM), New Eurasian Land Bridge, China- Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor, China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road.

At least 28 heads of state and government, including the prime ministers of Pakistan and Sri Lanka, have confirmed their participation in the summit Beijing is projecting as a global acceptance of the initiative.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby chola » 09 May 2017 08:50

Neshant wrote:That being said, as long as India continues to grow economically and maintain good relations with external powers, we are likely to give them a run for their money. They are not trusted by any Western or Asian country (including Pakistan!). They have no major allies (and Russia with its small population is even more wary of them).


We need to convert our "good" relations with external powers into concrete advantages.

Unlike TSP who are treated like the pariah we think they are, Cheen is whole different animal.

While we can say they are not trusted by anyone, the fact is they still reap massive advantages from trade relations with all the nations that supposedly despise them: forex from the US and EU, financial/trade services from Hong Kong and Singapore, technology from SoKo, Japan and Taiwan and raw material from everyone else from Indonesia to Nigeria to Brazil.

In fact, the PRC's economic relationship with its most dangerous enemies -- Unkil, Japan and Taiwan -- is the foundation of its growth to currently the largest/second largest national economy. Without the US market and financial and technical FDI into Cheen by its East Asian neighbors, they would a GDP no larger than Bharat's. In fact, they had the same GDP as Nehru Clan's India until their breakthrough with Nixon.

We need to convert those better relationships into concrete market access, tourism sources, raw material providers, etc. Unless we do, having "better" relations amounts to a whole hill of nothing.

Most importantly, they are enemy #1 to the United States which has buried more great powers than 1 hand can count.


This I agree with. But with a caveat.

The US is a great firebreak on any chini war ambitions. They are the main reason we see so little chini military resources and present us with overwhelming men and material advantages in our theater (though you would never guess it from our dhoti shivering.)

But the caveat is this: the US buries great powers who goes to war with it (Germany, Japan) or attempts to race with it in weapons when it doesn't own a printing press (USSR.)

Cheen owns a printing press on the scale of the one that the US owns (you cannot finance OBOR, their HSR network and use more than half the world's steel without one.)

Worse, it is savvy enough to know it cannot fight and would get it arse handed to it if it did (unlike "martial TSP".) So it will continue to build and build until the situation on the ground is changed irrevocably by weight of equipment or money.

Pro-longed peace means a Cheen victory unfortunately.

We need war. We can hope for one breaking out between Cheen on their heavily fortified frontdoor with the US and Japan or over Taiwan. Or we can start one by kicking the fvck down their barely defended backdoor.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Neshant » 09 May 2017 09:46

chola wrote:We need to convert those better relationships into concrete market access, tourism sources, raw material providers, etc. Unless we do, having "better" relations amounts to a whole hill of nothing.


Unfortunately unlike the chinis who live in a neighbourhood surrounded by high tech, capital rich countries like Japan, SoKo, Taiwan, HK and resource rich areas like Siberia & Central Asia, we live by contrast in the proverbial Bronx.

There is no Japan to invest in manufacturing & export to. There is no Taiwan getting semiconductor technology from US and then passing it on to the mainland (much to America's annoyance). There is no financial center like HK with foreign money constantly rolling in. And there sure as hell is no high tech SoKo anywhere around India.

By contrast we have Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Afghanistan, Nepal in our hood. They are all economic basket cases of zero value to India.

On the western flank, even Iran has limited economic value to India beyond petroleum. One has to go as far afield as UAE or Kuwait before finding a capital rich country and all the way to west to Germany before running into a high tech country.

The situation eastwards looks a little better with Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia.

India is trying to power its own economic development using the only thing it has which is its internal market. How far this will take us is anyone's guess.

One thing I advocate is closing off our markets to the chinis. If there is one thing we need to preserve, its manufacturing for our domestic market. There is nothing of value India can export to China anyways but they sure want to sell a shitload "walmart" stuff to us and run up our deficits.


We need war. We can hope for one breaking out between Cheen on their heavily fortified frontdoor with the US and Japan or over Taiwan. Or we can start one by kicking the fvck down their barely defended backdoor.


Going "rambo" on them would be suicide. They posses quite a lot of land and air power the sheer quantity of which would be overwhelming to India. For now, just play it cool. They have as much to worry about US plans in Asia and India's role in it as we do with their hegemonic ambitions.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9198
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby arun » 09 May 2017 11:25

Peregrine wrote:X Posted on the STFUP Thread

China offers to rename China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

NEW DELHI: Seeking to allay India's concerns, China has offered to rename the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which passes through Pakistan occupied-Kashmir(PoK), insisting it was an economic cooperation and connectivity enhancement project devoid of "sovereignty issues".

It also strongly pushed for New Delhi's participation in the 'One Belt, One Road' project.

Chinese ambassador to New Delhi Luo Zhaohui, while referring to frosty Indo-Pakistan ties, said China was willing to mediate to resolve the differences between the two countries if it was acceptable to both sides.

Referring to the CPEC, which is part of OBOR, he said China has no intention to get involved in the sovereignty and territorial disputes between India and Pakistan and that the project is for promoting economic cooperation and connectivity in the region.

"It has no connections to or impact on sovereignty issues. Even we can think about renaming the CPEC. China and India have had successful experience of delinking sovereignty disputes from bilateral relations before," he said in closed-door address to a think-tank on Friday.

……………………. {Rest of Post Snipped} ………………………

My Question : Why is China tlying to become India's "Yellowel than Tulmelic Fliend"?

Cheers Image


X Posted from the “Analyzing CPEC” thread.

Claim of Luo Zhaohui, the Ambassador of the Peoples Republic of China to India, about willigness of the Peoples Republic to rename the China Pakistan Economic Corridor aka CPEC, turns out to be forked tongue dragonspeak, not that name changing in the first place, except in PRC minds, would have assuaged India’s legitimate concerns on the whole CPEC enterprise in the first place.

Now, Beijing deletes envoy’s suggestion to rename China-Pakistan corridor : Hindustan Times

An embarrassed China has expunged its India envoy’s suggestion that Beijing could think renaming the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to allay New Delhi’s concerns.

India has reservation about the ambitious project as it passes through Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir, which New Delhi says challenges its sovereignty by lending legitimacy to Pakistan’s claim over the territory.

The suggestion made by Luo Zhaohui has been removed from the version of his speech published on the Chinese embassy’s website. ………

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby manjgu » 09 May 2017 11:44

a Iranian and US entente is not possible till USA needs SA. but maybe in future with oil playing a diminishing role in US - Saudi relations..it can happen.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby manjgu » 09 May 2017 11:45

CIEC..china india economic corridor sounds better...we can join it.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15849
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby chetak » 09 May 2017 12:10

manjgu wrote:CIEC..china india economic corridor sounds better...we can join it.


to paraphrase William Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

CPEC by any other name would smell just as shitty.

China is not our friend, never has been and never will be.

India will grow impressively, now that we are free of vermin, vatican and commie puppets.

This is what the hans are afraid of. I shudder to think what MMS and his han-paki pasand gang would have done by now, given similar circumstances.

The nuke detente is forcing the hans to keep their trousers zipped up too.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9198
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby arun » 09 May 2017 12:13

X Posted from the “Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)” thread.

Our former Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal, wisely counsels that we should not attend BARF :lol: aka the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing.

Kanwal Sibal says that “BARF is an occasion for us {India} to puncture its {P.R.China} self-image as the next indispensable country by not accepting a form of kowtow by attending”.

The concluding excerpt of the article follows:

India is the second biggest country in Asia, in most ways China’s actual or potential peer. We have already developed strategic capabilities to deter China. The economic gap between India and China will close in the years ahead. India will not be isolated if it does not attend BARF, as the Chinese claim. The prize of the Indian market is much more important for China than that of the smaller countries straddling the BRI. We can deal with China bilaterally on the economic front without having to join it in promoting its leadership ambitions in Asia at our expense.

Given China’s provocations on several strategic fronts, BARF is an occasion for us to puncture its self-image as the next indispensable country by not accepting a form of kowtow by attending.


Daily Mail via Daily O:

India should not attend China's Belt and Road Forum in Beijing

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21722
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby SSridhar » 09 May 2017 12:31

The offer by the Chinese Ambassador to India to re-think the 'CPEC' nomenclature was a kite-flying exercise before the Beijing meet to soften Indian refusal and make it attend even if at a low level. Beijing has probably assessed that India was most unlikely to change its stance and so deleted that 'offer' from the website.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Neshant » 10 May 2017 07:33

There is no way China spent 58 billion on this route which will see no significant commercial traffic now or in the future.
They are definitely lieing about that number.
It makes about as much investment sense as sinking 58 billion into Afghanistan or Somalia.
They will never see their principle let alone any return on investment.

My guess is they must have spent perhaps 5 billion dollars at most. Even that number sounds enormous.

Maybe they hope to make it a military corridor to the Indian ocean and are willing to take a loss on building it.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Neshant » 10 May 2017 07:59

Gulf countries will at some point see China's military base in their 'hood as a threat to the free movement of their maritime traffic.

Especially Iran.


yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby yensoy » 10 May 2017 08:56

arun wrote:X Posted from the “Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)” thread.

Our former Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal, wisely counsels that we should not attend BARF :lol: aka the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing.

Kanwal Sibal says that “BARF is an occasion for us {India} to puncture its {P.R.China} self-image as the next indispensable country by not accepting a form of kowtow by attending”.
...
India should not attend China's Belt and Road Forum in Beijing


That article is giving it too much importance. The Government should send a low level delegation on a "Fact Finding Mission" to BaRF. Ignoring it altogether will give it undue visibility. Learn from the original masters, the Chinese. Ms Gambhir from UN will be an excellent mission head; the rest of the team can be Chinese and shorthand experts.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15849
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby chetak » 10 May 2017 10:28

India not attending at all will make them lose face.

Other countries will also take note.

No need to keep on licking the han boots like we have been doing for a really long time now.

We need to show some spine.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby yensoy » 10 May 2017 11:35

chetak wrote:India not attending at all will make them lose face.

Other countries will also take note.

No need to keep on licking the han boots like we have been doing for a really long time now.

We need to show some spine.


Sending a junior officer will have the same effect, yet allow for less tension and uneasy conversations/media scrutiny/jingoism, at the same time making us privy to the OBOR conversations.

When you look at the world in a black and white "licking boots/showing spine" metaphor, you have lost the battle. When something can be done with finesse no point contaminating the atmosphere.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2504
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby Kashi » 10 May 2017 11:47

yensoy wrote:at the same time making us privy to the OBOR conversations.


You really believe that?

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications

Postby yensoy » 10 May 2017 12:09

Kashi wrote:
yensoy wrote:at the same time making us privy to the OBOR conversations.


You really believe that?


You think telepathy sitting in Delhi will work better?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests