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

Analyzing CPEC

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 808
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Lisa » 27 Jun 2017 01:57

Hey hold on, last month they said,

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 679656.cms

No big role for India if it decides to join OBOR in future, says China,

Why the need now for small hearted SDRE's to join if their role is to be small? Hint, their goose is already cooked way before the pukis even switched on their oven and they know it. LIke it or not, India will be the second largest economy if not the largest before the turn of this century and without it there can be no tango.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15958
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 27 Jun 2017 02:26

ramana wrote:China says

Reiterating the stand that the CPEC is an economic initiative and it has nothing to do with the Kashmir issue, Geng said it is not targeted at any third party.


On the contrary, the fact that the road goes through Kashmir, which is under occupation by Pakistan, and that is targeting India.
So either Chinese are dense or provoking.


they are obviously hoping that we are dense.

Their resident commie cheerleaders in India are not pulling their usual weight.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, this local commie cabal would have brought the roof down by their constant shouting from the sidelines for India to get on board the han project.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2017 04:48

Chetak What do you think of this aspect?

viewtopic.php?p=2175691#p2175691

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 27 Jun 2017 14:35

X Posted on the OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Thread

India's opposition can affect CPEC in short run: Chinese media

BEIJING: The construction of the $50 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has been affected in the short run due to India's objections, a report in the state-run Chinese media said.
It added that if Beijing and Islamabad are firm in their cooperation, they can dispel New Delhi's doubts.

India is protesting against the CPEC as it passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK)
"Some people believe obstruction by India may become a stumbling block to the development of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)," an article in the official daily Global Times said.

In fact, India's "rejection" is mainly because the corridor passes through the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The corridor's construction may be affected in the short term, but from a long-term perspective, China and Pakistan can dispel India's doubt to the maximum degree if they are firm about their cooperation and actively interact with neighbouring countries, it said.
The article written by a researcher who worked in Pakistan said Chinese investments there could make profits.

"The return rate of the CPEC for China is generally higher than that in other countries. Pakistan is required to pay 17 per cent of the investment deposit for each project," it said, providing rare details about the conditions laid down for Chinese investments in Pakistan.

"At present, China has invested in 51 projects in the CPEC, with 19 already complete. Pakistan has announced that the total investment has reached $50 billion. That number is based on projects that are currently running, and the final number will exceed it," the article said.

In addition to the CPEC, China has invested in more than 200 projects in Pakistan. Its investment in the Hualong One Nuclear Power project near Karachi amounted to $6.5 billion, it said.

The investments mainly focus on energy and infrastructure, which are urgently needed for Pakistan's economic development.

It also sought to dispel fear about Chinese workers' safety in Pakistan after two Chinese were killed in Balochistan allegedly by the Islamic State terrorists.

"Many Chinese have serious concerns about the security environment and prospects of the CPEC after the recent kidnapping and alleged murder of their compatriots there," the article said.

"But I found the misgivings were not necessary after carrying out on-the-spot research at Chinese and local enterprises in Pakistan, and visiting scholars and research fellows at various universities and think tanks," it said.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 28 Jun 2017 15:23

X Posted on the STFUP Thread

Pakistan faces challenges in building economic corridor with China

DALIAN: Pakistan faces some challenges in steering an ambitious plan to build an economic corridor with China despite the economic benefits for the country, Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal said on Wednesday.

China has promised $57 billion in investment in projects along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, part of its ambitious Belt and Road plan linking China with the Middle East and Europe. Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed the Belt and Road project in 2013, but it is still short on specifics.

“There are a number of challenges which have to be addressed,” Iqbal, the Islamabad lead on the project, told the World Economic Forum in the northeastern city of Dalian. “There are actually many gaps that we have to correctly address. First and foremost is the coordination gap,” he said.

Iqbal said he had chaired many ministerial meetings over the past two years to push through the red-tape and coordinate polices among government ministries, he said. “There are also challenges in terms of different regions,” he said, adding that provinces are competing for greater opportunities in the project. The government has built a mechanism to coordinate with “internal and external stakeholders” in the scheme, he said without elaborating.

Pakistan and China aim to build a network of rail, road and energy infrastructure as part of the Belt and Road initiative. Pakistan has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the initiative, in part because many projects are for power plants to alleviate the country’s decade-long energy shortage that sees frequent blackouts.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 28 Jun 2017 18:42

An inclusive economic model

Isn’t it ironic that the countries and multilateral institutions responsible for promoting gross inequality globally, as well as within even the most developed countries by following a highly faulty economic model since at least early 1970s, are now trying to find fault in an economic model that has lifted millions out of poverty in a matter of a decade?

A study of the Silk Road Economic Belt by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) has identified potential issues that may negate any benefits the initiative brings.


The study speculates that the Chinese will likely accept or reject projects based on whether they serve the needs of Chinese industry, rather than what they bring to the recipients.

It also suspects that political tensions between different countries may impede the smooth rollout of projects.

Local elites, the study further suspects, may corner the “spoils” from new projects, thereby exacerbating social tensions. It has also expressed fears that labour rights and environmental protection may not be given the attention they deserve.

Therefore, the study recommends that:

The EU put forward a joint consultative mechanism with China to ensure projects are implemented smoothly, by ensuring all stakeholders have a hand in planning and supervision. Official development assistance programmes in BRI recipient countries should, include assistance in project evaluation. Organisations such as the UNDP and the UN Economic and Social Commission (ESC) for Asia should advise recipient countries on the impact and viability of planned projects. BRI loans should not be allowed to breach the debt burden thresholds determined under the World Bank-IMF debt sustainability framework. And finally, the Belt and Road Initiative needs to attract private capital as there are around $8.5 trillion “sitting in cash, waiting for better investment opportunities”. Bringing in private capital would increase the scale of BRI, open it to non-Chinese companies and allow projects to be implemented more efficiently.

It was perhaps in this frame of mind that some of the delegates at the May Belt and Road Forum had called for a rules-based approach, sensitive to the developmental needs of recipient countries. The stakeholders such as the US, the EU, Russia, India and Japan, according to the study, need to coordinate among themselves and engage with China to promote more transparent partnerships.

Meanwhile, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) continues to bug India. Out of fear of being overwhelmed socio-economically by China’s Road and Belt Initiative (RBI) India seems to have decided to create problems for the initiative. To start with it has decided not to attend any events connected with the BRI Forum.

What India is most worried about, however, is a collection of infrastructure projects under the label of CPEC, currently under construction throughout Pakistan. It traverses territory which India considers to be disputed. China officially claims not to take sides in the Kashmir dispute, but India believes it has done so by finalising CPEC with Pakistan and ignoring India’s position. As well as compromising India’s territorial integrity, CPEC, in India’s view, is raising other concerns about BRI projects.

India’s version on Gwadar port: the seaport has been leased to China until 2059. Chinese companies are operating the port, developing a 1,000-hectare Special Economic Zone nearby, and building an international airport with a Chinese grant of $230 million. These actions are certainly not driven by altruism. They reflect the strategic value to China of access to the Arabian Sea and proximity to energy-rich West Asia. It should be no surprise that Chinese naval submarines have been spotted in Gwadar.

Clearly, the so-called stakeholders that include the US, the EU, Russia, India and Japan seem either not to have understood the $4 trillion venture across 69 countries meant presumably to project China’s strategic vision for global peace, won through mutually beneficial economic cooperation or they are so fearful of being swamped by its success that they want to stop it before it takes off.

Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21898
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 29 Jun 2017 13:22

A Pakistani waves the Red Flag to CPEC

China has historically relied on developing client-patron relations with periphery states, resulting in a pragmatic and benevolent relationship between China and its client states. Even during periods of turbulence, these client states continued to show symbolic respect to Chinese superiority.

China has followed this pattern in expanding its influence with neighbouring states such as Pakistan, where there is broad domestic support for China. CPEC is promoted as a gesture of Chinese benevolence to a strategic and special friend.

Chinese interests in CPEC, however, are not benign and are a critical part of China’s emerging grand strategy. These interests are fuelled by China’s imminent need to secure its global energy and food supplies. CPEC and Gwadar are key to this as they will enable the flow of vital energy and food supplies into China through an alternative route while allowing China to have a military and naval presence close to American military assets located in the Gulf. Recent reports suggesting that China may soon establish a naval base in Gwadar indicate that this strategy is in full motion.

A more visible and expanded role by Chinese diplomats in Afghanistan is also part of this strategy as a stable Afghanistan will not only reduce American military presence in the region, but also unlock energy and mineral assets in the landlocked country. The direct outcome of this can be a more confrontational approach with the US in the region like what we have seen in the South China Sea, where the development of artificial islands is already leading to hostility with America.

It is true that the pro-China view within both elite and non-elite circles in Pakistan make this a truly unique relationship. Having said that, Pakistanis have historically not responded well to the development of foreign bases in their country and a Chinese military presence in the country could lead to a decline in China’s standing in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s elites have historically cast aside the opinions and views of their citizens in their bid to punch above their weight in the international arena, leading to negative repercussions in the future. Given the outsized role China is playing in Pakistan’s economy, it is important for the government to make Pakistanis aware of what they are signing up for and the leverage China can and will possess in determining Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policy positions.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 01 Jul 2017 17:43

X Posted on the OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications & STFUP Threads

CPEC and the new great game

I fear that I may not be doing justice to describing the sentiments of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral regarding CPEC. The intensity of these feelings emanate from a sense of being excluded and deprived from CPEC’s development potential – both in a political and economic sense. There is a new wave of a nationalistic upsurge, with the youth gravitating towards sceptical idealism – which ranges from issues of political representation to economic empowerment.

The exaggerated prosperity debate around CPEC is one of the key factors that have generated misgivings among the citizens about the game-changing prospects of this economic juggernaut. The euphoria surrounding CPEC’s transformative role impedes the possibility of a realistic assessment of the long-term impacts of this mega project on culture, the environment and the local economy.

The simulated hype of prosperous future serves the parochial political and economic interests of the ruling elite. The debate over CPEC in the mainstream media has failed to provide an objective and pragmatic strategy for policymakers to help the government engage in a mutually beneficial partnership with China for the optimal utilisation of opportunities.

Such concerns are not restricted to GB alone. Reservations are being expressed frequently in Balochistan, Sindh, KP and various parts of Punjab. At the national level, there seems to be an obsessive-compulsive disorder in the camps of both the proponents and opponents of CPEC. This has triggered conflictual differences and widened the gulf among the various groups in a fragile nation-state.

There is a visible trend of a mission drift in the original script of development promises as recently-revealed deals include the leasing of agricultural land and mining sites to Chinese companies. This has reinforced scepticism about the project and could potentially ruin the endeavours of consensus-building among the varying political interests. In a political ecosystem of trust deficit among the provinces, a weakening federal structure and the absence of a visionary leadership of statecraft, CPEC has become a bone of contention. Each province – vying for a larger share of the pie – is finding it difficult to convince its people to rise above the immediate gains in the larger interest of the country.

At times, CPEC appears to formalise the protracted conflicts between the federating units, which have become all the more pronounced with the rising appeal of ethnocentric nationalism. In a fraying political fabric of a fragile polity, it is advisable for the government and other key stakeholders of CPEC to open the debate for public consumption by being transparent about its pros and cons for the country and its citizens.

CPEC is, of course, a gigantic economic development project. But it is not the panacea to address all our development ills. It must be based on a sense of reciprocity to promote the interests of both China and Pakistan in the strictest sense of the principles of international relations. It is more a matter of gauging the diplomatic depth of a state to strike a deal and achieve optimal gains from such partnerships rather than to judge the intentions of the other party. In our critical discussions about CPEC, we tend to forget the very principle of quid pro quo in international politics, which defines interstate relations in the pursuit of interests that are both a moral and an objective in their nature.

Some critics have gone much further and drawn an analogy between CPEC and the East India Company, calling it part of an imperialistic expansion. In doing so, most of these critics do not provide an in-depth analysis of the inner workings of global capitalism and its political nemesis anchored by the Chinese in the contemporary intra-national politics. Of course, it would be a facile view to jettison CPEC as an imperialistic agenda. But it is vital to locate CPEC in the political context of an emerging international scenario of the Rising South led by China.

Stopping short of the new cold war, experts of international relations see the rise of the South as the beginning of a new Great Game. During this era of the so-called new great game, it is less obvious whether this is likely to annihilate the possibility of a different global order. This raises many questions about the validity of ideological politics when two seemingly diametrically opposed ideologies are in a transactional relationship in economic and political terms.

If the new Great Game involves containing the political influence without compromising the economic interests, it would be difficult to consider China and the West to be two distinct ideological camps that are bitterly hostile towards each other. There is little economic reason to see the beginning of a new cold war when Western capitalists consider China to be one of the most conductive investment place for profit accumulation.

The stark contradiction between the political ideology and the economic mode of production in China will lead to chaos and uncertainties to restrict growth and expansion. Quite contrary to commonly-held view that China will be threatened by the pro-Western movements, there is a strong likelihood that China may see an upsurge of the radical left. This would be a moment of surprise for China and for those who would be quick to call it a yellow revolution, just as they have been good at naming – rather colouring – the revolutionary attempts in the 21st century.

China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative is, of course, a source of hope for an 800 million-strong workforce, which is going to face huge lay-offs due to the economic downturn in China. Job creation is one of the key strategic objectives of the OBOR initiative in addition to broadening the choices of the relatively secure and cost-efficient trade routes.

State capitalism in China is under tremendous pressure owing to an inefficient labour-intensive structure, which is further plagued by a lack of accountability. The Pakistani political leadership should not pin too much hope on Chinese investments under CPEC because they are primarily designed to help accelerate economic growth to sustain a huge workforce in China. However, Pakistan can strike some profitable deals with a clear-cut inclusive national growth and development programme. The government must take all provinces and federating units into confidence to turn the challenge of nation-building into an opportunity through an equitable investment plan.

The government and the security agencies should be on the same page on the issues of national significance. They should not send out public overtures of inner strains between themselves. The melodrama of CPEC is here to stay and its proponents and antagonists will continue to put forth their arguments for and against the project. The proponents are content with the idea of an envisaged prosperity and their stake in the upcoming economic opportunities. Meanwhile, the antagonists have carved out a discourse of discontent and defiance. The choice is either to play to the gallery or to change the game and tame the ghost. And that is, indeed, a hard choice to make.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 02 Jul 2017 18:34

X Posted on the OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications & STFUP Threads

India should shed 'strategic anxiety', join Belt and Road Initiative: Chinese media

BEIJING: India should shed its "strategic anxiety" over the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and join the Belt and Road Initiative to become a cooperative partner and not a rival, a state-run Chinese news agency said on Sunday, amid a standoff between the two nations in the Sikkim sector.

The commentary in Xinhua - India's China-phobia Might Lead To Strategic Myopia - criticised New Delhi's boycott of the Belt and Road Forum conference held in May and asked India to shed its "China anxiety".

India boycotted the BRF after sovereignty concerns over the $50-billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which traverses through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Then, India said the Chinese ambitious initiative must be pursued in a manner that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The piece did not mention the CPEC by name, but referred to the BRI - the umbrella project under which the CPEC falls.

The commentary in Xinhua, considered an official view, said "despite its strategic discomfort, it is important for India to get over its 'China anxiety' and carefully assess the initiative, recognise its potential benefits and seize the opportunities".

"Instead of being rivals, the two countries, both of which are ancient civilisations endowed with a rich history, could become cooperative partners," it said, citing the speech of Liu Jinsong, deputy chief of mission of the Chinese embassy in India who had said "the sky and ocean of Asia are big enough for the dragon and elephant to dance together, which will bring about a true Asian Age."

After India's boycott of the BRF, official Chinese media have been carrying out articles asking India to reconsider its decision to not back the BRI.

A recent official "white paper" by China on the 21st Maritime Silk Road even offered to link the CPEC with the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) Economic Corridor in order to provide India greater access to Central Asia.

Observers say China's repeated invitations to India to join the BRI highlights its own anxieties over the adverse impact of New Delhi's lack of support to the multi-billion dollar investments in South Asia as it would deny access to India's market consisting over 1.2 billion people.
Today's commentary said "staying away from the initiative is not the best choice New Delhi could have made."

"It could have voiced its concerns and opinions on public occasions or in official statements as China is always willing to discuss all problems and possibilities with India on the basis of mutual benefits," it said.

"Though proposed by China, the Belt and Road is not a 'Chinese project.' It is a multilateral initiative, with win-win results at its core," it said.

The commentary came as troops of India and China are in a face-off since June 16 over the Chinese military's attempt to construct a strategic road in Doklam region of the Sikkim sector, which India and Bhutan is strongly objecting to.

While Bhutan has said the road is being built unilaterally by China in an area it controls, India said it is deeply concerned at the Chinese action as the road construction "would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security

Comments : China is DESPERATE TO ROPE IN INDIA in its OBOR-CPEC Scheme.

I feel that China is now cognisant of the CPEC being only a “Strategic” and not a “Commercial” Project. China’s continuous insistence in wanting India to join the CPEC-OBOR Project is to ensure that when the India-Myanmar-China Road becomes a reality then China would want to extend the western termini to its “Lapdog” i.e. Clapistan.

I would opine that India neither join CPEC nor OBOR but develop the I - M – C Road to carry on trade with Myanmar and China. India should deny China, Myanmar and possibly Bangladesh Access to Clapistan as well as deny Clapistan to participate in the India – Myanmar – China Road. Let Clapistan use the OBOR to access China via the CPEC-OBOR Road System.

It is pertinent to remind China that India has neither invited China nor its “Lapdog” i.e. Clapistan to join the “North – South Transport Corridor”.

Cheers Image

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9290
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby arun » 02 Jul 2017 21:05

^^^ The Xinhua editorial titled “India's China-phobia might lead to strategic myopia”

Concerns over a rising China have, to some extent, spiraled into a kind of "strategic anxiety" regarding the country among some Indian politicians.

Their misleading, unfounded "China-phobia," however, might lead to strategic myopia and hurt India's own interests.

Harboring suspicion and apprehension toward China's intention, India has recently decided to stay away from the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative, citing sovereignty concerns as its main reason.

The reason raised by India may be understandable, but staying away from the initiative is not the best choice New Delhi could have made.

It could have voiced its concerns and opinions on public occasions or in official statements as China is always willing to discuss all problems and possibilities with India on the basis of mutual benefits.

Actually, as Chinese officials have stressed on many occasions, the initiative, aimed at promoting economic cooperation and connectivity, has no connection with or impact on sovereignty issues.

Though proposed by China, the Belt and Road is not a "Chinese project." It is a multilateral initiative, with win-win results at its core.

As many experts and analysts have pointed out, the Belt and Road provides a monumental opportunity for the win-win cooperation between India and China, which are quite complementary economically.

The opportunity will not only help the two nations build political trust and boost their economic growth, but also reduce the risks of instability worldwide.

India, due to its geographical location and the size of its economy, could potentially be the biggest recipient of Chinese investment from the initiative to boost trade by building infrastructure linking Asia with Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

While bearing in mind its sovereignty concerns, the Indian government should also have a holistic perspective and see the bigger picture: the initiative will benefit South Asian countries, including India, in the long run, and it is in India's own vital and long-term national interests to join the initiative and become an important player in it.

Despite its strategic discomfort, it is important for India to get over its "China anxiety" and carefully assess the initiative, recognize its potential benefits and seize the opportunities.

Instead of being rivals, the two countries, both of which are ancient civilizations endowed with a rich history, could become cooperative partners.

Just as Liu Jinsong, deputy chief of mission of the Chinese Embassy in India, said in April, the sky and ocean of Asia are big enough for the dragon and elephant (China and India) to dance together, which will bring about a true Asian Age.


Xinhua Web Link is below:

Commentary: India's China-phobia might lead to strategic myopia

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15958
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 02 Jul 2017 21:37

is it possible that the hans actually thought that India would fight and beg to be made part of the CPEC??

all their previous utterances point to this possibility including their current face losing U-turn cajoling (begging??) India to join.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 02 Jul 2017 22:36

chetak wrote:is it possible that the hans actually thought that India would fight and beg to be made part of the CPEC??

all their previous utterances point to this possibility including their current face losing U-turn cajoling (begging??) India to join.
chetak Ji :

No sir, it is not a case of India begging the Slit Eyed to join CPEC-OBOR. In my opinion it is the case of the Chinese wanting Clapistan to be able to access the India - Myanmar - China Road System.

As an example the distance from Gawadar to Guangzhou is 8,500 KM whereas from Mundra to Guangzhou the distance is only 5,000 KM

Lets see how the Cocoon "Spins"
Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15958
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 02 Jul 2017 22:59

Peregrine wrote:
chetak wrote:is it possible that the hans actually thought that India would fight and beg to be made part of the CPEC??

all their previous utterances point to this possibility including their current face losing U-turn cajoling (begging??) India to join.
chetak Ji :

No sir, it is not a case of India begging the Slit Eyed to join CPEC-OBOR. In my opinion it is the case of the Chinese wanting Clapistan to be able to access the India - Myanmar - China Road System.

As an example the distance from Gawadar to Guangzhou is 8,500 KM whereas from Mundra to Guangzhou the distance is only 5,000 KM

Lets see how the Cocoon "Spins"
Cheers Image


Peregrine saab,

You are right.

the hans have cast coveteous eyes on Indian ports for the longest time now along with the associated rail/road/power infrastructure.

their chosen CPEC route runs largely through inhospitable terrain, very harsh climates and to build/maintain/sustain/keep clear of landslides/bandits etc, the road and the heated oil pipelines would be very expensive.

I am a bit puzzled about the hans' initial contempteous and almost hostile approach toward India regarding the Indian participation in the CPEC and now the most demeaning of turnarounds done by them literally begging India to come in. The loss of face for them is huge.

there is no doubt that the hans have read and understood the "Camel Nose In The Tent" story as well as hoping to use a salami slicing technique to enter India as they have already entered pakiland. Their only fear seems to be that the strong (and hence uncontrollable) Indian democracy and the foreign controlled Indian press will turn against them and expose them the world over.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 03 Jul 2017 00:00

chetak wrote:
Peregrine wrote:chetak Ji :

No sir, it is not a case of India begging the Slit Eyed to join CPEC-OBOR. In my opinion it is the case of the Chinese wanting Clapistan to be able to access the India - Myanmar - China Road System.

As an example the distance from Gawadar to Guangzhou is 8,500 KM whereas from Mundra to Guangzhou the distance is only 5,000 KM

Lets see how the Cocoon "Spins"
Cheers Image


Peregrine saab,

You are right.

the hans have cast coveteous eyes on Indian ports for the longest time now along with the associated rail/road/power infrastructure.

their chosen CPEC route runs largely through inhospitable terrain, very harsh climates and to build/maintain/sustain/keep clear of landslides/bandits etc, the road and the heated oil pipelines would be very expensive.

I am a bit puzzled about the hans' initial contempteous and almost hostile approach toward India regarding the Indian participation in the CPEC and now the most demeaning of turnarounds done by them literally begging India to come in. The loss of face for them is huge.

there is no doubt that the hans have read and understood the "Camel Nose In The Tent" story as well as hoping to use a salami slicing technique to enter India as they have already entered pakiland. Their only fear seems to be that the strong (and hence uncontrollable) Indian democracy and the foreign controlled Indian press will turn against them and expose them the world over.
Chetak Ji :

Couldn't agree more with you.

The Hans have underestimated the Indian Confidence with Modi Ji in the Chair.

IMO the CPEC-OBOR can be used for Exports from the Textile Mills being put up in XInjiang. The CPEC-OBOR ssystem may serve Xinjiang and a few CARs but not the "China East of Xinjiang". As such the Hans will try to beg, plead cajole India but I think Modi Ji - has Adani & Co - who does seem to know the ins and out of the Maritime Logistic System. I would further add that the Hans may or may not want to use the Port of Mundra but I would rather reiterate that they want to get the land Route i.e. via the India - Myanmar - China Road to Clapistan which IMO INDIA CANNOT AND MUST NOT ALLOW.

That, possibly, will be the end of China having a shorter route to Clapistan.

INDIA'S MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! :mrgreen:

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15958
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 03 Jul 2017 00:45

Peregrine wrote:
chetak wrote:
Peregrine saab,

You are right.

the hans have cast coveteous eyes on Indian ports for the longest time now along with the associated rail/road/power infrastructure.

their chosen CPEC route runs largely through inhospitable terrain, very harsh climates and to build/maintain/sustain/keep clear of landslides/bandits etc, the road and the heated oil pipelines would be very expensive.

I am a bit puzzled about the hans' initial contempteous and almost hostile approach toward India regarding the Indian participation in the CPEC and now the most demeaning of turnarounds done by them literally begging India to come in. The loss of face for them is huge.

there is no doubt that the hans have read and understood the "Camel Nose In The Tent" story as well as hoping to use a salami slicing technique to enter India as they have already entered pakiland. Their only fear seems to be that the strong (and hence uncontrollable) Indian democracy and the foreign controlled Indian press will turn against them and expose them the world over.
Chetak Ji :

Couldn't agree more with you.

The Hans have underestimated the Indian Confidence with Modi Ji in the Chair.

IMO the CPEC-OBOR can be used for Exports from the Textile Mills being put up in XInjiang. The CPEC-OBOR ssystem may serve Xinjiang and a few CARs but not the "China East of Xinjiang". As such the Hans will try to beg, plead cajole India but I think Modi Ji - has Adani & Co - who does seem to know the ins and out of the Maritime Logistic System. I would further add that the Hans may or may not want to use the Port of Mundra but I would rather reiterate that they want to get the land Route i.e. via the India - Myanmar - China Road to Clapistan which IMO INDIA CANNOT AND MUST NOT ALLOW.

That, possibly, will be the end of China having a shorter route to Clapistan.

INDIA'S MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! :mrgreen:

Cheers Image


Thank you, Peregrine saab.

Your perspective is insightful, as always.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 03 Jul 2017 02:19

East China has cheaper access to Bakistan via the Sea from their eastern seaboard under the China's Maritime Silk Road initiative. It makes no sense to cross the whole of India to reach Bakistan both cost wise and strategically cause the *main* route will be under India's control.

Even for the interior areas like Kunming, it is better to use the Myanmar ports and hence to Bakistan via the sea.

The only reason the Chinese want India to join OBOR/BRI is to get unhindered access to the Indian market. With the US and Europe not showing much sign of revival the Chinese export driven economy is in search of the next big market. The only *under exploited* BIG market left is India. OBOR not only soaks the excess steel/cement/labour for the present but also facilitates access to markets. The Chinese are desperate for India to join OBOR because without Indian market both CPEC and BCIM will prove white elephants.

The Railway being planned to Nepal too will serve the same purpose i.e they will dump their *excess* stuff in Nepal and from there it will be pushed into India. I am not totally sure but that India allows Nepal an *almost* unhindered access to the Indian market.
Last edited by pankajs on 03 Jul 2017 02:50, edited 1 time in total.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 03 Jul 2017 02:37

https://www.dawn.com/news/1299838
China launches direct rail, sea freight service between Kunming and Karachi [Dated: Dec 02, 2016]
China and Pakistan have launched a direct rail and sea freight service, with the first cargo train departing from Yunnan, an inland province in southwest China, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

A cargo train loaded with 500 tonnes of commodities left Kunming, capital of Yunnan, for port city of Guangzhou from where the cargo will be loaded on ships and transported to Karachi, marking the opening of the new route.

"The route helps locals businesses connect with the world market," a representative from the New Silk Road Yunnan Limited said. The new service is said to reduce the transport cost by over 50 per cent.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 03 Jul 2017 04:46

X Posted on the OBOR, Chinese Strategy and Implications Thread

Beijing using Doklam to arm-twist Delhi on OBOR?

BEIJING: China's official news agency sent signals on Sunday that the ongoing border stand-off with India was caused, at least partly, by Beijing's desperate need to force an unwilling India to accept its One Belt One Road (OBOR) programme.

The border row was triggered after Chinese troops began building a road in Doklam, which falls in the Sikkim-Tibet-Bhutan trijunction, within weeks of the OBOR summit that India refused to attend.

"Harbouring suspicion... toward China's intention, India has decided to stay away from the China-proposed belt and road initiative, citing sovereignty concerns as its main reason," Xinhua said, and admitted to the military stand-off. It also accused India of "strategic myopia" about its infrastructure programme. The commentary signalled that Beijing would reconsider its stand on the border stand-off if India decided to join OBOR plan, observers said.

"Launching construction in border areas of Bhutan and Nepal may be a good way to pressure India to accept the Chinese programme," an analyst said. But, the dispute might make it more difficult for Delhi to accept the Chinese urgings on this issue, others said.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 03 Jul 2017 05:15

pankajs wrote:https://www.dawn.com/news/1299838
China launches direct rail, sea freight service between Kunming and Karachi [Dated: Dec 02, 2016]
China and Pakistan have launched a direct rail and sea freight service, with the first cargo train departing from Yunnan, an inland province in southwest China, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

A cargo train loaded with 500 tonnes of commodities left Kunming, capital of Yunnan, for port city of Guangzhou from where the cargo will be loaded on ships and transported to Karachi, marking the opening of the new route.

"The route helps locals businesses connect with the world market," a representative from the New Silk Road Yunnan Limited said. The new service is said to reduce the transport cost by over 50 per cent.
pankajs Ji :
Distances – Figures are All About :

1. Kunming to Guangzhou = 1,475 KM

Guangzhou to Karachi = 5050 NM = 9,300 KM

Total Kunming to Karachi via Guangxhou = 10,775 KM

2. Land Distance : Kunming to Karachi = 3581 KM

However, a shorter Land + Sea Route from Kunming to Karachi would be :

Kuming to Sitwe or Kyuakpyu = 1,140 KM

Sittwe to Karachi : 2,550 NM = 4,700 KM

Kuming to Karachi via Sittwe : 5,840 KM

Cheers Image

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6464
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 04 Jul 2017 16:44

X Posted from Pakistan Thread

CPEC Alarm Bells Raised By A "Concerned Paki "

Why is our government and army not answering these important questions of such a far reaching project like CPEC

Why is the government not revealing the finer details of the CPEC program? The loan rates, The projects included in it, How much will we be paying the chinese companies who execute it, what is the expected date of the CPEC program to become profitable?There is an english phrase called, "The Devil is in the details". If the cpec program really is as generous as government claims to be, why are the relectant to reveal the full details! The Chinese are the "last resort" as far as Pakistan is concerned ! Beggars cannot be choosers !
CPEC supposedly are going to contain large super farms run by chinese companies as an important component.These super farms will be able to service the food needs of Pakistan. In such a case, what will happen to Pakistani farmers? Economic competition with chinese government funded super farm program will be impossible for them! Hog and Pig Farms are probably on the list !
What are we going to do to take care of the massive unemployment in wake of the chinese super farms which have been greenlight by the government under CPEC?43% of our countrys labour are directely or indirectly employed by Agriculture Get ready for mass migration to Paki cities like what happened in China !
What is the government going to do for the repayment of electric bills? The biggest reason for the electric crisis in this country is because of non payment of bills by comment people, rampant theft of electricity, politicians giving electricity to big industrialist at cheap below market rates, Infrastructure theft etc. How is the government planning to deal with this. Defaulters, like in China will go to prison , where they will be used as prison labor to make cheap things for Walmart and other companies !
What are the contigency plan in case CPEC Fails? How are we going to pay the shitload amount of money owed once the bill starts coming in? Since all of the CPEC program is mostly funded by chinese bonds and ADB, we cant do the usual trick of taking loan from one bank to pay another bank as that is against rules of the loan! By that time, Pakistan will become a "problem for China" , so not to worry on that score . !
Why are the chinese not hiring pakistani labours and workers to do the work in CPEC instead of chinese companies and wokers! Why is there no open bidding or auction of contract of the CPEC projects to get cheapest bidder! The whole premise of CPEC is China is main beneficiary ; Pakistan is a secondary beneficiary , if any !
What is the government doing to protect small and mid level buisnesses in pakistan against the chinese flooding of the market after OBOR is completed? Chinese products are cheaper and better quality than pakistani products! Our industry will be ruined as it cant compete with a massive manufacturing economy like china! Due Diligence should have been performed !!!
Large amounts of lands are being acquired in baloch areas for expansion of pre existing roads under CPEC peograms. Why is the government not paying the fair market price to the people who own the lands? Instead, police are being used to break up protests against low prices and intimidate the people! The writer is of course, not a Baloch, so he should not be concerned about this . He should however, draw the attention of the Mullahs , as Islam - the jugular vein of Pakistan - is surely in danger ! :twisted:

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 809
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Guddu » 06 Jul 2017 08:55

When I monitor baki media, a lot of baki anchors are highly critical of CPEC and increasing in number. If this continues, CPEC will collapse. I think a critical number of critics has been achieved.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15958
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby chetak » 06 Jul 2017 13:08

Guddu wrote:When I monitor baki media, a lot of baki anchors are highly critical of CPEC and increasing in number. If this continues, CPEC will collapse. I think a critical number of critics has been achieved.


the paki army has the big danda and also the dhandha of lucrative post retirement benefits, flowing from the CPEC, for its chosen few, favors to be dispensed to the "deserving" among its ranks.

This is how the corruption focused hans would have gamed it, with the PA running interference as well as point while the hans sat back comfortably in the background, counting their take from the legally sanctioned looting.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6860
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby JE Menon » 06 Jul 2017 14:19

Guddu wrote:When I monitor baki media, a lot of baki anchors are highly critical of CPEC and increasing in number. If this continues, CPEC will collapse. I think a critical number of critics has been achieved.


Unlikely Guddu, the Paks are the type who will cut their nuts to spite their dicks!

DrRatnadip
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 31 Dec 2016 00:40

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby DrRatnadip » 07 Jul 2017 20:17

https://www.dawn.com/news/1343803/batta ... mpensation

Battagram locals halt work on CPEC project again over non-payment of compensation

Residents of Battagram's Gajborai area once again halted construction work on the multi-billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in protest over non-payment of compensation for their land.

Nearly 1,000 locals have been affected by the construction of a tunnel falling under the CPEC scheme that runs for 60 kilometres from Kas Bridge to Thakoot Bridge.

A 25 person CPEC Action Committee ─ including Anwar Baig, former superintendent of police Riaz Khan, Gul Muhammad tehsil council member, JI provincial deputy general secretary Muhammad Rafique, Taj Nazeer, Molana Attaur Rehman, Niaz Muhammad, Toti Rehman, Rustam Khan and Tehsil Naib Nazim ─ met with the deputy commissioner and visited a Chinese base camp at Kuzabanda and an Army base camp in the Chapargram area, and asked the relevant authorities to stop further construction work on the CPEC project from Kansai to Chanjal until their demands were fulfilled.

"We were not taken on board, nor were we given a single penny in compensation. The district administration has issued us letters to vacate houses, which will be demolished for coming in the way of the project, but we have nowhere else to live, nor have we been provided tents," jirga member Muhammad Rafiq said.

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6464
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Falijee » 08 Jul 2017 06:18

Pakistani Baloch Senator Says That CPEC Is Like Another (British) Colonial Exercise!

CPEC: a Baloch perspective
Sanaullah Baloch

During one hundred years of colonial rule in greater India and Balochistan, the British Raj constructed thousands of kilometres of railway lines, roads, bridges, airports, telegraph lines and strategic garrisons. The logic behind all this massive infrastructure investment was very clear: to maintain colonial rule, maximise exploitation and counter the Russian advance towards the warm waters of Balochistan. From 1878 to 1922 the British rail network crisscrossed Balochistan’s landscape, creating wonders such as the Khojak Pass, one of the longest tunnels in South Asia. In addition, British engineers built marvellous bridges. But all this didn’t bring any economic miracles to the province. Simply because all this infrastructure was purpose-built and without an inclusive and participatory process to involve local communities.
In 1947 Pakistan came into being and the Baloch were promised a good future. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah promised special status to maintain Balochistan’s autonomy and special development plans in return for Balochistan joining Pakistan.However, immediately after annexation with Pakistan a deliberate policy of under-development of the province started, keeping a resource-rich region dependent on financial handouts. A new breed of rulers from Karachi, Lahore and then Islamabad arrived to replace the white colonisers. This alienated Baloch of course neglects to mention that Balochistan and Kalat were forcibly annexed by Pakistan !
Within five years of independence Balochistan’s top-grade gas was pumped and transmitted to the far end of northern Punjab, leaving the Baloch with just dust and smoke. Jobs and scholarships went to a special class of people and gas-related industries, like fertiliser industries, were established in Punjab.
The Baloch need logical answers not warning statements or ill-informed speeches that treat critics of the project as traitors. Those in powerful positions openly issue warnings that concerns shouldn’t be raised over the secretive nature of the CPEC. The president too recently visited Balochistan and issued a national warning that the Baloch people should talk “carefully” about the CPEC. Instead of such thoughtless statements, the head of state and symbol of the federation should have asked all ministries and the federal government to initiate a national debate and dialogue with the Baloch on CPEC agreements, rules, revenue, benefits and decision-making procedures.
This ambiguous nature of the CPEC has created more alienation than unification. So much fear has been created that none of the mediapersons or researchers living inside Balochistan dare write or talk about the CPEC. The entire provincial government has no convincing data to prove what the CPEC has for Balochistan. We need to be honest with ourselves – that China needed Gwadar and in return we got a multibillion dollar infrastructure, metro line, eastern route and motorways and energy projects that will be focused in particular part of Pakistan.
The writer is a former senator from Balochistan.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 10 Jul 2017 21:49

Pakistani Media Finally Exposes The Truth Of CPEC | Pakistani Logic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5D46CqTWf4



Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 14 Jul 2017 04:26

Debating CPEC

THE army chief’s call for an “open debate on all aspects of CPEC” is to be welcomed, but a few irritants stand in the way before any such debate can happen. The first irritant is the lack of disclosure by the government of many of the crucial details. Specifically, the long-term plan needs to become a public document, and greater debate ought to have gone into its finalisation. Details regarding the financing, the Special Economic Zones and the concessions being given to Chinese enterprises could also be more transparent. When this newspaper ran the details from the long-term plan developed by the Chinese government for CPEC, people were genuinely surprised to learn that the scope of what is planned under the corridor projects goes far beyond power sector investments and transit trade. To this day there has been no specific denial from the government about the contents of that report, which has lent credence to the idea that what is in fact being developed under the plan is a far larger engagement than the government is willing to admit. The second irritant is the extremely defensive language the government adopts every time questions about CPEC are asked, accompanied with reminders that “an enemy of CPEC is an enemy of Pakistan”. This is a childish attitude and if an open debate is to take place on all aspects of CPEC, then defensive reactions of this sort will have to be dispensed with.

An open debate is necessary, indeed vital, given the project’s depth and scope, to help build confidence that it is being pursued with the best interests of the country and its citizens in mind. Thus far that confidence is lacking. One burning question, for example, that refuses to die down is how far the beneficial impact of the project through developments like job creation will actually filter down to the people, and how far it will be siphoned off by the Chinese counterparts. The larger macroeconomic impact of the project is also in question given the heavily debt oriented nature of the inflows associated with it.

At the end of the day, an open debate will promote greater clarity and understanding about the projects. Mere assurances and statements from government ministers and functionaries that all is well are not enough. It is sad to see parliament and the provincial assemblies neglect their role in promoting such debate, and the political parties themselves are too preoccupied with the politics of the moment to spare a thought for this enormous and landscape changing undertaking that is taking place amidst us. It is astonishing how little is known about the details outside of a small coterie of individuals. Without wider debate, the potential benefits of CPEC will not be felt by the common citizenry, at least not in the shape that we are being told.

Cheers Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby ramana » 14 Jul 2017 05:49

Pak Mard-e-Momin are used to jiziya from US and now want from Cheen.
Not going to happen.

Before the British the area used to go on raids into India and were kept on Ganga-Jamuna subsidy even from Ashoka times.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6255
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 14 Jul 2017 17:45

Peregrine wrote:“an enemy of CPEC is an enemy of Pakistan”


And the new narrative after "pajama pate" verdict is "An enemy of Bakistan is an enemy of CPEC is, therefore, an enemy of n'waz sh'reeeef" because n'waz is SeePak".

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6255
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby anupmisra » 14 Jul 2017 17:53

ramana wrote:Pak Mard-e-Momin are used to jiziya from US and now want from Cheen. Not going to happen.


Jiziya/fizilya. pbuh will look after the bakistanis as chini bilathers just upped the ante. Enjoy:

China pushes Pakistan on Special Economic Zones

While Pakistan is yet to form a group of experts to decide setting up of the exact number and types of special economic zones (SEZs) along the CPEC route in the first phase, China has notified the government of forming the group.
Mr Li Yuan, asked Pakistan to expedite forming the experts’ group, and emphasised on devising long-term cooperation mechanism to select priority sector and synergise policies for SEZs.
Where is the experts group, asks Chinese delegation


Hurry up, bakistaniyon, you are holding up our economic progress and delaying us in giving you more loans. As King Julien said "hurry up, before we all come to our senses!".

https://www.dawn.com/news/1345155/china ... omic-zones

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21898
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 14 Jul 2017 18:01

I am surprised as to why the COAS, the closest Chinese ally in Pakistan, is calling for an 'open debate' on CPEC. Is that a tactic to preempt a more strident call and manoeuvre the discussions in a 'suitable' way? This call by the COAS could not have been made with genuine intentions at all.

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3056
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby rsingh » 14 Jul 2017 18:46

^^^^
It is a trick to harvest names of those who speaks against CPEC. Those who come out openly will be treated afterwards.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21898
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 14 Jul 2017 18:52

Quite possible.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21898
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby SSridhar » 17 Jul 2017 14:47

One more Pakistani now sees clear daylight - DAWN

Understanding CPEC, Shahid Kardar

Common sense would suggest that investments under the CPEC banner present an enviable opportunity for our economy to jump onto a significantly higher growth path on a sustainable basis. Is this logic and the envisaged gains valid allowing for the terms and conditions governing these ventures and the capability of Pakistan’s economy to exploit its potential?

The principal constraint in conducting a fair assessment of the latent returns to our economy from CPEC is the general opaqueness of the provisions driving these investments. Officialdom assures us that only a part of the funds are being provided in the shape of loans (and at affordable rates of interest). The rest of the financing is in the form of investments in energy and does not carry debt liabilities.

It can be argued, with some justification, that beggars are not choosers and these loans are on terms that are the best we could hope for under present conditions.
But, if indeed they are (although warped domestic tax structures and distorted priorities make it difficult to raise and allocate resources for such investments) why are the details not in the public domain as is usual these days even in the case of a hitherto secretive institution like the IMF?

Furthermore, how are the investments in the power sector logically different from a debt-related commitment, considering that the returns have been guaranteed by the government? What is the practical difference between these categorisations? From the information one has been able to glean, the guaranteed returns range from 17 per cent to 20pc in dollar terms on the investment/equity in the power sector (rising to more than 25pc if we add on all the exemptions granted on customs duties, both federal and provincial GSTs and other allied taxes).

Other special terms have also to be accorded. These include a three-month cash escrow for the electricity generated; they will have the right to suspend operations and still be paid if their payments are delayed. Whereas in the case of existing IPPs the National Transmission & Despatch Company can impose damages even if these units close down on account of non-payment for an extended period. The generous concessions (not available to domestic investors) showered on the Chinese have surely set a benchmark that other investors could validly demand.

These high guaranteed returns, complemented by our poor governance of the energy sector, will keep the price of energy high
, affecting adversely the competitiveness of the economy in general and the exporting sectors in particular.

The cost per megawatt of these coal-based power plants has also not been shared to enable a comparison with international standards. This is important because, as explained, the returns are a guaranteed percentage of the equity, incentivising over-invoicing of imported equipment, enabling not just the recovery of the investment upfront but also furnishing a guaranteed return on this over-invoiced amount!

Another unknown is the cost per kilometre of road in highway projects. Market sources also claim that barely 25pc of the work has been outsourced to Pakistani engineering consultants and contractors. And they are being paid around 40pc of the cost for these services that the Chinese are being compensated for. Moreover, not only do they bring their own cement and steel but also their own labour (even of the unskilled variety on the plea that they speak Chinese); even paint produced by a multinational based in Pakistan is bought from the office of the same company in China.

In any case, as global experience tells us, connecting developed regions with those that are relatively backward doesn’t necessarily stimulate sustainable growth in the latter. The connectivity may well make it easier for capital and skills to flow to the more endowed regions because of better opportunities.

For the Chinese, the benefits of improved connectivity of their province of Xinjiang with the Gulf and beyond will come in the form of safe and secure connectivity to suppliers of energy in the Middle East and consumers in these and African markets.

What is uncertain is the impact that CPEC could have on our growth rate, given our weak global competitiveness owing to our deformed tax structure, poor governance and lack of skills. It limits our ability to integrate into Chinese-driven value chains. A greater worry would be the possible folding up of many of our businesses, not being competitive.
As things stand, without a competitive industrial (perhaps even the agricultural sector), we may have to be content with, like the good ‘rentiers’ that we are, simply collecting toll taxes for our much-marketed ‘strategic location’.

Much of the CPEC-related discussion is around projects. But for achieving its objectives in a sustainable manner recurrent expenditure on repairs and maintenance is critical; these affect the economy’s efficiency. With large budget deficits and rigidity of expenditure, this requirement will pose formidable challenges.

Finally, given the precarious health of our external sector (with the current account deficit accumulating at a frightening billion dollars a month and the import bill programmed to increase by an additional $3bn by end 2018 on LNG/coal projects) and no visible signs of possible improvement, we would, as night follows day, be negotiating a new IMF programme, latest by the second half of 2018.

The outcomes of these deliberations could introduce an intriguing twist to our strategic policies for the region as we seek funding to service our debts and commitments under CPEC — with a dreaded currency mismatch resulting from most earnings in rupees servicing dollar liabilities.

Lest we forget, the IMF has no currency of its own, nor does it manage one. It essentially lends in US dollars which is also the currency for discharging CPEC-related obligations. If political analysts are right in asserting that the Americans are not happy with our Afghan and regional policies and our attempts to get closer to the Chinese, will their monopoly over their currency and their clout in the Fund provide them a leverage beyond just a role in the finalisation of IMF conditionalities?


The writer is a former governor of the State Bank of Pakistan.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby shiv » 17 Jul 2017 21:01


Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3780
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Karthik S » 17 Jul 2017 21:06

Nature's stone pelting.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby pankajs » 17 Jul 2017 21:11

Now imagine what a chota-mota bomb will do to that slope.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby shiv » 17 Jul 2017 21:12

Hydro engineering - Karakoram highway - CPEC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdViBalpikY

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3780
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Analyzing CPEC

Postby Karthik S » 17 Jul 2017 21:16

BTW are Chinese outsourcing engineering to the pakees?

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Analyzing CPEC

Postby Peregrine » 17 Jul 2017 23:30

Karthik S wrote:BTW are Chinese outsourcing engineering to the pakees?
Karthik S Ji :
Indeed, such as Nuts, Screws & Bolts.
Cheers Image


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], kumarn, wadi1979 and 34 guests