A valid point. IMO, chinese seducing anyone is by dangling $$$$ before their eyes. Iran must be watching developments in the Indo-china sea will interest too. While Iran and china find the on the opposite side of the table while dealing with the new POTUS, perhaps Russia figures higher up in the chain of influence over Iran than China does, at the moment. While things can change, I would quote Bji here-' Borrowed superiority often hides deep vulnerabilities'.saurav_jha wrote:Are we not being too optimistic with CPEC ? China is seducing Iran to join CPEC and link Gwadar with Chahbahar. Unless huge anti-Shia movement starts in Pakistan, we may find China sitting pretty in Gwadar.
Analyzing CPEC
-
panduranghari
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3781
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Iran will (as it should) maximize CPEC for its own benefit -- how? It is an overland route to access Western China and even parts of Afghanistan (if Pak & China allow). But that access can be tactical and doesn't call for any strategic or long-term cooperation.
There are 2 things Iran can gain from CPEC:
1. If the dream of a CPEC led economy along the route takes off, Iran can possibly extend the belt into its own lands. But I fail to see CPEC bringing prosperity along with it.
2. Iran could fuel the various Chinese owned power and petrochemical plants being proposed along CPEC. This could be a little deeper relationship than purely supplier-consumer, but no mistake about it, China will still call the shots. At most, Iran may be allowed to set up an industrial zone but clearly dragon won't tolerate any competition to its own investors.
There are 2 things Iran can gain from CPEC:
1. If the dream of a CPEC led economy along the route takes off, Iran can possibly extend the belt into its own lands. But I fail to see CPEC bringing prosperity along with it.
2. Iran could fuel the various Chinese owned power and petrochemical plants being proposed along CPEC. This could be a little deeper relationship than purely supplier-consumer, but no mistake about it, China will still call the shots. At most, Iran may be allowed to set up an industrial zone but clearly dragon won't tolerate any competition to its own investors.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Iran's interest in CPEC is primarily driven by its concerns over Balochi self-determination. If Paki Baluchistan becomes unstable and separates, it will have direct implications for the Iranian-held province of Sistan o Balochestan, which was annexed in 1928.
Notice that during Rouhani's meet with Nawaz Sharif on CPEC, they also released a statement on India's "barbaric acts" in Kashmir - probably a riposte to Modi's sympathy for Balochistan from the Red Fort.
Pak and Iran have cooperated before when Balochi nationalism got out of hand. However, for a while, Pakistan supported Sunni-sectarian Jundullah against Iran, bred in the same Binoria crucibles that produce Taliban culture. But when Pak handed over Abdolmalek Rigi to Iran to be executed, it marked a turning point of sorts in Pak's experiments with Balochi militancy, because they realized that it won't only be directed against Shi'a Iran but also Pakjabi tyranny. Pakistan isn't yet able to sell itself as the prophesied Sunni Mahdi superstate.
Development of CPEC is Pakistan's and Iran's way of stabilizing Balochistan. Iran does not need CPEC for transport, and it has other conduits in the energy market. But by offering an energy bonanza and selling to China (with whom Iran's non-energy trade imbalance is the butt of jokes in Tehran's bazaars), Russia, etc, Iran will also draw in more stakeholders in its own stability and perpetuity. This offering of a business bonanza seems to be the standard ploy by Iran lobbyists, even in the US - they are currently frantically circulating info about the billions in business the US foregoes due to sanctions.
The re-imposition and strengthening of US sanctions on Iran could go a long way in preventing this Iran-Pakistan entente from taking place, which would surely dovetail with Russia-China support too, given the US' messy Middle East and South Asia policy situation. But while the US is clearer on Iran, it remains fuzzy on Pakistan, and in doing so, it will always leave the region unstable and revolving, perhaps intentionally so - so as to draw in other powers looking for a roulette payout.
Notice that during Rouhani's meet with Nawaz Sharif on CPEC, they also released a statement on India's "barbaric acts" in Kashmir - probably a riposte to Modi's sympathy for Balochistan from the Red Fort.
Pak and Iran have cooperated before when Balochi nationalism got out of hand. However, for a while, Pakistan supported Sunni-sectarian Jundullah against Iran, bred in the same Binoria crucibles that produce Taliban culture. But when Pak handed over Abdolmalek Rigi to Iran to be executed, it marked a turning point of sorts in Pak's experiments with Balochi militancy, because they realized that it won't only be directed against Shi'a Iran but also Pakjabi tyranny. Pakistan isn't yet able to sell itself as the prophesied Sunni Mahdi superstate.
Development of CPEC is Pakistan's and Iran's way of stabilizing Balochistan. Iran does not need CPEC for transport, and it has other conduits in the energy market. But by offering an energy bonanza and selling to China (with whom Iran's non-energy trade imbalance is the butt of jokes in Tehran's bazaars), Russia, etc, Iran will also draw in more stakeholders in its own stability and perpetuity. This offering of a business bonanza seems to be the standard ploy by Iran lobbyists, even in the US - they are currently frantically circulating info about the billions in business the US foregoes due to sanctions.
The re-imposition and strengthening of US sanctions on Iran could go a long way in preventing this Iran-Pakistan entente from taking place, which would surely dovetail with Russia-China support too, given the US' messy Middle East and South Asia policy situation. But while the US is clearer on Iran, it remains fuzzy on Pakistan, and in doing so, it will always leave the region unstable and revolving, perhaps intentionally so - so as to draw in other powers looking for a roulette payout.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
In the Foundation series, Asimov lists out ways the First Foundationers went about conquering new worlds. It was Religion first and when that did not work anymore they switched to Trade. Broadly, the history of the world has shown Europeans using these two means of initial penetration in a society and then conquering with use of military might, deception and exploitation of societal fault lines.
The Russian sphere of influence under the Soviet Union was an Ideological influence akin to Religious influence.
The Chinese are bereft of the benefits of religion and even ideology of Communism has already been over exploited by the Soviets. The world is wary of Communists. This leaves Chinese the route of Trade. OBOR, BCIM, CPEC are all Trade routes to increase Chinese spheres of influence through trade. Their intent over the long term is no different from the erstwhile European colonial powers. The Chinese equivalent of colonisation may not be political or geographic capture but plain economic over dependence.
Djibouti is a good marker of the Chinese progress with mini states. Pakistan is also an easy trap. CPEC is a win-win deal for China. CPEC has allowed for greater Chinese military presence in Pakistan with signs of Gwadar turning into a permanent PLAN base is visible. The demand for PLAN ships and subs by the Pakistanis is an indication of the "colonisation" of Pakistan by China. Pakistanis are displaying advanced signs of "Stockholm Syndrome" where they are feel both a great affinity and protected by the their Captors.
It is a copy of the Western World dominance technique by the Chinese and their should be little doubt on how well the Americans understand it. The US has done the same many times over. Since, US is allowing this to happen there are 02 broad possibilities that can be guessed-
1) The US is pulling back and is no position to counter aggressive Chinese designs.
2) The US and China are on this together and the rest of the world is seeing a smoke screen in Indo China Sea ( There really has been no effort by US to stop the Chinese in these parts while all its allies wait helplessly for US to do something).
The impact of increasing Chinese influence in the Geographies of OBOR, BCIM, CPEC -
1) China is bad news for Islam. All these projects are passing through some of the most Islamic places on planet save BCIM.
2) Iran's isolation by US is forcing it into the hands of Chinese. US knows this.
3) Russia is watching from the sidelines. If the project starts succeeding, Russia also stands to lose. Many countries on the OBOR, Russia considers its sphere of influence.
4) India will feel surrounded and violated, specially with the ports in Burma and Gwadar, as also the road through Kashmir.
5) US does not have significant influence in the catchment area of most of OBOR. CPEC is one place it could effectively counter but the US is non responsive.
6) China will have massive influence on regional trade making arrangement in WTO etc moot for this area.
7) In time China will be in position to exploit trade connections with military alignments and influence making any opposition to China from any quarter in Asia would be difficult to imagine.
The time period of OBOR impact measurement could be anywhere between 25 to 30 years starting from 2015. However, early signs of successes and failures would be visible by 2020. A major threat to Chinese designs is from the weak foundations of its own economy. A collapse in China will cause a meltdown in this sphere of influence design. It is my view that the Chinese are overstretched and the Chinese Pvt firms are at times at odds in their interests with that of the Chinese State. The most significant threat to Chinese design would come from Nations opposing OBOR projects from where these pass. As of now there is only one significant opponent of a part of OBOR and that is India.
The Russian sphere of influence under the Soviet Union was an Ideological influence akin to Religious influence.
The Chinese are bereft of the benefits of religion and even ideology of Communism has already been over exploited by the Soviets. The world is wary of Communists. This leaves Chinese the route of Trade. OBOR, BCIM, CPEC are all Trade routes to increase Chinese spheres of influence through trade. Their intent over the long term is no different from the erstwhile European colonial powers. The Chinese equivalent of colonisation may not be political or geographic capture but plain economic over dependence.
Djibouti is a good marker of the Chinese progress with mini states. Pakistan is also an easy trap. CPEC is a win-win deal for China. CPEC has allowed for greater Chinese military presence in Pakistan with signs of Gwadar turning into a permanent PLAN base is visible. The demand for PLAN ships and subs by the Pakistanis is an indication of the "colonisation" of Pakistan by China. Pakistanis are displaying advanced signs of "Stockholm Syndrome" where they are feel both a great affinity and protected by the their Captors.
It is a copy of the Western World dominance technique by the Chinese and their should be little doubt on how well the Americans understand it. The US has done the same many times over. Since, US is allowing this to happen there are 02 broad possibilities that can be guessed-
1) The US is pulling back and is no position to counter aggressive Chinese designs.
2) The US and China are on this together and the rest of the world is seeing a smoke screen in Indo China Sea ( There really has been no effort by US to stop the Chinese in these parts while all its allies wait helplessly for US to do something).
The impact of increasing Chinese influence in the Geographies of OBOR, BCIM, CPEC -
1) China is bad news for Islam. All these projects are passing through some of the most Islamic places on planet save BCIM.
2) Iran's isolation by US is forcing it into the hands of Chinese. US knows this.
3) Russia is watching from the sidelines. If the project starts succeeding, Russia also stands to lose. Many countries on the OBOR, Russia considers its sphere of influence.
4) India will feel surrounded and violated, specially with the ports in Burma and Gwadar, as also the road through Kashmir.
5) US does not have significant influence in the catchment area of most of OBOR. CPEC is one place it could effectively counter but the US is non responsive.
6) China will have massive influence on regional trade making arrangement in WTO etc moot for this area.
7) In time China will be in position to exploit trade connections with military alignments and influence making any opposition to China from any quarter in Asia would be difficult to imagine.
The time period of OBOR impact measurement could be anywhere between 25 to 30 years starting from 2015. However, early signs of successes and failures would be visible by 2020. A major threat to Chinese designs is from the weak foundations of its own economy. A collapse in China will cause a meltdown in this sphere of influence design. It is my view that the Chinese are overstretched and the Chinese Pvt firms are at times at odds in their interests with that of the Chinese State. The most significant threat to Chinese design would come from Nations opposing OBOR projects from where these pass. As of now there is only one significant opponent of a part of OBOR and that is India.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Farooq, welcome to the forum and thank you for your insights.
One observation. Why do you think CPEC passing through "Islamic places" is "bad news for Islam"? I would say, on the contrary... the very presence of a commercial artery in which key players of the global economy have invested, to one extent or other, gives these regions a degree of relevance that they would never have otherwise. And the elevated relevance, in turn, means greater leverage for Islamists operating there. So it is at least good news for Islamists, if not for Islam itself.
For example: in the relative scheme of things no one much cares about Al Shabab because they mostly operate in the basketcase territory of Somalia (it is only when they do something in Kenya, for instance, that the world pays any attention at all). Boko Haram, which affects oil-producing Nigeria, or Jamia Islamiya in oil-producing Indonesia generate a higher degree of concern.
By contrast, the Islamist groups operating in theaters that sit directly athwart major existing or potential arteries of energy supply... like Jabhat al Nusra or Ahrar al Sham in Syria, produce the greatest amount of concern. Their political-ideological masters enjoy the greatest amount of leverage, because their actions are of most consequence to the international economic order.
The presence of Chinese-built and maintained OBOR arteries through Islamic regions will, I predict, strengthen the hands of Islamist groups there because it will serve as a high-value target for blackmail. China cannot possibly police every region it builds OBOR through. It will rely largely on local governments (Pakistan, Bangladesh, CARs etc.) to police the segments of OBOR passing through their territories. Those governments, in turn, can either be blackmailed by Islamists or in fact collude with Islamists to blackmail China (and other trading partners depending on the security of OBOR).
One observation. Why do you think CPEC passing through "Islamic places" is "bad news for Islam"? I would say, on the contrary... the very presence of a commercial artery in which key players of the global economy have invested, to one extent or other, gives these regions a degree of relevance that they would never have otherwise. And the elevated relevance, in turn, means greater leverage for Islamists operating there. So it is at least good news for Islamists, if not for Islam itself.
For example: in the relative scheme of things no one much cares about Al Shabab because they mostly operate in the basketcase territory of Somalia (it is only when they do something in Kenya, for instance, that the world pays any attention at all). Boko Haram, which affects oil-producing Nigeria, or Jamia Islamiya in oil-producing Indonesia generate a higher degree of concern.
By contrast, the Islamist groups operating in theaters that sit directly athwart major existing or potential arteries of energy supply... like Jabhat al Nusra or Ahrar al Sham in Syria, produce the greatest amount of concern. Their political-ideological masters enjoy the greatest amount of leverage, because their actions are of most consequence to the international economic order.
The presence of Chinese-built and maintained OBOR arteries through Islamic regions will, I predict, strengthen the hands of Islamist groups there because it will serve as a high-value target for blackmail. China cannot possibly police every region it builds OBOR through. It will rely largely on local governments (Pakistan, Bangladesh, CARs etc.) to police the segments of OBOR passing through their territories. Those governments, in turn, can either be blackmailed by Islamists or in fact collude with Islamists to blackmail China (and other trading partners depending on the security of OBOR).
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Welcome Farooq. Good observations. And good reading of the Foundation.
I am going to move your post and RD's response to Geopolitics thread. And lets continue there.
I am going to move your post and RD's response to Geopolitics thread. And lets continue there.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Rudradev,
Thank You.
I agree with you that Islamists will be happy to have something to leverage with OBOR. Islam and its followers at large will not be very happy with it. The rise of fundamental Islam (wherever, whenever) has been most painful for the Muslims.
My point on China being bad news for Islam has some underlying assumptions (my own) and a few facts.
The assumptions are:
1) Communism sits better with Christianity than Islam
2) Chinese favor Christianity to Islam
3) Christians and Muslims have been at war since foundational epochs of Islam
4) Christians of Europe have figured out how to keep Muslims at war with each other
5) Chinese are masters at copying and they will copy this idea with variations of their own
6) Fundamental Islam as part of political Islam will lead to the death / irrelevance of the religion
There are certain facts that may point to possible problems for Islam and Muslims if OBOR comes to fruition:
1) Chinese have scant regard for Uyghurs and their Islamic traditions
2) They have repeatedly banned Islamic practices and do not agree with "Haram" and "Halal" world views among many other issues.
3) Islam's past and present flirting with Communism - be it in Afghanistan or with the Kurds of Turkey and Rojava.
4) In Afghanistan the rise of Islamists like Taliban was a blow back of the Communist rule (with external encouragement). This rise could have other reasons but Communism cemented large % of Muslims behind Taliban.
5) PKKs Communism has given rise to strong Sunni groups within the Kurds (again as a blow back) who make a large number of ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters in Syria and Iraq.
6) The biggest casualty of the rise in Fundamentalism in these parts are Muslims who do not agree with these groups. It has also provided opportunities for all sorts of global players to directly interfere with the Muslim world.
Thank You.
I agree with you that Islamists will be happy to have something to leverage with OBOR. Islam and its followers at large will not be very happy with it. The rise of fundamental Islam (wherever, whenever) has been most painful for the Muslims.
My point on China being bad news for Islam has some underlying assumptions (my own) and a few facts.
The assumptions are:
1) Communism sits better with Christianity than Islam
2) Chinese favor Christianity to Islam
3) Christians and Muslims have been at war since foundational epochs of Islam
4) Christians of Europe have figured out how to keep Muslims at war with each other
5) Chinese are masters at copying and they will copy this idea with variations of their own
6) Fundamental Islam as part of political Islam will lead to the death / irrelevance of the religion
There are certain facts that may point to possible problems for Islam and Muslims if OBOR comes to fruition:
1) Chinese have scant regard for Uyghurs and their Islamic traditions
2) They have repeatedly banned Islamic practices and do not agree with "Haram" and "Halal" world views among many other issues.
3) Islam's past and present flirting with Communism - be it in Afghanistan or with the Kurds of Turkey and Rojava.
4) In Afghanistan the rise of Islamists like Taliban was a blow back of the Communist rule (with external encouragement). This rise could have other reasons but Communism cemented large % of Muslims behind Taliban.
5) PKKs Communism has given rise to strong Sunni groups within the Kurds (again as a blow back) who make a large number of ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters in Syria and Iraq.
6) The biggest casualty of the rise in Fundamentalism in these parts are Muslims who do not agree with these groups. It has also provided opportunities for all sorts of global players to directly interfere with the Muslim world.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Sorry saw your post late.ramana wrote:Welcome Farooq. Good observations. And good reading of the Foundation.
I am going to move your post and RD's response to Geopolitics thread. And lets continue there.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
This is about geo politics in the Eurasia and OBOR and India security will be threatened by hostile states4) India will feel surrounded and violated, specially with the ports in Burma and Gwadar, as also the road through Kashmir.
SInce PRC is the promoter of OBOR and kept a hostile relations with India for the last 60 years it becomes a threat.
PRC as a large stae could have taken India into confidence before OBOR or CPEC was started and It would have been a India China partnership program in Asia.
Instead of that PRC started OBOR alone and it is for mercantile interest of PRC which benefits most along with propping up states which have hostile intention.
OBOR is a means to enter regions which China never had influence and break those regions which are collaborating. It is also to remove historical cultural relations in Asia and replace with China dominant cultural system
Analyzing CPEC
Not sure if this Article has been posted earlier :
X Posted on the STFUP and PESW Threads
Pakistan to protest World Bank’s ‘incorrect map’
X Posted on the STFUP and PESW Threads
Pakistan to protest World Bank’s ‘incorrect map’
Experts from Pakistan and different countries have gathered in Islamabad to attend the three-day conference on the theme of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and regional integration.
PM’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz inaugurated the conference. He said the CPEC would have far-reaching consequences for the entire world.
“China has allowed Pakistan to benefit from the CPEC according to its own priorities and the most important of these priorities is energy. Out of the total CPEC investment, $33 billion is in the energy sector,” he said, stressing upon the fact that most of this outlay is in the form of investment.
CheersInternational Monetary Fund’s Resident Representative Tokhir Mirzoev told the audience that Pakistan had to attain 15% per annum growth in exports for the next five years to pay off the CPEC-related liabilities.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Russia supports China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project: Russian envoy Alexey Y Dedov - PTI
Russia on Saturday said it "strongly" supports the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project as it was crucial for Islamabad's economy and regional connectivity.
According to an interview to Radio Pakistan, Russian Ambassador to Pakistan Alexey Y Dedov, pointed out that CPEC is a component of China's Silk Road and his country was also working on a similar Eurasian Economic Union.
He added that China and Russia were holding discussions to merge the two projects.
Analyzing CPEC
X Posted on the STFUP Thread
Dear and Gentle B-RFites :
You have already read Dr. Farrukh Saleem’s Articles :
1. Gwadar
2. Why Gwadar?
The Cwapistani Tewwowist Leadews - Awmed Fowces, Buweaucwatic, Political and Welegious – have not paid any heed to Dr. Saleem’s pleadings. He has now given us the following Article to amplify the utter Madness of Gwadar :
Capital suggestion
In 2008, the EXIM Bank of China funded Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port. In 2010, the port was completed at a cost of $1.3 billion. In 2010, the Mahinda Rajapaksa National Tele Cinema Park was built at a cost of Rs2 billion. In 2011, the Mahinda Rajapaksa International Cricket Stadium was built at a cost of Rs700 million. The Chinese-funded Norochcholai Power Plant was built at the cost of $1.35 billion. The Southern Expressway was built at a cost of Rs776 billion. In 2013, President Rajapaksa spent Rs26 billion on the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport (near Hambantota).
The Sri Lankan government has also spent Rs15 billion on the Hambantota Sports Zone.
Global shipping companies have refused to use the Hambantota Port because it lacks economic viability. The port now lies abandoned. No one is willing to fly out their filming crews to the Rajapaksa National Tele Cinema; it too lies abandoned. No one has been willing to play cricket at the Mahinda Rajapaksa International Cricket Stadium; it too lies, more or less, abandoned.
The Sri Lankan government has been unable to repay the debt incurred to build the coal-fired Norochcholai Power Plant (the government is now transferring the ownership to the Chinese in a debt-equity swap). The Southern Expressway built at a cost of Rs776 billion has debt-servicing of Rs6.5 billion a year and an income of Rs1 billion. The Sri Lankan government is offering free landing and parking for airlines at the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport but not a single international airline has agreed to fly to the airport. The airport has been labelled ‘the world’s emptiest international airport’. The Hambantota Sports Zone was built for the 2018 Commonwealth Games, but Sri Lanka lost out to the Gold Coast in Australia.
Governments spend public money on public projects based on four things: political mileage, real or perceived strategic gains, commissions and kickbacks and economic necessity. To be certain, too many projects based on the first three reasons – political mileage, strategic gains and kickbacks – take countries straight into debt traps. The Gwadar Port is based on gaining political mileage (for the civilian leadership). The port is also based on real or perceived strategic gains (for the military).
Hambantota is in the middle of nowhere. So is Gwadar. Between 2009 and 2014, the government of Sri Lanka’s debt tripled (sounds familiar!). The current total debt stands at around $65 billion. And Sri Lanka is now spending 95.4 percent of all government revenue to service her debt (sounds familiar!).
In the first quarter of the current fiscal year, the net revenue receipts of the government of Pakistan amounted to Rs369 billion. For the same period, the federal government owes Rs413 billion in debt-servicing. Imagine: the federal government must borrow for defence, for the running of the civil government, for education and for everything else.
The Hambantota project was all about ‘One Belt One Road’ (sounds familiar!). The Hambantota Port, costing $1.3 billion, makes around $1 million a year or 0.08 percent. According to the Lanka News Web, “Sri Lanka hurtling towards inevitable bankruptcy”.
On August 4, 2016, China and Sri Lanka formed a joint committee to “devise and implement strategies to save the Hambantota project”.
The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad - Email: [email protected] Twitter: @saleemfarrukh
Dear and Gentle B-RFites :
You have already read Dr. Farrukh Saleem’s Articles :
1. Gwadar
2. Why Gwadar?
The Cwapistani Tewwowist Leadews - Awmed Fowces, Buweaucwatic, Political and Welegious – have not paid any heed to Dr. Saleem’s pleadings. He has now given us the following Article to amplify the utter Madness of Gwadar :
Capital suggestion
In 2008, the EXIM Bank of China funded Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port. In 2010, the port was completed at a cost of $1.3 billion. In 2010, the Mahinda Rajapaksa National Tele Cinema Park was built at a cost of Rs2 billion. In 2011, the Mahinda Rajapaksa International Cricket Stadium was built at a cost of Rs700 million. The Chinese-funded Norochcholai Power Plant was built at the cost of $1.35 billion. The Southern Expressway was built at a cost of Rs776 billion. In 2013, President Rajapaksa spent Rs26 billion on the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport (near Hambantota).
The Sri Lankan government has also spent Rs15 billion on the Hambantota Sports Zone.
Global shipping companies have refused to use the Hambantota Port because it lacks economic viability. The port now lies abandoned. No one is willing to fly out their filming crews to the Rajapaksa National Tele Cinema; it too lies abandoned. No one has been willing to play cricket at the Mahinda Rajapaksa International Cricket Stadium; it too lies, more or less, abandoned.
The Sri Lankan government has been unable to repay the debt incurred to build the coal-fired Norochcholai Power Plant (the government is now transferring the ownership to the Chinese in a debt-equity swap). The Southern Expressway built at a cost of Rs776 billion has debt-servicing of Rs6.5 billion a year and an income of Rs1 billion. The Sri Lankan government is offering free landing and parking for airlines at the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport but not a single international airline has agreed to fly to the airport. The airport has been labelled ‘the world’s emptiest international airport’. The Hambantota Sports Zone was built for the 2018 Commonwealth Games, but Sri Lanka lost out to the Gold Coast in Australia.
Governments spend public money on public projects based on four things: political mileage, real or perceived strategic gains, commissions and kickbacks and economic necessity. To be certain, too many projects based on the first three reasons – political mileage, strategic gains and kickbacks – take countries straight into debt traps. The Gwadar Port is based on gaining political mileage (for the civilian leadership). The port is also based on real or perceived strategic gains (for the military).
Hambantota is in the middle of nowhere. So is Gwadar. Between 2009 and 2014, the government of Sri Lanka’s debt tripled (sounds familiar!). The current total debt stands at around $65 billion. And Sri Lanka is now spending 95.4 percent of all government revenue to service her debt (sounds familiar!).
In the first quarter of the current fiscal year, the net revenue receipts of the government of Pakistan amounted to Rs369 billion. For the same period, the federal government owes Rs413 billion in debt-servicing. Imagine: the federal government must borrow for defence, for the running of the civil government, for education and for everything else.
The Hambantota project was all about ‘One Belt One Road’ (sounds familiar!). The Hambantota Port, costing $1.3 billion, makes around $1 million a year or 0.08 percent. According to the Lanka News Web, “Sri Lanka hurtling towards inevitable bankruptcy”.
On August 4, 2016, China and Sri Lanka formed a joint committee to “devise and implement strategies to save the Hambantota project”.
The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad - Email: [email protected] Twitter: @saleemfarrukh
Re: Analyzing CPEC
X Posted from the “India-Russia: News & Analysis”.
News 18
Clarification on comment by Russia’s envoy to Islamabad Alexey Y Dedov on CPEC which was quoted by Radio Pakistan via Press Attache of Russian Embassy in Islamabad, Vyacheslav Sentyurin.
From here:Russia Rejects Reports of Involvement in China Pakistan Economic Corridor
Parikshit Luthra | CNN-News18 ParikshitL
First published: December 19, 2016, 8:16 PM IST | Updated: 36 mins ago
Hours after Russia’s envoy to Islamabad Alexey Y Dedov was quoted by Radio Pakistan as saying that “Russia strongly supports the China Pakistan Economic Corridor” the Russian Embassy in Islamabad has urged the media not to make its own conclusions and treat the report carefully.
Speaking to CNN-News18, the embassy’s press attaché Vyacheslav Sentyurin said, “There is no question of joining or investing in the CPEC corridor. We are not going to be a part of it, but we have our own projects which we could connect to it. These ideas are not new and the media has made its own conclusions. We don’t hide such things from India”.
Sentyurin said the press should refer to the Russian Foreign Ministry’s recent statement which said, “Pakistani media reports about secret negotiations between Russia and Pakistan on the implementation of projects as part of CPEC are not true to facts and that Moscow is not discussing the possibility of joining this project with Islamabad”.
While reports quoted the Russian Envoy as saying that Russia was thinking about merging the Eurasian Economic Corridor with CPEC, the embassy clarified that “in the interview with the ambassador it was the merging of the EAEU with Chinese project of Silk Road Belt that was under discussion. Recognising the importance of CPEC for Pakistan’s economy and regional connectivity, the ambassador made it clear that Russia doesn’t participate in it being engaged in realisation of its own large-scale bilateral project with Pakistan – that of “North-South” gas pipeline from Karachi to Lahore”. …………………………………..
The Indian foreign ministry has refused to comment on Ambassador Dedov’s statements but, sources say government officials are closely following Moscow’s statements on Pakistan.
News 18
-
Rishi Verma
- BRFite
- Posts: 1019
- Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Undiplomatic Tweeter War of Words betn Ceril Almeida and China Ambassador to Bakistan Re CPEC
Words such as below flying back and forth
"out of your mind"
"Look at Corruption in China"
"Use of Prisoners in CPEC projects"
RAA Ijint Ceril wants to get shot by motorcycle born ISI goat-fuc*kers or what
Words such as below flying back and forth
"out of your mind"
"Look at Corruption in China"
"Use of Prisoners in CPEC projects"
RAA Ijint Ceril wants to get shot by motorcycle born ISI goat-fuc*kers or what
Re: Analyzing CPEC
From the tweets of none other than the Chinese Ambassador, three things are very clear: one, the Chinese are nervous about the progress on the CPEC and are losing their mind; two, there is large-scale corruption in the project; and three, Chinese prisoners are being used.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
cross posted
Dawn's CYRIL ALMEIDA Got Into A (Long Distance !) Twitter Spat With Chinese Envoy In Pakistan ( Muhammed
Lijian Zhao) On CPEC
After Newsgate scandal, Dawn’s Cyril Almeida got into a Twitter spat with Chinese envoy in Pakistan on CPEC
ISLAMABAD – Fed up of hearing charges that the China-Pak Economic Corridor is beset with corruption, favoritism, abysmal working conditions and the like, the top Chinese official in Pakistan yesterday tweeted his displeasure over the baseless accusations.The allegations and charges appear to have angered Zhao Lijian, the acting Chinese ambassador and chargé d’affaires, who has used Twitter over the past few months to defend the CPEC.Zhao took to Twitter early on Tuesday morning after he was apparently angered by an allegation that China was using “prisoners as labour” on the CPEC.
While trying to clear the air regarding the China-funded multi billion dollars project, the Chinese envoy got into arguments with Dawn’s Cyril Almeida who stirred a storm in October by revealing the details of a top-secret security meeting between civil and military leadership.The reporter who had to apparently flee for his life, is "doing his job"- long distance (thanks to western technology ) from NYC
The senior columnist of Daily Dawn also referred to China’s long battle with corruption.
Zhao didn’t like that. He tweeted this back:
Then, addressing a rumour that China is using Chinese prisoners to work on the $51 billion project – to save labour costs – Zhao fulminated thus: This probably makes sense as there was a recent Paki newspaper report which suggested that Chinese personnel in Karachi are not allowed permission to go outside their compound !
Earlier on Monday, Zhao had dismissed criticism of the CPEC at a seminar organized by a think tank in Islamabad on Monday. “CPEC is working well. But there are some people who are maligning the project, which enjoys the support of most of the people of Pakistan,” he said.The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor aims to facilitate trade along an overland route that connects Kashgar in China and the Gwadar port in Pakistan, through the construction of a network of highways, railways and pipelines.The CPEC was announced in 2013 but work began on infrastructure that is part of the venture over the past year, with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif looking to the project to create jobs and ramp up the generation of electricity to counter a crippling energy crisis.
However, Pakistani experts have repeatedly questioned how China will raise the funds for the CPEC ( that is no problem for China !)and also the amount that Islamabad will have to pay back as interest on loans for the project, with one estimate putting the annual net outflow at $3.54 billion. ( This is a VERY BIG problem for Pakistan !)
In a normal setting, the columnist would have be trouble with "Deep State" over allegations that he is "spoiling the good name of China " . but "sitting" in NYC , he cares an Eff ; My guess is that he is going to be another "Hussein Haqqani" and his days as a journo in Pakistan are almost over
Dawn's CYRIL ALMEIDA Got Into A (Long Distance !) Twitter Spat With Chinese Envoy In Pakistan ( Muhammed
Lijian Zhao) On CPECAfter Newsgate scandal, Dawn’s Cyril Almeida got into a Twitter spat with Chinese envoy in Pakistan on CPEC
ISLAMABAD – Fed up of hearing charges that the China-Pak Economic Corridor is beset with corruption, favoritism, abysmal working conditions and the like, the top Chinese official in Pakistan yesterday tweeted his displeasure over the baseless accusations.The allegations and charges appear to have angered Zhao Lijian, the acting Chinese ambassador and chargé d’affaires, who has used Twitter over the past few months to defend the CPEC.Zhao took to Twitter early on Tuesday morning after he was apparently angered by an allegation that China was using “prisoners as labour” on the CPEC.
While trying to clear the air regarding the China-funded multi billion dollars project, the Chinese envoy got into arguments with Dawn’s Cyril Almeida who stirred a storm in October by revealing the details of a top-secret security meeting between civil and military leadership.The reporter who had to apparently flee for his life, is "doing his job"- long distance (thanks to western technology ) from NYC
The senior columnist of Daily Dawn also referred to China’s long battle with corruption.
Zhao didn’t like that. He tweeted this back:
Then, addressing a rumour that China is using Chinese prisoners to work on the $51 billion project – to save labour costs – Zhao fulminated thus: This probably makes sense as there was a recent Paki newspaper report which suggested that Chinese personnel in Karachi are not allowed permission to go outside their compound !
Earlier on Monday, Zhao had dismissed criticism of the CPEC at a seminar organized by a think tank in Islamabad on Monday. “CPEC is working well. But there are some people who are maligning the project, which enjoys the support of most of the people of Pakistan,” he said.The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor aims to facilitate trade along an overland route that connects Kashgar in China and the Gwadar port in Pakistan, through the construction of a network of highways, railways and pipelines.The CPEC was announced in 2013 but work began on infrastructure that is part of the venture over the past year, with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif looking to the project to create jobs and ramp up the generation of electricity to counter a crippling energy crisis.
However, Pakistani experts have repeatedly questioned how China will raise the funds for the CPEC ( that is no problem for China !)and also the amount that Islamabad will have to pay back as interest on loans for the project, with one estimate putting the annual net outflow at $3.54 billion. ( This is a VERY BIG problem for Pakistan !)
In a normal setting, the columnist would have be trouble with "Deep State" over allegations that he is "spoiling the good name of China " . but "sitting" in NYC , he cares an Eff ; My guess is that he is going to be another "Hussein Haqqani" and his days as a journo in Pakistan are almost over
Re: Analyzing CPEC
There is yet another angle to CPEC, the way I think about it.
Pollution is killing China. Pollution is forcing middle and upper class Chinese to relocate to foreign lands. People who would have been otherwise very happy with life and career in China are being goaded by relatives and friends to make the move abroad. This is a fact, and worse it is causing immense drain on Chinese forex reserves and pressurizing the Yuan.
What if the biggest contributors of pollution can be relocated at arm's length where the benefits continue to accrue to the Chinese and the costs are paid by foreigners? Wouldn't this be a master stroke?
Enter CPEC. All China needs to do is to ship their old steel mills, refineries and other random low-value high-pollution industries to around Gwadar and cut the pollution levels in North China. Some amount of upgradation can be done in the process (which will also benefit Chinese industries); and increased automation will mean that not too many recalcitrant locals need to be employed. A lot of cheap (i.e. prison) Chinese labour can man the rest of the jobs in these factories. Steel can be produced under the Baosteel label and exported to the huge markets in Europe, ME and Africa.
Dividends from these SOEs will continue to pour in to China to help fund its social program. This is a win-win situation from the Chinese PoV, Paki client state will take whatever is thrown towards them, and any environmental costs/risks are borne by the Paki population. Those of the latter category who don't bend over will be branded Indian stooges/enemies of CPEC and will be thrown off aeroplanes.
Pollution is killing China. Pollution is forcing middle and upper class Chinese to relocate to foreign lands. People who would have been otherwise very happy with life and career in China are being goaded by relatives and friends to make the move abroad. This is a fact, and worse it is causing immense drain on Chinese forex reserves and pressurizing the Yuan.
What if the biggest contributors of pollution can be relocated at arm's length where the benefits continue to accrue to the Chinese and the costs are paid by foreigners? Wouldn't this be a master stroke?
Enter CPEC. All China needs to do is to ship their old steel mills, refineries and other random low-value high-pollution industries to around Gwadar and cut the pollution levels in North China. Some amount of upgradation can be done in the process (which will also benefit Chinese industries); and increased automation will mean that not too many recalcitrant locals need to be employed. A lot of cheap (i.e. prison) Chinese labour can man the rest of the jobs in these factories. Steel can be produced under the Baosteel label and exported to the huge markets in Europe, ME and Africa.
Dividends from these SOEs will continue to pour in to China to help fund its social program. This is a win-win situation from the Chinese PoV, Paki client state will take whatever is thrown towards them, and any environmental costs/risks are borne by the Paki population. Those of the latter category who don't bend over will be branded Indian stooges/enemies of CPEC and will be thrown off aeroplanes.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
"RAA Ijint Ceril" is in Amrika now and wants to strengthen his case for asylum (not that he will have any trouble with getting a visa, teaching position etc, but just to be doubly sure)...Rishi Verma wrote:RAA Ijint Ceril wants to get shot by motorcycle born ISI goat-fuc*kers or what
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Well, 1)Steel or any economic activity requires water and Gwadar is very poor at it. 2) Pakistani Human resources will not be up to the task 3) It will take many years to set up this infra. 4) Chinese know the Pakis too well, will not let them have control of any industries 5) Investment required to move these Industries will cost too much 6) Above all, it will cause lot of unemployment and unrest in Han heartland, it is these low value high pollution industries which drive the economic cycle, can't abandon them.yensoy wrote:There is yet another angle to CPEC, the way I think about it.
Pollution is killing China. Pollution is forcing middle and upper class Chinese to relocate to foreign lands. People who would have been otherwise very happy with life and career in China are being goaded by relatives and friends to make the move abroad. This is a fact, and worse it is causing immense drain on Chinese forex reserves and pressurizing the Yuan.
What if the biggest contributors of pollution can be relocated at arm's length where the benefits continue to accrue to the Chinese and the costs are paid by foreigners? Wouldn't this be a master stroke?
Enter CPEC. All China needs to do is to ship their old steel mills, refineries and other random low-value high-pollution industries to around Gwadar and cut the pollution levels in North China. Some amount of upgradation can be done in the process (which will also benefit Chinese industries); and increased automation will mean that not too many recalcitrant locals need to be employed. A lot of cheap (i.e. prison) Chinese labour can man the rest of the jobs in these factories. Steel can be produced under the Baosteel label and exported to the huge markets in Europe, ME and Africa.
Dividends from these SOEs will continue to pour in to China to help fund its social program. This is a win-win situation from the Chinese PoV, Paki client state will take whatever is thrown towards them, and any environmental costs/risks are borne by the Paki population. Those of the latter category who don't bend over will be branded Indian stooges/enemies of CPEC and will be thrown off aeroplanes.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
2. as I said, lot of automation + Chinese prison labour + Pakjabi labour
3. it will take as long as it does, and Chinese are very fast. are you saying a steel plant won't get built because it takes years to set it up?
4. control will always be in Chinese hands. the control panel, manuals, dials & gauges will be in Chinese and will be manned by a Chinese crew
5. why will it cost too much to relocate old facilities? or maybe you underestimate how much the pollution is causing the Chinese today
6. unemployment is not a problem in Han land; the younger gen doesn't want to work in smoke belching factories and are moving to cities for service jobs; unrest caused by pollution is going to be way bigger than unrest caused by closing some factories (and it will be given a hugely positive spin)
A lot of industries will continue in Han land to service the downstream logistics chain (e.g. steel used in making the next useless lawn ornament), but if the downstream user is end user in construction, there is no reason for that factory to exist in mainland
Point 1 is a valid one. Water will have to be arranged - either desalination, pipelines, water tankers... and maximum recycle, as spelt out in https://www.worldsteel.org/publications ... ement.html
BTW there is nothing original about all of this. Americans already pushed out all the low value polluting manufacturing to Asia, especially China. But to give credit to Americans, they divested themselves of these industries. Now the Chinese will do the same with their colony, especially when Pakis are so willing to eat the risks and bare their backsides, but this time around these industries will be overseas arms of SOEs - which is needed so SOEs can continue to pay their tribute to the Chinese people.
3. it will take as long as it does, and Chinese are very fast. are you saying a steel plant won't get built because it takes years to set it up?
4. control will always be in Chinese hands. the control panel, manuals, dials & gauges will be in Chinese and will be manned by a Chinese crew
5. why will it cost too much to relocate old facilities? or maybe you underestimate how much the pollution is causing the Chinese today
6. unemployment is not a problem in Han land; the younger gen doesn't want to work in smoke belching factories and are moving to cities for service jobs; unrest caused by pollution is going to be way bigger than unrest caused by closing some factories (and it will be given a hugely positive spin)
A lot of industries will continue in Han land to service the downstream logistics chain (e.g. steel used in making the next useless lawn ornament), but if the downstream user is end user in construction, there is no reason for that factory to exist in mainland
Point 1 is a valid one. Water will have to be arranged - either desalination, pipelines, water tankers... and maximum recycle, as spelt out in https://www.worldsteel.org/publications ... ement.html
BTW there is nothing original about all of this. Americans already pushed out all the low value polluting manufacturing to Asia, especially China. But to give credit to Americans, they divested themselves of these industries. Now the Chinese will do the same with their colony, especially when Pakis are so willing to eat the risks and bare their backsides, but this time around these industries will be overseas arms of SOEs - which is needed so SOEs can continue to pay their tribute to the Chinese people.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
The Chinese are meeting important leaders to sort out problems facing CPEC or for ensuring smoother progress. I am sure that knowing the Chinese approach to such issues and the propensity of Pakistani politicians, a lot of money must be changing hands in these meetings. Now, do we understand why a raw nerve of the Chinese ambassador to Islamabad was touched on the allegations of corruption?
Friendship with China makes Pakistanis proud: Imran - DT
Friendship with China makes Pakistanis proud: Imran - DT
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan called on the Chinese communist party delegation on Tuesday.
A seven-member delegation met with the PTI leader and stated that China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) would bring people from both the countries even closer.
Besides CPEC, Imran Khan discussed the developmental projects in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province. He added that Pakistanis feel proud when they look at their friendship with China.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Our suspicions on Chinese nervousness seem to be true.
Political parties urged to unite for success of CPEC - DAWN
Political parties urged to unite for success of CPEC - DAWN
A Chinese minister on Tuesday urged Pakistani political parties to join hands for the success of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and attainment of the ‘shared goal of development’.
“Political parties in Pakistan have divergent interests. We hope that the political parties can work together to resolve their differences and make CPEC a success,” Zheng Xiaosong, Vice Minister of International Department, Central Committee, The Communist Party of China (CPC), said in a lecture at the Pak-China Institute.
Mr Zheng, during his visit, met Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and leaders of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf and Pakistan Peoples Party and extended invitation to these parties for a visit to China.
China has been giving a lot of importance to CPEC, which is the flagship project of President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road initiative. Therefore, CPEC’s success is being viewed as a key to the future of the Belt and Road project that has drawn a lot of international interest.
Critical views of some of the Pakistani political parties on certain issues related to CPEC have, therefore, been a cause of concern for the Chinese leadership.
Mr Zheng explained that it was natural for CPEC, a project with “long timeline” and one that is a “corridor of strenuous endeavours”, to face issues from time to time. He offered the Chinese government’s help to Pakistan for dealing with those issues. “We are ready to work with Pakistan for consensus and strive jointly for the way forward,” he said. {Open & blatant political interference. But, after all, Pakistan is a Chinese province, isn't it?}
The Chinese minister emphasised the need for public support for guaranteeing “safe and stable environment for investment” and developing “sound political and public opinion” for the project.
Dispelling the perception that CPEC was benefiting some of the provinces more, Mr Zheng maintained that it was for “entire Pakistan”.
Touching upon the concern about India and some of the other countries conspiring against CPEC, he said project’s success would be the best response to its opponents.
His two-pronged strategy for dealing with external conspiracies against CPEC was “strengthening of cooperation and communication” between Pakistan and China; and promoting unity within Pakistan.
Mr Zheng said a “high level of political trust” was the feature of longstanding Pak-China ties. He assured that his country would remain Pakistan’s strong ally and would continue extending support to it on the issues of its core interest.
Senator Mushahid Hussain applauded the governance of the CPC for bringing “stability and prosperity to the world’s most populous country,” as well as for “making positive contributions to global issues such as climate change”.
He appreciated the role of Communist Party of China in taking 700 million people of China out of poverty within a generation, something unique in the annals of history. He added that the CPC was playing a positive role in building a 21st century multi-polar world based on rule of law and the UN charter,opposing hegemony and interference in internal affairs. He also praised the CPC for giving equal rights to women in Chinese society. {If Mushahid 'Mandela' Hussain is so enamoured of CPC, he should advise Pakistan government to withdraw ban on Communist Party}
Senator Mushahid praised the Chinese government for its effective and exemplary fight against corruption. The ruling party of China, with around 89 million members, he underscored, has punished up to one million officials over corruption. He said Pakistan should learn from its neighbour.
Analyzing CPEC
X Posted on the STFUP Thread
India should join CPEC, says top Cwapistani armyman
ISLAMABAD: In a surprise move, a top Pakistani General has invited India to join the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, saying New Delhi should "shun enmity" with Islamabad and jointly reap the benefit of the multi-billion dollar project.
Lieutenant General Aamir Riaz, Commander of the Southern Command which is based in Quetta, yesterday said this while speaking at an award distribution ceremony at the Balochistan Frontier Corps (FC) headquarters.
India should "shun enmity" with Pakistan and join the US $46-billion CPEC along with Iran, Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries and enjoy its benefits, the Express Tribune quoted him as saying.
"India should share the fruits of future development by shelving the anti-Pakistan activities and subversion," Riaz said.
The US $46 billion CPEC aims to connect China's western parts with the Arabian sea through Balochistan's strategic Gwadar port.
India has already expressed concern over the project that also passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
The top General's call came amid tension between the two countries and a barrage of allegations by Islamabad about involvement of India in subversive activities in Balochistan, the security of which is responsibility of Pakistan army's Southern Command.
Pakistan in the past has also alleged that Baloch nationalist leaders were getting support from India.
Riaz referred to it in veiled terms when he warned the people not to be misled by self-exiled leaders who, according to him, were on the payroll of the "enemy" to dismember Pakistan.
"Their catchy slogans will not work as people are aware of their designs and will not be misled," Riaz said.
Talking about the improvement of law and order in Balochistan, he said the militants were trying to impose their ideology at gunpoint but they have been defeated.
He said 700 FC personnel sacrificed their lives while fighting terrorism and subversive activities in 10 years.
Riaz said the militants were defeated and forced to flee.
Referring to self-exiled Balochistan nationalist leaders, he said that the militants sitting in Dubai, London and Geneva were heavily funded by the "enemies".
Comments : So that the Cwapistani Army's "nominated" Strategic Assets i.e. Terrorists can set the India Origin or Destined Containers can be Hijacked or Set on Fire just as it was done for the Afghanistan bound US-NATO Troops! I only hope Modi Ji and others in the Indian Commercial & Industrial Sector don't fall for this Cwapistani subterfuge.
Cheers
India should join CPEC, says top Cwapistani armyman
ISLAMABAD: In a surprise move, a top Pakistani General has invited India to join the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, saying New Delhi should "shun enmity" with Islamabad and jointly reap the benefit of the multi-billion dollar project.
Lieutenant General Aamir Riaz, Commander of the Southern Command which is based in Quetta, yesterday said this while speaking at an award distribution ceremony at the Balochistan Frontier Corps (FC) headquarters.
India should "shun enmity" with Pakistan and join the US $46-billion CPEC along with Iran, Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries and enjoy its benefits, the Express Tribune quoted him as saying.
"India should share the fruits of future development by shelving the anti-Pakistan activities and subversion," Riaz said.
The US $46 billion CPEC aims to connect China's western parts with the Arabian sea through Balochistan's strategic Gwadar port.
India has already expressed concern over the project that also passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
The top General's call came amid tension between the two countries and a barrage of allegations by Islamabad about involvement of India in subversive activities in Balochistan, the security of which is responsibility of Pakistan army's Southern Command.
Pakistan in the past has also alleged that Baloch nationalist leaders were getting support from India.
Riaz referred to it in veiled terms when he warned the people not to be misled by self-exiled leaders who, according to him, were on the payroll of the "enemy" to dismember Pakistan.
"Their catchy slogans will not work as people are aware of their designs and will not be misled," Riaz said.
Talking about the improvement of law and order in Balochistan, he said the militants were trying to impose their ideology at gunpoint but they have been defeated.
He said 700 FC personnel sacrificed their lives while fighting terrorism and subversive activities in 10 years.
Riaz said the militants were defeated and forced to flee.
Referring to self-exiled Balochistan nationalist leaders, he said that the militants sitting in Dubai, London and Geneva were heavily funded by the "enemies".
Comments : So that the Cwapistani Army's "nominated" Strategic Assets i.e. Terrorists can set the India Origin or Destined Containers can be Hijacked or Set on Fire just as it was done for the Afghanistan bound US-NATO Troops! I only hope Modi Ji and others in the Indian Commercial & Industrial Sector don't fall for this Cwapistani subterfuge.
Cheers
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Is that a promise or a threat? If it means chini han birathers will move to bakiland in search of jobs, that's what happened to the Uighur nation.SSridhar wrote:A seven-member delegation met with the PTI leader and stated that China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) would bring people from both the countries even closer.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Peregrine, Things are afoot.
Hence the offer.
Hence the offer.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
China will be angry if Paki don't deliver on CPEC.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
X-Posting from Russia Thread....
Rudradev wrote:ST: Hard to find because I'm sure much of the debate, especially regarding deep historical context, would not be in English language. I will certainly share whatever I come across.
For now, consider this IDSA critique of an article by Andrew Korybko (a Russian strategic thinker) that has laid out a vision of Pakistan as a "Zipper" that can play a pivotal role in integrating Eurasian powers.
http://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/RussiasNe ... dan_180915
And here is the article itself, at RISS' website. Note that the idea of Russian support for CPEC was introduced into the public (English-language!) debate by Russian think-tanks all the way back in September 2015. I am not sure if this was posted here before. We were (myself included) sleeping here with our fantasies of PAKFA and all that nonsense.
https://en.riss.ru/analysis/18882/
Re: Analyzing CPEC
^^. Andrew Korybko was born and raised in the USA. He is of Polish descent. He came to dislike American foreign policy and settled down in Russia about three years ago.
The reason I mention all of this is that Korybko has an extremely unusual background for a Russian analyst. He's an intelligent person, but his critical views of India and lavish admiration of China are not typical among Russians.
There are reasons for that.
1). He was a teenager in the US in the 90's. He doesn't have an emotional memory of the fact that while China stabbed Russia in the back with the J-11B, India saved Sukhoi with the Su-30 MKI. Every other Russian analyst I've interacted with has recalled India's assistance with gratitude.
2). He's young (in his 30's at most). He simply doesn't have the experience to realize that much of the English-language media regarding India and the US is propaganda. It's worth nothing that Korybko's editor at "The Duran," Alexander Mercouris, took the unusual step of explicitly distancing himself from Korybko's views in this article: http://theduran.com/modi-washington-ind ... e-us-ally/
I'll relate an interesting anecdote regarding India, the US, and Russia. I attended a seminar at a prominent DC think tank. (A senior BRF member can vouch that I'm telling the truth because we said hello to each other there. I'm not going to mention the specifics because BRF is closely monitored.) During the seminar, one analyst was critical of PM Modi and India's economic moves (essentially, not handing over enough money to US firms). However, in this person's op-ed written immediately after this seminar, this same analyst lavished praise on US-Indian ties and didn't mention any criticism whatsoever. When I read the article my jaw dropped. I thought, "Was this the same person I just heard?"
Do you see what the U.S. Deep State is trying to do? They're trying to break the partnership between India and Russia. For instance, the BrahMos is the world's best anti-ship missile. A BrahMos/Onyx salvo launched by an Arihant/Yasen submarine is the most potent threat in the world to a U.S. Carrier Strike Group. And it's US aircraft carriers which are propping up the petro-dollar system.
The U.S. Deep State is worried what further Indo-Russian partnerships can achieve. So, their agents in the English-language media push stories on how Russian equipment is junk, and how wonderful things are going between India and the U.S. This is designed to raise tensions between Indians and Russians. This is so obvious I'm surprised that senior BRF members--who should know better--are falling for it.
The reason I mention all of this is that Korybko has an extremely unusual background for a Russian analyst. He's an intelligent person, but his critical views of India and lavish admiration of China are not typical among Russians.
There are reasons for that.
1). He was a teenager in the US in the 90's. He doesn't have an emotional memory of the fact that while China stabbed Russia in the back with the J-11B, India saved Sukhoi with the Su-30 MKI. Every other Russian analyst I've interacted with has recalled India's assistance with gratitude.
2). He's young (in his 30's at most). He simply doesn't have the experience to realize that much of the English-language media regarding India and the US is propaganda. It's worth nothing that Korybko's editor at "The Duran," Alexander Mercouris, took the unusual step of explicitly distancing himself from Korybko's views in this article: http://theduran.com/modi-washington-ind ... e-us-ally/
I'll relate an interesting anecdote regarding India, the US, and Russia. I attended a seminar at a prominent DC think tank. (A senior BRF member can vouch that I'm telling the truth because we said hello to each other there. I'm not going to mention the specifics because BRF is closely monitored.) During the seminar, one analyst was critical of PM Modi and India's economic moves (essentially, not handing over enough money to US firms). However, in this person's op-ed written immediately after this seminar, this same analyst lavished praise on US-Indian ties and didn't mention any criticism whatsoever. When I read the article my jaw dropped. I thought, "Was this the same person I just heard?"
Do you see what the U.S. Deep State is trying to do? They're trying to break the partnership between India and Russia. For instance, the BrahMos is the world's best anti-ship missile. A BrahMos/Onyx salvo launched by an Arihant/Yasen submarine is the most potent threat in the world to a U.S. Carrier Strike Group. And it's US aircraft carriers which are propping up the petro-dollar system.
The U.S. Deep State is worried what further Indo-Russian partnerships can achieve. So, their agents in the English-language media push stories on how Russian equipment is junk, and how wonderful things are going between India and the U.S. This is designed to raise tensions between Indians and Russians. This is so obvious I'm surprised that senior BRF members--who should know better--are falling for it.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Pakistan's progress, like a pilgrim's progress, is from one hope to another. It started with the British bandwagon, then the US, then the US(predominantly)-China-West Asia bandwagon, then the US-China(predominantly-West Asia(less predominantly) bandwagon where it is now. The US(less predominantly)-China-Russia-West Asia bandwagon is developing. We are witness to that.Rudradev wrote:. . . IDSA critique of an article by Andrew Korybko (a Russian strategic thinker) that has laid out a vision of Pakistan as a "Zipper" that can play a pivotal role in integrating Eurasian powers.
Avarachan, geostrategic, geopolitical & geoeconomic reasons are pushing Russia relentlessly into Chinese hands. There is no escaping this fact. The US & equally China (don't forget that) would be naturally driving a wedge in India-Russia relationships too. Sometime back, I had reported in the China thread about the reactions of the Russian consul in my city in a conference on China. That the Russian Consulate thought it important to send an official for the whole day (the Consul General himself attended the second half of the session and vigorously protected Chinese interests) was surprising to me.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Suffice it to say that FGFA will be signed only if indo Russian ties are not going off the track. Both govt have a stake in this.
Already seeing a drop in lifafa articles pushing for FGFA induction in the IAF.
Makes one realize that RFI for single engine aircraft did not come up in a vacuum.
Already seeing a drop in lifafa articles pushing for FGFA induction in the IAF.
Makes one realize that RFI for single engine aircraft did not come up in a vacuum.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Thank You for pointing this out.Avarachan wrote:^^. Andrew Korybko was born and raised in the USA. He is of Polish descent. He came to dislike American foreign policy and settled down in Russia about three years ago.
...
The U.S. Deep State is worried what further Indo-Russian partnerships can achieve. So, their agents in the English-language media push stories on how Russian equipment is junk, and how wonderful things are going between India and the U.S. This is designed to raise tensions between Indians and Russians. This is so obvious I'm surprised that senior BRF members--who should know better--are falling for it.
Analyzing CPEC
X Posted on the STFUP Thread
Here comes the Rebuttal to Dr. Farrukh Saleem's 1. Gwadar, 2. Why Gwadar and 3. Hambantota :
Gwadar, the CPEC and Hambatota
Notwithstanding the fact that the CPEC is a nationally owned mega-economic undertaking with the potential to change the economic profile of the whole region, more so that of Pakistan, a sustained campaign to belittle its importance continues unabated.
Some columnists have tried to equate Gwadar and the CPEC with the Hambantota deep seaport in Sri Lanka and other infrastructure projects built there. These columnists feel that Sri Lanka has been pushed into a debt trap – paying 95.4 percent of all its revenues on debt servicing – since Hambantota and all the infrastructure built there were massive investments that failed to generate the desired profits. According to them, Pakistan might also face the same situation if the CPEC does not prove to be a game-changer. The other contention is that the Gwadar Port, like Hambantota, is based on political considerations rather than on economic necessity and that the leadership in Pakistan is trying to gain political mileage by terming the CPEC a victory of their vision.
My view is that proponents of the foregoing assumptions have tried to over simplify things to prove their point. Drawing parallels between success and failure stories of two countries with different political setups, circumstances, geo-strategic importance and economic realities is always misleading. While it is true that the former Sri Lankan ruler Rajapakasa did it for political reasons as Hambantota was his home town, in the case of the CPEC the Chinese conceived the idea and Pakistan chose to become a partner in view of its potential.
Rajapakasa was the one who took the plunge for the development of an international airport, a cricket stadium and a deep seaport at Hambantota and sought assistance from China, which agreed to advance loans on soft terms in return for using the port as part of its maritime route.
Unlike Hambantota, the CPEC project is spread all over the country and the Gwadar Port provides an ideal outlet for the landlocked countries of Central Asia which have expressed their willingness to use this port. Similarly, Russia has also evinced interest in reaching out to the world through this port. Being the architect of the CPEC, China is also surely going to benefit from the venture and Pakistan’s agreement to be part of it has also taken the relations between the two countries to a new level.
Pakistan joined the CPEC due to purely economic considerations. It was facing a debilitating economic nosedive and a nagging energy crisis. It badly needed heavy foreign investments in infrastructure and energy projects not only to revive the economy but also to put it on the path of a sustained economic growth. The CPEC is one of the components of the ‘One Belt One Road’ Chinese initiative and the Pakistan government made the right decision to join this mega-economic undertaking.
The assumption that the CPEC will exponentially increase our debt burden is also divorced from reality. The total cost of the CPEC project has gone up to $51 billion after the Chinese government announced provision of $5 billion to upgrade the railway line from Peshawar to Karachi. Around $11 billion to be spent on infrastructure development has been loaned to Pakistan at 1.6 percent interest rate – which is low considering the rate of interest on loans advanced by the World Bank is 5-8.5 percent. The biggest chunk of $34 billion pertains to energy projects which are direct foreign investments.
Besides energy projects, the CPEC consists of road and rail networks and optic fiber traversing through the entire length of the country. When it becomes operational by 2018, the infrastructure will generate tremendous economic activity and adequate revenues to repay all the loans and also contribute to the national income in a major way. The energy projects under the CPEC are being implemented on top priority basis and nobody can dispute their role in the industrial development of the country and creation of jobs for locals in all the provinces.
The CPEC linkage with Central Asian countries will make Pakistan a hub of economic activity for the entire region. The investment at Hambantota never had such potential and dimensions. Infrastructure, particularly road networks and other means of communication, is a pivotal ingredient for nudging economic development. The example of the KKH Highway is before us.
No other regional country was part of the Hambantota initiative whereas almost 26 countries are involved in the ‘One Belt One Road’ vision of China. Furthermore, Iran, Turkey and a number of European countries also wish to join the CPEC in view of its economic potential and regional connectivity. Russia was also working on a similar Eurasian economic union and was in the process of holding discussions with China to merge the two projects.
The detractors of Gwadar and the CPEC while drawing parallels between these projects and Hambantota forgot to mention another very important development in Sri Lanka which led to Hambantota becoming inoperative. Rajpakasa was defeated in the presidential elections in January 2015. According to many international observers, his defeat was orchestrated by the former Sri Lankan president Chandrika Kumaratunga with US support, paving the way for the installation of a pro-US regime in the country under Sirisina. The government of Sirisina suspended all projects undertaken by Rajapakasa, including building the harbour, an international airport at Hambantota and the Colombo port city. Thus Sri Lanka was caught in the dynamics of global politics at the peril of its own economic viability.
The CPEC is a trans-regional initiative based on the concept of shared economic prosperity whereas Hambantota was exclusively a Sri Lankan venture. There is absolutely no parallel between Gwadar, the CPEC and Hambantota .
One wonders how could columnists miss all these dissimilarities and realities that put the CPEC at a different plank from Hambantota? How could they draw parallels between two projects with so many different dimensions and potential?
Cheers
Here comes the Rebuttal to Dr. Farrukh Saleem's 1. Gwadar, 2. Why Gwadar and 3. Hambantota :
Gwadar, the CPEC and Hambatota
Notwithstanding the fact that the CPEC is a nationally owned mega-economic undertaking with the potential to change the economic profile of the whole region, more so that of Pakistan, a sustained campaign to belittle its importance continues unabated.
Some columnists have tried to equate Gwadar and the CPEC with the Hambantota deep seaport in Sri Lanka and other infrastructure projects built there. These columnists feel that Sri Lanka has been pushed into a debt trap – paying 95.4 percent of all its revenues on debt servicing – since Hambantota and all the infrastructure built there were massive investments that failed to generate the desired profits. According to them, Pakistan might also face the same situation if the CPEC does not prove to be a game-changer. The other contention is that the Gwadar Port, like Hambantota, is based on political considerations rather than on economic necessity and that the leadership in Pakistan is trying to gain political mileage by terming the CPEC a victory of their vision.
My view is that proponents of the foregoing assumptions have tried to over simplify things to prove their point. Drawing parallels between success and failure stories of two countries with different political setups, circumstances, geo-strategic importance and economic realities is always misleading. While it is true that the former Sri Lankan ruler Rajapakasa did it for political reasons as Hambantota was his home town, in the case of the CPEC the Chinese conceived the idea and Pakistan chose to become a partner in view of its potential.
Rajapakasa was the one who took the plunge for the development of an international airport, a cricket stadium and a deep seaport at Hambantota and sought assistance from China, which agreed to advance loans on soft terms in return for using the port as part of its maritime route.
Unlike Hambantota, the CPEC project is spread all over the country and the Gwadar Port provides an ideal outlet for the landlocked countries of Central Asia which have expressed their willingness to use this port. Similarly, Russia has also evinced interest in reaching out to the world through this port. Being the architect of the CPEC, China is also surely going to benefit from the venture and Pakistan’s agreement to be part of it has also taken the relations between the two countries to a new level.
Pakistan joined the CPEC due to purely economic considerations. It was facing a debilitating economic nosedive and a nagging energy crisis. It badly needed heavy foreign investments in infrastructure and energy projects not only to revive the economy but also to put it on the path of a sustained economic growth. The CPEC is one of the components of the ‘One Belt One Road’ Chinese initiative and the Pakistan government made the right decision to join this mega-economic undertaking.
The assumption that the CPEC will exponentially increase our debt burden is also divorced from reality. The total cost of the CPEC project has gone up to $51 billion after the Chinese government announced provision of $5 billion to upgrade the railway line from Peshawar to Karachi. Around $11 billion to be spent on infrastructure development has been loaned to Pakistan at 1.6 percent interest rate – which is low considering the rate of interest on loans advanced by the World Bank is 5-8.5 percent. The biggest chunk of $34 billion pertains to energy projects which are direct foreign investments.
Besides energy projects, the CPEC consists of road and rail networks and optic fiber traversing through the entire length of the country. When it becomes operational by 2018, the infrastructure will generate tremendous economic activity and adequate revenues to repay all the loans and also contribute to the national income in a major way. The energy projects under the CPEC are being implemented on top priority basis and nobody can dispute their role in the industrial development of the country and creation of jobs for locals in all the provinces.
The CPEC linkage with Central Asian countries will make Pakistan a hub of economic activity for the entire region. The investment at Hambantota never had such potential and dimensions. Infrastructure, particularly road networks and other means of communication, is a pivotal ingredient for nudging economic development. The example of the KKH Highway is before us.
No other regional country was part of the Hambantota initiative whereas almost 26 countries are involved in the ‘One Belt One Road’ vision of China. Furthermore, Iran, Turkey and a number of European countries also wish to join the CPEC in view of its economic potential and regional connectivity. Russia was also working on a similar Eurasian economic union and was in the process of holding discussions with China to merge the two projects.
The detractors of Gwadar and the CPEC while drawing parallels between these projects and Hambantota forgot to mention another very important development in Sri Lanka which led to Hambantota becoming inoperative. Rajpakasa was defeated in the presidential elections in January 2015. According to many international observers, his defeat was orchestrated by the former Sri Lankan president Chandrika Kumaratunga with US support, paving the way for the installation of a pro-US regime in the country under Sirisina. The government of Sirisina suspended all projects undertaken by Rajapakasa, including building the harbour, an international airport at Hambantota and the Colombo port city. Thus Sri Lanka was caught in the dynamics of global politics at the peril of its own economic viability.
The CPEC is a trans-regional initiative based on the concept of shared economic prosperity whereas Hambantota was exclusively a Sri Lankan venture. There is absolutely no parallel between Gwadar, the CPEC and Hambantota .
One wonders how could columnists miss all these dissimilarities and realities that put the CPEC at a different plank from Hambantota? How could they draw parallels between two projects with so many different dimensions and potential?
Cheers
Re: Analyzing CPEC
My response here in the India-Russia thread:Avarachan wrote:^^. Andrew Korybko was born and raised in the USA. He is of Polish descent. He came to dislike American foreign policy and settled down in Russia about three years ago.
... This is so obvious I'm surprised that senior BRF members--who should know better--are falling for it.
viewtopic.php?p=2092339#p2092339
Re: Analyzing CPEC
‘More countries can join CPEC after China-Pakistan consensus’ - DT
China said on Friday said it would consider the possibility of other countries joining the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) through consensus with Pakistan, a local newspaper reported on Saturday.
Asked what China makes of the offer made by Lt Gen Aamir Riaz, commander, Southern Command, to India to join the project, Chinese Foreign Ministry (FM) spokeswoman Hua Chunying said it is yet to be seen whether India will take it up. "I wonder whether the Indian side takes this offer made by the Pakistani general as a goodwill gesture," she told a daily press briefing. She hoped that CPEC will not only promote socio-economic development in Pakistan and China but also contribute to regional connectivity, peace, stability and prosperity.
She added, however, that China would discuss the possibility of introducing a third party to CPEC "on the basis of consensus with the Pakistani side through consultation".
China regards CPEC as a framework built by the two countries with a focus on the long-term development of bilateral cooperation in various fields, she said.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry's comments came on the same day an article in the Chinese state-run Global Times called on India to "consider accepting the olive branch Pakistan has extended" to join CPEC. "China is likely to adopt an open attitude toward India joining the CPEC and would be happy to see more friendly interactions between the two South Asian neighbors. The CPEC has long been seen as a flagship project in China's Belt and Road initiative and India's involvement would be conducive in pushing forward the initiative," the paper said.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
^^^^^^^
This is like asking the goat to buy, sharpen the knife and present it to the one who is going to cut it's throat and additionally ask for an invitation to the biryani lunch where the said goat will be the main course.
There seems to be serious misgivings, both in china and pak concerning the one tattered, moth eaten belt, one phata pant "initiative" with the pakis belatedly waking up to their seriously bleak future under the han dispensation.
Ameriki largess is not about to be duplicated in practical han dealings with their paki servants.
and note that the "offer" comes from some unknown general and can be withdrawn at will by either party, han or paki, as some demented general having exceeded his brief.
the han face saver is inbuilt with the pakis taking the fall, if need be.
China wonders if India will take up Pakistani general's offer to join CPEC
This is like asking the goat to buy, sharpen the knife and present it to the one who is going to cut it's throat and additionally ask for an invitation to the biryani lunch where the said goat will be the main course.
There seems to be serious misgivings, both in china and pak concerning the one tattered, moth eaten belt, one phata pant "initiative" with the pakis belatedly waking up to their seriously bleak future under the han dispensation.
Ameriki largess is not about to be duplicated in practical han dealings with their paki servants.
and note that the "offer" comes from some unknown general and can be withdrawn at will by either party, han or paki, as some demented general having exceeded his brief.
the han face saver is inbuilt with the pakis taking the fall, if need be.
China wonders if India will take up Pakistani general's offer to join CPEC
"China is likely to adopt an open attitude toward India joining the CPEC and would be happy to see more friendly interactions between the two South Asian neighbors. The CPEC has long been seen as a flagship project in China's Belt and Road initiative and India's involvement would be conducive in pushing forward the initiative," the paper said.
Gen Riaz on Tuesday advised India to share the fruits of future development by joining the CPEC project instead of employing subversive activities against Pakistan.
He said India, like Iran, Afghanistan, China and Central Asian states, should enjoy the benefits of CPEC
Re: Analyzing CPEC
^^
Nothing but loud farting .... One needs to take note only because of the stink.
1. Import/export of good from the Eastern coast, the economic hub of China, to India/ME/Rest of the world does not makes sense based on the cost of trucking the goods across China and over the high mountain passes of Karakorams compared to sea based shipment.
2. Nor does the a 4 lane (planned but just two lanes at present) highway running through one of the most treacherous mountain terrain make for a backup for the huge Chinese economy in the case of Malacca blockade.
It does have economic significance for China in that it allows its western province access to the huge market of India which otherwise would have to traverse the whole of China (expensive trucking) to reach its eastern seaboard. That could make the project more viable and create a extra revenue source for the Bakis.
It utility is mostly strategic, a backup route for PLAN men/supplies to Gwadar, in case of blockade of Malacca. Other than that this *gesture*, if it can be called one, is aimed to bolster Bakis case against India of non-cooperation. It also allows the Chinese to *show* its willingness to work with India while blocking it were it matters most e.g NSG, JEM, etc. On top of that a random jernail talking of co-operation is something that has no significance and/or can always be labeled as misquote or the other usual tricks.
Our response, if needed, should be to urge Bakis to allow Afghan trucks to cross over to india to load/unload their goods.
PS:Multiple edits
Nothing but loud farting .... One needs to take note only because of the stink.
1. Import/export of good from the Eastern coast, the economic hub of China, to India/ME/Rest of the world does not makes sense based on the cost of trucking the goods across China and over the high mountain passes of Karakorams compared to sea based shipment.
2. Nor does the a 4 lane (planned but just two lanes at present) highway running through one of the most treacherous mountain terrain make for a backup for the huge Chinese economy in the case of Malacca blockade.
It does have economic significance for China in that it allows its western province access to the huge market of India which otherwise would have to traverse the whole of China (expensive trucking) to reach its eastern seaboard. That could make the project more viable and create a extra revenue source for the Bakis.
It utility is mostly strategic, a backup route for PLAN men/supplies to Gwadar, in case of blockade of Malacca. Other than that this *gesture*, if it can be called one, is aimed to bolster Bakis case against India of non-cooperation. It also allows the Chinese to *show* its willingness to work with India while blocking it were it matters most e.g NSG, JEM, etc. On top of that a random jernail talking of co-operation is something that has no significance and/or can always be labeled as misquote or the other usual tricks.
Our response, if needed, should be to urge Bakis to allow Afghan trucks to cross over to india to load/unload their goods.
PS:Multiple edits
Re: Analyzing CPEC
I think we need to start looking at military options on India's part to (a) show clear and present danger to CPEC and keep the parties under check (b) If yellow matter hits the fan, go for jugular and severe CPEC at multiple places.
While I've not spent much time on this CPEC program, a cursory look at the alignment tells me that Sundarji's 'dash to RYK' seems to have reborn with new clothing. About time we strengthened mechanized forces on western border along with strong tactical missile based offensive capability. POK and Northern Areas are another area where the CPEC alignment will be extremely vulnerable to missile bases strikes.
While I've not spent much time on this CPEC program, a cursory look at the alignment tells me that Sundarji's 'dash to RYK' seems to have reborn with new clothing. About time we strengthened mechanized forces on western border along with strong tactical missile based offensive capability. POK and Northern Areas are another area where the CPEC alignment will be extremely vulnerable to missile bases strikes.
Re: Analyzing CPEC
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1275219/arm ... es-quetta/
Why clarify? Did the Chinese raise doubts about Pak army's commitment to CPEC? Is China itself in doubt about CPEC's future? Why offer India a place in CPEC through Pakistan and then publicly express hope that India accepts it?Army committed to completing CPEC as planned: Gen Bajwa
Re: Analyzing CPEC
Per some Baki reports read long back there are cracks on the mountain side along the route from a past earthquake (2001?). Abottbad lake is a result of one such cracked mountainside slide after a heavy rainfall.
So what are our options. Mota bombs on these unstable mountain sides or better into those cracks. Brahmos strike against bridges/tunnels along the route. I don't know for sure but there must be upwards of 50 such sites given the length of the route.
So what are our options. Mota bombs on these unstable mountain sides or better into those cracks. Brahmos strike against bridges/tunnels along the route. I don't know for sure but there must be upwards of 50 such sites given the length of the route.