<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-pm-imran-khan-arrives-in-china-for-four-day-visit-213570">Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan</a> on Friday mooted launching of joint projects among the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/all-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-213664">China-backed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) </a>member countries to promote tourism, combat climate change, corruption and poverty.</p>

<p>The multi-billion dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is entering the next phase after substantial progress, Khan said while speaking at the second Belt and Road Forum (BRF) in Beijing.</p>

<p>China is holding the BRF, which provides a platform to countries participating in the BRI, from April 25 to 27 in Beijing.</p>

<p>The BRI is a multi-billion-dollar initiative launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping when he came to power in 2013. It aims to link Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Gulf region, Africa and Europe with a network of land and sea routes.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The forum is being attended by 36 heads of states and governments besides officials from 150 countries and international organisations.</p>

<p>Prime Minister Khan said the BRI, which raised concerns of a debt trap, offered a model of collaboration, partnership, connectivity and shared prosperity.</p>

<p>India and the US skipped the BRF. India has protested over the $60 billion CPEC which is being laid through the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. CPEC is officially regarded as a flagship project of China's trillion dollar BRI.</p>

<p>The US has termed the BRI as promoting predatory financing leading to heavy debt among smaller countries.</p>

<p>Khan's government itself was reported to have planned to cut down some of the CPEC projects soon after it came to power owing to concerns related to debt burden.</p>

<p>Addressing the BRF, the Pakistan prime minister said that in a world of geopolitical uncertainty, of rising inequality, and barriers to trade, the BRI offers a model of collaboration, partnership, connectivity and shared prosperity.</p>

<p>Pakistan has been among one of the BRI's earliest and most enthusiastic proponents, and CPEC is, one of the major components and one of its earliest manifestations and it has made substantial progress, he said.</p>

<p>Skirting India's criticism of CPEC as well as its objections, Khan said CPEC has helped in Pakistan's progress especially filling the critical infrastructure gaps.</p>

<p>He said that Pakistan and China are entering the next phase of CEPC together, with greater emphasis on social economic upliftment, poverty alleviation, agriculture cooperation and industrial development.</p>

<p>Both the countries are signing an expanded Pakistan China Free Trade Agreement, he said.</p>

<p>He also mooted cooperation among the countries signed up to BRI climate change cooperation.</p>

<p>In the last five years, Pakistan successfully planted five billion trees in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, he said, adding that Pakistan has launched a nationwide project to plant 10 billion trees in the next five years.</p>

<p>He suggested that there should be some joint and ambitious projects of planting trees among the BRI countries to mitigate climate change.</p>

<p>He suggested the establishment of BRI tourism corridor to promote people-to-people contacts, inter-cultural understanding and most importantly to establish anti-corruption cooperation to combat the scourge of white-collar crime.</p>

<p>Khan has also mooted the creation of a poverty alleviation fund.</p>

<p>On April 19, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that over 120 countries and international organisations, which have signed up for BRI, sent representatives to take part in the 2nd BRF.</p>

<p>Khan also thanked China and its leadership for the unwavering support to Pakistan.</p>

<p>The deep-rooted friendship, partnership and brotherhood with China remain strong, resilient and unbreakable, he added.</p>


Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on Friday mooted launching of joint projects among the China-backed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) member countries to promote tourism, combat climate change, corruption and poverty.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on Friday mooted launching of joint projects among the China-backed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) member countries to promote tourism, combat climate change, corruption and poverty. The multi-billion dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is entering the next phase after substantial progress, Khan said while speaking at the second Belt and Road Forum (BRF) in Beijing. China is holding the BRF, which provides a platform to countries participating in the BRI, from April 25 to 27 in Beijing. The BRI is a multi-billion-dollar initiative launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping when he came to power in 2013. It aims to link Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Gulf region, Africa and Europe with a network of land and sea routes. The forum is being attended by 36 heads of states and governments besides officials from 150 countries and international organisations. Prime Minister Khan said the BRI, which raised concerns of a debt trap, offered a model of collaboration, partnership, connectivity and shared prosperity. India and the US skipped the BRF. India has protested over the $60 billion CPEC which is being laid through the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. CPEC is officially regarded as a flagship project of China's trillion dollar BRI. The US has termed the BRI as promoting predatory financing leading to heavy debt among smaller countries. Khan's government itself was reported to have planned to cut down some of the CPEC projects soon after it came to power owing to concerns related to debt burden. Addressing the BRF, the Pakistan prime minister said that in a world of geopolitical uncertainty, of rising inequality, and barriers to trade, the BRI offers a model of collaboration, partnership, connectivity and shared prosperity. Pakistan has been among one of the BRI's earliest and most enthusiastic proponents, and CPEC is, one of the major components and one of its earliest manifestations and it has made substantial progress, he said. Skirting India's criticism of CPEC as well as its objections, Khan said CPEC has helped in Pakistan's progress especially filling the critical infrastructure gaps. He said that Pakistan and China are entering the next phase of CEPC together, with greater emphasis on social economic upliftment, poverty alleviation, agriculture cooperation and industrial development. Both the countries are signing an expanded Pakistan China Free Trade Agreement, he said. He also mooted cooperation among the countries signed up to BRI climate change cooperation. In the last five years, Pakistan successfully planted five billion trees in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, he said, adding that Pakistan has launched a nationwide project to plant 10 billion trees in the next five years. He suggested that there should be some joint and ambitious projects of planting trees among the BRI countries to mitigate climate change. He suggested the establishment of BRI tourism corridor to promote people-to-people contacts, inter-cultural understanding and most importantly to establish anti-corruption cooperation to combat the scourge of white-collar crime. Khan has also mooted the creation of a poverty alleviation fund. On April 19, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that over 120 countries and international organisations, which have signed up for BRI, sent representatives to take part in the 2nd BRF. Khan also thanked China and its leadership for the unwavering support to Pakistan. The deep-rooted friendship, partnership and brotherhood with China remain strong, resilient and unbreakable, he added.

Pakistan BRI's earliest and most enthusiastic proponents: PM Imran Khan

<p>World leaders are gathering in Beijing ahead of the second <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/china-president-xi-jinping-sends-congratulations-on-inauguration-of-belt-and-road-studies-network-213383&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj5x9et--rhAhUx6nMBHSNCCuAQFjAAegQIBBAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1ea2VzvDes11tFHShZoUIQ">Belt and Road Forum</a> for International Corporation scheduled to be held here, from today.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/china-seeks-to-allay-belt-and-road-debt-concerns-213340&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj5x9et--rhAhUx6nMBHSNCCuAQFjACegQIAhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2omSc_9Dc_B0yvQDMFbqhQ">The three-day forum</a> will provide a platform to the countries participating in Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) for exchanging views and experiences on regional connectivity, policy synergy, socio-economic development and trade, and commerce.</p>

<p>According to media reports, India, for the second consecutive time has decided to boycott the forum, which will be attended by the leaders and representatives of 37 countries.</p>

<p>Russian President Vladimir Putin, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte also are among the leaders who will attend the forum.</p>

<p>The BRI is a development strategy adopted by the Chinese government involving infrastructure development and investments in countries in Europe, Aisa, and Africa.</p>


World leaders are gathering in Beijing ahead of the second Belt and Road Forum for International Corporation scheduled to be held here, from today. The three-day forum will provide a platform to the countries participating in Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) for exchanging views and experiences on regional connectivity, policy synergy, socio-economic development and trade, and commerce.

World leaders are gathering in Beijing ahead of the second Belt and Road Forum for International Corporation scheduled to be held here, from today. The three-day forum will provide a platform to the countries participating in Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) for exchanging views and experiences on regional connectivity, policy synergy, socio-economic development and trade, and commerce. According to media reports, India, for the second consecutive time has decided to boycott the forum, which will be attended by the leaders and representatives of 37 countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte also are among the leaders who will attend the forum. The BRI is a development strategy adopted by the Chinese government involving infrastructure development and investments in countries in Europe, Aisa, and Africa.

Belt and Road Forum: World leaders gather in Beijing while India boycotts

India decides to skip Belt & Road Forum set to take place next week. China warns countries boycotting BRI of risking global isolation.

India to boycott Belt & Road Forum: China sends a mixed message to India

<p><a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/world/italy-plans-to-join-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-report-201456&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiCu-DAqs_hAhUOaI8KHf7PDj8QFggIMAE&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw3hK1yo7qwTBKE-4nlPyjuz">China</a>`s ambitious <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/world/belt-and-road-forum-to-enable-china-to-establish-its-direction-policy-framework-imf-chief-210055&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiCu-DAqs_hAhUOaI8KHf7PDj8QFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw2EC-hlTxNSKCzzjxES6_P0">Belt and Road initiative </a>(BRI) is not likely to work with Nepal due to a number of economic, infrastructural and environmental concerns, according to Amsterdam-based European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS), which has closely studied the ground situation.</p>

<p>In May 2017, Beijing signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Belt and Road Initiative with Kathmandu for the purposes of opening new connectivity routes through building roads, railways, ports and aviation, alongside further investments in communication technologies, hydropower and energy projects, finance and tourism.</p>

<p>At the heart of the deal lies the infrastructural endeavour of building a railway line through the rugged Himalayan Mountains, which will eventually link the Chinese-controlled region of Tibet with Kathmandu.</p>

<p>"On one side, the question arises whether the envisioned transit project is technically feasible considering the complex geological terrain and arduous engineering work " said a statement by the Nepalese Department of Railways, according to which around 98.5% of the railway line will be bridges and tunnels, and on the other - whether the project, which could cost up to $7-8 billion, is financially attainable in light of Beijing`s legacy of building up debt in countries which go for the BRI ", said a research by the Amsterdam-based European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS).&nbsp;</p>

<p>EFSAS research analyst, Yoana Barakova said: "Since financial arrangements have not been yet officially made it still remains to be seen whether Nepal will contemplate on the faith of its South Asian neighbours like Pakistan and Sri Lanka, which have fallen prey to Chinese irredeemable debts, or will it decide to follow the same doomed path".</p>

<p>Options available on the Shigatse-Kathmandu railway are only through the ecologically fragile terrain. Given the distances and terrain involved, substantial funding running into billions of dollars would be required for BRI connectivity plans.</p>

<p>Nepal`s government has acknowledged that huge resources would be needed for construction of railways and highways to establish Nepal-India-China trade connectivity.</p>

<p>Billions of dollars would be required for China-Nepal connectivity plans specifically for the Shigatse-Kathmandu Rail Link and Nepal Government does not have these funds.</p>

<p>The senior European expert added: "China does not give financial grants for the BRI venture but loans at high-interest rates which Nepal cannot afford. So, in that sense, the plan is a non-starter".</p>

<p>Even assuming that there is a connectivity corridor in place, there is no guarantee of access to the Indian market for Chinese products through Nepal.</p>

<p>A contrast between free border movement between India and Nepal with the restricted movement between Nepal and Tibet shows that Nepal can never hope for the same degree of openness that it enjoys with India and that in sense the BRI remains non-viable for Kathmandu, said the European think tank.</p>

<p>Furthermore, China committed several development projects in Nepal including upgradation of Gautam Buddha Airport Project at Bahiragawa; Tribhuvan International Airport; Construction of Dhalkebar Substation and Chameliya Hydropower Project in Darchula, but due to delay in implementation, there are concerns that China is not living up to its commitments.</p>


China`s ambitious Belt and Road initiative (BRI) is not likely to work with Nepal due to a number of economic, infrastructural and environmental concerns, according to Amsterdam-based European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS), which has closely studied the ground situation.

China`s ambitious Belt and Road initiative (BRI) is not likely to work with Nepal due to a number of economic, infrastructural and environmental concerns, according to Amsterdam-based European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS), which has closely studied the ground situation. In May 2017, Beijing signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Belt and Road Initiative with Kathmandu for the purposes of opening new connectivity routes through building roads, railways, ports and aviation, alongside further investments in communication technologies, hydropower and energy projects, finance and tourism. At the heart of the deal lies the infrastructural endeavour of building a railway line through the rugged Himalayan Mountains, which will eventually link the Chinese-controlled region of Tibet with Kathmandu. "On one side, the question arises whether the envisioned transit project is technically feasible considering the complex geological terrain and arduous engineering work " said a statement by the Nepalese Department of Railways, according to which around 98.5% of the railway line will be bridges and tunnels, and on the other - whether the project, which could cost up to $7-8 billion, is financially attainable in light of Beijing`s legacy of building up debt in countries which go for the BRI ", said a research by the Amsterdam-based European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS). EFSAS research analyst, Yoana Barakova said: "Since financial arrangements have not been yet officially made it still remains to be seen whether Nepal will contemplate on the faith of its South Asian neighbours like Pakistan and Sri Lanka, which have fallen prey to Chinese irredeemable debts, or will it decide to follow the same doomed path". Options available on the Shigatse-Kathmandu railway are only through the ecologically fragile terrain. Given the distances and terrain involved, substantial funding running into billions of dollars would be required for BRI connectivity plans. Nepal`s government has acknowledged that huge resources would be needed for construction of railways and highways to establish Nepal-India-China trade connectivity. Billions of dollars would be required for China-Nepal connectivity plans specifically for the Shigatse-Kathmandu Rail Link and Nepal Government does not have these funds. The senior European expert added: "China does not give financial grants for the BRI venture but loans at high-interest rates which Nepal cannot afford. So, in that sense, the plan is a non-starter". Even assuming that there is a connectivity corridor in place, there is no guarantee of access to the Indian market for Chinese products through Nepal. A contrast between free border movement between India and Nepal with the restricted movement between Nepal and Tibet shows that Nepal can never hope for the same degree of openness that it enjoys with India and that in sense the BRI remains non-viable for Kathmandu, said the European think tank. Furthermore, China committed several development projects in Nepal including upgradation of Gautam Buddha Airport Project at Bahiragawa; Tribhuvan International Airport; Construction of Dhalkebar Substation and Chameliya Hydropower Project in Darchula, but due to delay in implementation, there are concerns that China is not living up to its commitments.

China's Belt and Road outreach to Nepal won't work, says leading European think tank

<p>In December 2016, China and Bangladesh entered into agreements to expand their relationship under the grandiose Chinese geopolitical economic corridor the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-urges-italy-against-chinas-obor-initiative-202369">OBOR</a> (One Belt One Road) program also called the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) which aims to connect Asian nations through Chinese sponsored infrastructure projects, billed by China watchers as a 21st century `Silk Road`.One of the projects that China took particular interest in Bangladesh was the expansion and development of the Payra deep-sea port in Bangladesh. Two Chinese firms China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) and China State Construction Engineering (CSCEC) inked deals worth $600 Million for developing the port`s main infrastructure and riparian aspects of the port which includes services for housing, healthcare education etc. Officials in Dhaka that spoke to ANI revealed that this ramped up investment strategy by China was a smokescreen to obfuscate their real intentions, which was to establish sovereign control over a crucial Bangladeshi port.</p>

<p>A similar strategy was employed by China in Sri Lanka during the development of the<a href="https://www.lankanewspapers.com/2017/08/09/everything-to-know-about-the-hambantota-port-lease/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIq6aohOKz4QIVizgrCh3ZpgyoEAAYASAAEgIbevD_BwE"> Hambantota port</a>. Under the aegis of the `OBOR` program, China extended billions of dollars of credit to Former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa`s government to undertake infrastructure development projects, among which the development of the strategic Hambantota port received top priority. However, the debt burden on Sri Lanka continued to balloon and since these so-called `soft loans` had to be repaid, Sri Lanka ceased sovereign control of the port to China in December 2017 under a 99-year lease.</p>

<p>In Dhaka, this modus operandi of China has not been forgotten and officials are wary that with the two Chinese state-sponsored companies, CHEC and CSCEC, getting a foot in the door it will not be a long time before China starts asserting more control over the Payra port. China`s control of the Hambantota port was preceded by its de facto control of the port of Gwadar in Pakistan. Billed as a " Port-Park-City", Gwadar port has been heralded as one of the successes of the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/opinion-why-china-and-not-pakistan-stands-to-gain-from-china-pakistan-economic-corridor-29219"> CPEC</a> (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) project which comes under China`s BRI geopolitical project. Similar operating procedures of "debt trap diplomacy" by extending Billions of Dollars in soft loans, setting up Chinese enclaves in a Pakistani city and Chinese private security firms operating in a grey legal area have ensured that Gwadar`s real masters sit in Beijing not Islamabad. Payra shipping port is a crucial strategic port for Bangladesh situated in Patuakhali on the banks of the Bay of Bengal.</p>

<p>Chinese interests in this port represent a natural geopolitical progression to complete a `necklace` of Chinese maritime influence which extends to Gwadar port in Pakistan, giving access to the Arabian Sea, Hambantota in Sri Lanka opening up the Indian Ocean for Chinese access and possibly a Bay of Bengal deep-sea port in Payra.On April 27th, member countries of the Belt and Road forum will meet in Beijing to take stock of the projects undertaken under this program. ANI saw the note that the member countries have received prior to this multilateral meet. One point reads, " We strive to contribute to the industrialization of developing countries, improvement of people`s lives and their integration into the global value chain."In reality, those nations that have been at the receiving end of China`s conditional largesse attest to interference in the social fabric of their population.</p>

<p>It has widely been reported that China has indirectly interfered in election campaigns of Maldives, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Pakistan among other nations where BRI projects are ongoing. Large scale deployment of Chinese workers in Myanmar`s Letpadaung Copper mine have resulted in violent clashes and political instability in the region. Officials in Dhaka warn that there are well-documented precedents wherein Chinese investments come with veiled riders, which are activated once the recipient state falters on its financial liabilities. The Payra port could be heading in that fatal direction.</p>


In December 2016, China and Bangladesh entered into agreements to expand their relationship under the grandiose Chinese geopolitical economic corridor the OBOR (One Belt One Road) program also called the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) which aims to connect Asian nations through Chinese sponsored infrastructure projects, billed by China watchers as a 21st century `Silk Road`.

In December 2016, China and Bangladesh entered into agreements to expand their relationship under the grandiose Chinese geopolitical economic corridor the OBOR (One Belt One Road) program also called the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) which aims to connect Asian nations through Chinese sponsored infrastructure projects, billed by China watchers as a 21st century `Silk Road`.One of the projects that China took particular interest in Bangladesh was the expansion and development of the Payra deep-sea port in Bangladesh. Two Chinese firms China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) and China State Construction Engineering (CSCEC) inked deals worth $600 Million for developing the port`s main infrastructure and riparian aspects of the port which includes services for housing, healthcare education etc. Officials in Dhaka that spoke to ANI revealed that this ramped up investment strategy by China was a smokescreen to obfuscate their real intentions, which was to establish sovereign control over a crucial Bangladeshi port. A similar strategy was employed by China in Sri Lanka during the development of the Hambantota port. Under the aegis of the `OBOR` program, China extended billions of dollars of credit to Former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa`s government to undertake infrastructure development projects, among which the development of the strategic Hambantota port received top priority. However, the debt burden on Sri Lanka continued to balloon and since these so-called `soft loans` had to be repaid, Sri Lanka ceased sovereign control of the port to China in December 2017 under a 99-year lease. In Dhaka, this modus operandi of China has not been forgotten and officials are wary that with the two Chinese state-sponsored companies, CHEC and CSCEC, getting a foot in the door it will not be a long time before China starts asserting more control over the Payra port. China`s control of the Hambantota port was preceded by its de facto control of the port of Gwadar in Pakistan. Billed as a " Port-Park-City", Gwadar port has been heralded as one of the successes of the CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) project which comes under China`s BRI geopolitical project. Similar operating procedures of "debt trap diplomacy" by extending Billions of Dollars in soft loans, setting up Chinese enclaves in a Pakistani city and Chinese private security firms operating in a grey legal area have ensured that Gwadar`s real masters sit in Beijing not Islamabad. Payra shipping port is a crucial strategic port for Bangladesh situated in Patuakhali on the banks of the Bay of Bengal. Chinese interests in this port represent a natural geopolitical progression to complete a `necklace` of Chinese maritime influence which extends to Gwadar port in Pakistan, giving access to the Arabian Sea, Hambantota in Sri Lanka opening up the Indian Ocean for Chinese access and possibly a Bay of Bengal deep-sea port in Payra.On April 27th, member countries of the Belt and Road forum will meet in Beijing to take stock of the projects undertaken under this program. ANI saw the note that the member countries have received prior to this multilateral meet. One point reads, " We strive to contribute to the industrialization of developing countries, improvement of people`s lives and their integration into the global value chain."In reality, those nations that have been at the receiving end of China`s conditional largesse attest to interference in the social fabric of their population. It has widely been reported that China has indirectly interfered in election campaigns of Maldives, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Pakistan among other nations where BRI projects are ongoing. Large scale deployment of Chinese workers in Myanmar`s Letpadaung Copper mine have resulted in violent clashes and political instability in the region. Officials in Dhaka warn that there are well-documented precedents wherein Chinese investments come with veiled riders, which are activated once the recipient state falters on its financial liabilities. The Payra port could be heading in that fatal direction.

Bangladesh's Payra shipping port could fall into Chinese hands

<p><strong>By Winnie King</strong></p>

<p>Italy is projected to be the first G7 nation to officially endorse China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). And that’s raising the ire of both the European Union and the United States.</p>

<p>Having re-entered a recession at the end of 2018, the eurozone’s third largest economy is welcoming China’s President Xi Jinping for a three-day state visit. While there, Italy is expected to sign a memorandum of understanding – making it the 124th nation to sign up for this geographically expansive infrastructure and investment strategy.</p>

<p>Proposed in 2013, China’s BRI is a transcontinental project that focuses on infrastructure investment and projects that promote regional cooperation, development and connectivity. It offers participants a means to secure their trade, energy and transport network. China presents it as a win-win relationship aimed at mutual growth. But there are suspicions regarding China’s motivations – it’s seen as a way for China to embed its global influence – and it could make participants dependent on China. Today the BRI is linked to two-thirds of the world’s population, and has to-date seen an investment of more than $1 trillion.</p>

<p><strong>The Italian job</strong></p>

<p>While the current Italian government has not been fully unified toward China, a severe economic downturn has made the world’s second-largest economy look more appealing to it. Alberto Bradanini, Italy’s former ambassador to China, has stressed that Europe’s own indecision and inability to tackle trade deficits with China (of which Italy contributed approximately €176m, or an eighth of the EU’s total trade deficit) is a key motivator behind this decision.</p>

<p>Italy wants to enhance its “Made in Italy” brand through increasing trade – especially in the form of exports – to China. The BRI is seen as a vehicle to achieve this. Italy offers goods (in particular luxury goods and foodstuffs) that are attractive to China’s growing middle class and increasingly affluent population.</p>

<p>China is also interested in investing in Italian firms. More significant, however, are Italy’s key infrastructure assets. This would enhance the transport and trading network of the BRI, giving it strategic access to Europe. Less than 2 per cent of Italy’s sea imports come from China so there are substantial prospects for growth in that area.</p>

<p>A deal between Genoa’s port authority and shipping firm China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) has already been approved by the Italian government. And the port city of Trieste hopes for something similar. This would offer China and the BRI a more direct route to move goods onto the European continent and an ideal hub for accessing new rail lines and transport networks to Germany, Austria, Slovenia and other regional economies. By giving China access to its ports, Italy is hoping for infrastructure investment from China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) – something the Italian government is trying to link to its role in the BRI.</p>

<p>With the port city of Palermo due to be part of Xi’s itinerary, it is clear that China is focused on European shipping terminal options. Following Algeria’s joining of the BRI in mid-2018, Palermo could help establish a new North African trade corridor.</p>

<p><strong>Disunity and discontent</strong><br />
<br />
The international response to Italy’s decision has been, at best, mixed. Germany and France have led the charge, raising concerns of China’s poor reputation regarding transparency, unfair BRI practices of favouring Chinese firms, as well as Chinese protectionism restricting European firms from Chinese projects.</p>

<p>The EU is clearly particularly concerned about what Italy’s decision means for the bloc’s China Policy. It is important to note, however, that when it comes to the BRI, Europe’s unified China’s Policy fell as early as 2017. It was then that Premier Li Keqiang’s visited Hungary and the coalition of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC), also including Poland and the Czech Republic, signed up to the BRI. Greece, Portugal and Croatia then followed suit.</p>

<p>The US has also derided Italy’s decision to break the G7 position on the BRI. The Trump government has labelled the BRI as a vehicle for debt trap diplomacy and accused the BRI of being nothing but a vanity project.</p>

<p>The growing tensions between China and the US do not help matters. The two sides are locked in a trade war and US charges of espionage against Chinese tech firm Huawei encapsulate its fears over Chinese investment in strategic industries and acquisitions. But traditional alliances seem to have fallen to the wayside, as Telecom Italia has agreed to remain partnered with Huawei.</p>

<p>The full impact of Xi’s visit to Italy will become more clear come April 9 when Brussels is scheduled to host an EU-China summit. In the build-up,&nbsp;however, the EU’s increasingly China-sceptic leadership has published an official strategy document labelling China a “systemic rival”. Targeting the BRI specifically, it calls upon member states to work together to pressure the Chinese for more accountability and greater transparency in the area of infrastructure and investment projects. Furthermore, on March 18th the EU tabled a proposal calling upon all member states to ban Chinese firms from bidding on public procurement projects.</p>

<p>Italy’s status as a G7 country is a coup for the Chinese leadership and the legitimacy of the BRI. While the prospect of Italy’s participation underscores growing fault lines in the EU’s joint approach to China, China has also been effective at dividing and conquering EU member states by targeting them individually.</p>

<p>So Italy’s decision to join the BRI is significant. But four years ago we saw Italy, France and Germany join China’s AIIB, contrary to US wishes. Therefore, Italy is neither the first, nor will it be the last European economy that will “go rogue” and follow its own national interest with regard to China.</p>

<p><br />
<em>(Winnie King is Teaching Fellow East Asian and International Political Economy, University of Bristol)</em></p>

<p><em>(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/italy-joins-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-heres-how-it-exposes-cracks-in-europe-and-the-g7-114039">original article</a>)</em></p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)</em></p>

<p><br />
&nbsp;</p>


By Winnie King Italy is projected to be the first G7 nation to officially endorse China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). And that’s raising the ire of both the European Union and the United States.

By Winnie King Italy is projected to be the first G7 nation to officially endorse China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). And that’s raising the ire of both the European Union and the United States. Having re-entered a recession at the end of 2018, the eurozone’s third largest economy is welcoming China’s President Xi Jinping for a three-day state visit. While there, Italy is expected to sign a memorandum of understanding – making it the 124th nation to sign up for this geographically expansive infrastructure and investment strategy. Proposed in 2013, China’s BRI is a transcontinental project that focuses on infrastructure investment and projects that promote regional cooperation, development and connectivity. It offers participants a means to secure their trade, energy and transport network. China presents it as a win-win relationship aimed at mutual growth. But there are suspicions regarding China’s motivations – it’s seen as a way for China to embed its global influence – and it could make participants dependent on China. Today the BRI is linked to two-thirds of the world’s population, and has to-date seen an investment of more than $1 trillion. The Italian job While the current Italian government has not been fully unified toward China, a severe economic downturn has made the world’s second-largest economy look more appealing to it. Alberto Bradanini, Italy’s former ambassador to China, has stressed that Europe’s own indecision and inability to tackle trade deficits with China (of which Italy contributed approximately €176m, or an eighth of the EU’s total trade deficit) is a key motivator behind this decision. Italy wants to enhance its “Made in Italy” brand through increasing trade – especially in the form of exports – to China. The BRI is seen as a vehicle to achieve this. Italy offers goods (in particular luxury goods and foodstuffs) that are attractive to China’s growing middle class and increasingly affluent population. China is also interested in investing in Italian firms. More significant, however, are Italy’s key infrastructure assets. This would enhance the transport and trading network of the BRI, giving it strategic access to Europe. Less than 2 per cent of Italy’s sea imports come from China so there are substantial prospects for growth in that area. A deal between Genoa’s port authority and shipping firm China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) has already been approved by the Italian government. And the port city of Trieste hopes for something similar. This would offer China and the BRI a more direct route to move goods onto the European continent and an ideal hub for accessing new rail lines and transport networks to Germany, Austria, Slovenia and other regional economies. By giving China access to its ports, Italy is hoping for infrastructure investment from China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) – something the Italian government is trying to link to its role in the BRI. With the port city of Palermo due to be part of Xi’s itinerary, it is clear that China is focused on European shipping terminal options. Following Algeria’s joining of the BRI in mid-2018, Palermo could help establish a new North African trade corridor. Disunity and discontent The international response to Italy’s decision has been, at best, mixed. Germany and France have led the charge, raising concerns of China’s poor reputation regarding transparency, unfair BRI practices of favouring Chinese firms, as well as Chinese protectionism restricting European firms from Chinese projects. The EU is clearly particularly concerned about what Italy’s decision means for the bloc’s China Policy. It is important to note, however, that when it comes to the BRI, Europe’s unified China’s Policy fell as early as 2017. It was then that Premier Li Keqiang’s visited Hungary and the coalition of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC), also including Poland and the Czech Republic, signed up to the BRI. Greece, Portugal and Croatia then followed suit. The US has also derided Italy’s decision to break the G7 position on the BRI. The Trump government has labelled the BRI as a vehicle for debt trap diplomacy and accused the BRI of being nothing but a vanity project. The growing tensions between China and the US do not help matters. The two sides are locked in a trade war and US charges of espionage against Chinese tech firm Huawei encapsulate its fears over Chinese investment in strategic industries and acquisitions. But traditional alliances seem to have fallen to the wayside, as Telecom Italia has agreed to remain partnered with Huawei. The full impact of Xi’s visit to Italy will become more clear come April 9 when Brussels is scheduled to host an EU-China summit. In the build-up, however, the EU’s increasingly China-sceptic leadership has published an official strategy document labelling China a “systemic rival”. Targeting the BRI specifically, it calls upon member states to work together to pressure the Chinese for more accountability and greater transparency in the area of infrastructure and investment projects. Furthermore, on March 18th the EU tabled a proposal calling upon all member states to ban Chinese firms from bidding on public procurement projects. Italy’s status as a G7 country is a coup for the Chinese leadership and the legitimacy of the BRI. While the prospect of Italy’s participation underscores growing fault lines in the EU’s joint approach to China, China has also been effective at dividing and conquering EU member states by targeting them individually. So Italy’s decision to join the BRI is significant. But four years ago we saw Italy, France and Germany join China’s AIIB, contrary to US wishes. Therefore, Italy is neither the first, nor will it be the last European economy that will “go rogue” and follow its own national interest with regard to China. (Winnie King is Teaching Fellow East Asian and International Political Economy, University of Bristol) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Italy joins China’s Belt and Road Initiative – here’s how it exposes cracks in Europe and the G7

<p>Former Pakistani diplomat Husain Haqqani has had a successful&nbsp;career serving as Pakistan's ambassador to&nbsp;the US during President Bush's administration. In his early years, he served both Nawaz Sharif and former PM Benazir Bhutto during the tumultuous period in the late 80s and early 90s.</p>

<p>Now an expert on South Asian affairs, he is also a prolific writer, part-time journalist and academic. Haqqani is currently in India. He spoke exclusively to WION on India-Pakistan relations, the Kartarpur corridor, China's Belt and Road Initiative with Pak and Imran Khan's 'Naya Pakistan'.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> How do you view the current relations between India and Pakistan?</p>

<p><strong>Husain Haqqani: </strong>India and Pakistan relations are at a stalemate. India wants&nbsp;terrorism to be resolved, it also wants justice for the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Pakistan, on the other hand, wants to normalise relations without addressing any of these concerns.</p>

<p>Pakistan's definition of normalisation is not the same as India's definition of normalisation of relations. Ideally, India and Pakistan should have the kind of relations which the United States and Canada have, also like Franco-German relations.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> Then what kind of template do you see for India-Pakistan relations?</p>

<p><strong>Husain Haqqani: </strong>India and Pakistan are neighbours and they will always be neighbours, until 1947, India and Pakistan had the same currency, the same communications network, the same railway network. It was the most integrated region in the world, now it is the least integrated.</p>

<p>The template for India and Pakistan should be in which we are two countries and we respect each other's sovereignty but we have open borders and a large amount of trade with each other and lot of travel basically not looking upon each other as enemies.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> On the question of terrorism, how can the stalemate be broken?</p>

<p><strong>Husain Haqqani:</strong> Pakistan is hoping the terrorism issue will just fall by the wayside, everyone will forget about it and new things will start coming. India, of course, does not accept it. India wants those who were involved in the Mumbai attacks either punished or identified and there is some kind of acknowledgement that terrorism in India was supported by the Pakistan state and at least tolerated by the Pakistan state.</p>

<p>People like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar whose involvement in terrorism has been acknowledged by the international community should not be allowed to roam freely in Pakistan.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> How do you view the Kartarpur corridor and its impact on India-Pak relations?</p>

<p><strong>Husain Haqqani:</strong> All openings in the relations between India and Pakistan must be welcomed but the Kartarpur corridor is simply a very limited effort to facilitate the movement of pilgrims from Indian Punjab to Pakistani Punjab, it does not address any of the major issues between India and Pakistan.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> What do you make of trade relations between China and Pakistan and Belt and Road Initiative(BRI). Where do you think it is headed?</p>

<p><strong>Husain Haqqani:</strong> BRI for Pakistan could have worked if it had also involved other countries in the region, though it has been talked about but it is not the case. The road initiative is now creating a corridor in which Pakistan is becoming more dependent on China than ever.</p>

<p>A huge amount of Chinese investment and lending will create a debt trap for Pakistan including several parts of like Baluchistan, Sindh, Gilgit-Baltistan. These are terrorities where people feel resentful since they feel Chinese investment will not provide any jobs to the locals and it will only facilitate the Pakistani state and China but nothing for the people.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> What are your thoughts on 100 days of PM Imran Khan's tenure?</p>

<p><strong>Husain Haqqani:</strong> Imran Khan's government has been the most disappointing in recent Pakistani history. It is a civilian government which is more dependent on Pakistan military, the mantra in Pakistan is that the military and civilian government are on the same page but in reality&nbsp;the civilian government has accepted subservience to the military.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The government has not been able to address the economic issues and all we have is Imran Khan's status as a cricket celebrity that is supposed to make the people of Pakistan feel good. There are too many fronts which have been&nbsp;opened, Pakistan's isolation has not been broken and Pakistan's economy has not been fixed, all that has been done is more borrowing and more begging from other nations.</p>

<p><strong>WION:</strong> And what about '<em>Naya</em>(new) Pakistan' then?</p>

<p><strong>Husain Haqqani:</strong> Naya Pakistan is nothing but<em> </em><em>purana</em>(old) Pakistan led by a cricket celebrity who claims to bring a clean government but there&nbsp;are questions being asked now about how clean that government really is!</p>

<p>The real <em>naya</em> Pakistan would be at peace with itself and with its neighbours, also which respects the Sindhis, the Baloch, the Muhajirs, the residents of Gilgit-Baltistan. It would be a country where there are opportunities within and it does not completely depend either on the US or China and lives within its own resources and is not heavily militarised.</p>


Former Pakistani diplomat Husain Haqqani has had a successful career serving as Pakistan's ambassador to the US during President Bush's administration. In his early years, he served both Nawaz Sharif and former PM Benazir Bhutto during the tumultuous period in the late 80s and early 90s.

Former Pakistani diplomat Husain Haqqani has had a successful career serving as Pakistan's ambassador to the US during President Bush's administration. In his early years, he served both Nawaz Sharif and former PM Benazir Bhutto during the tumultuous period in the late 80s and early 90s. Now an expert on South Asian affairs, he is also a prolific writer, part-time journalist and academic. Haqqani is currently in India. He spoke exclusively to WION on India-Pakistan relations, the Kartarpur corridor, China's Belt and Road Initiative with Pak and Imran Khan's 'Naya Pakistan'. WION: How do you view the current relations between India and Pakistan? Husain Haqqani: India and Pakistan relations are at a stalemate. India wants terrorism to be resolved, it also wants justice for the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Pakistan, on the other hand, wants to normalise relations without addressing any of these concerns. Pakistan's definition of normalisation is not the same as India's definition of normalisation of relations. Ideally, India and Pakistan should have the kind of relations which the United States and Canada have, also like Franco-German relations. WION: Then what kind of template do you see for India-Pakistan relations? Husain Haqqani: India and Pakistan are neighbours and they will always be neighbours, until 1947, India and Pakistan had the same currency, the same communications network, the same railway network. It was the most integrated region in the world, now it is the least integrated. The template for India and Pakistan should be in which we are two countries and we respect each other's sovereignty but we have open borders and a large amount of trade with each other and lot of travel basically not looking upon each other as enemies. WION: On the question of terrorism, how can the stalemate be broken? Husain Haqqani: Pakistan is hoping the terrorism issue will just fall by the wayside, everyone will forget about it and new things will start coming. India, of course, does not accept it. India wants those who were involved in the Mumbai attacks either punished or identified and there is some kind of acknowledgement that terrorism in India was supported by the Pakistan state and at least tolerated by the Pakistan state. People like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar whose involvement in terrorism has been acknowledged by the international community should not be allowed to roam freely in Pakistan. WION: How do you view the Kartarpur corridor and its impact on India-Pak relations? Husain Haqqani: All openings in the relations between India and Pakistan must be welcomed but the Kartarpur corridor is simply a very limited effort to facilitate the movement of pilgrims from Indian Punjab to Pakistani Punjab, it does not address any of the major issues between India and Pakistan. WION: What do you make of trade relations between China and Pakistan and Belt and Road Initiative(BRI). Where do you think it is headed? Husain Haqqani: BRI for Pakistan could have worked if it had also involved other countries in the region, though it has been talked about but it is not the case. The road initiative is now creating a corridor in which Pakistan is becoming more dependent on China than ever. A huge amount of Chinese investment and lending will create a debt trap for Pakistan including several parts of like Baluchistan, Sindh, Gilgit-Baltistan. These are terrorities where people feel resentful since they feel Chinese investment will not provide any jobs to the locals and it will only facilitate the Pakistani state and China but nothing for the people. WION: What are your thoughts on 100 days of PM Imran Khan's tenure? Husain Haqqani: Imran Khan's government has been the most disappointing in recent Pakistani history. It is a civilian government which is more dependent on Pakistan military, the mantra in Pakistan is that the military and civilian government are on the same page but in reality the civilian government has accepted subservience to the military. The government has not been able to address the economic issues and all we have is Imran Khan's status as a cricket celebrity that is supposed to make the people of Pakistan feel good. There are too many fronts which have been opened, Pakistan's isolation has not been broken and Pakistan's economy has not been fixed, all that has been done is more borrowing and more begging from other nations. WION: And what about 'Naya(new) Pakistan' then? Husain Haqqani: Naya Pakistan is nothing but purana(old) Pakistan led by a cricket celebrity who claims to bring a clean government but there are questions being asked now about how clean that government really is! The real naya Pakistan would be at peace with itself and with its neighbours, also which respects the Sindhis, the Baloch, the Muhajirs, the residents of Gilgit-Baltistan. It would be a country where there are opportunities within and it does not completely depend either on the US or China and lives within its own resources and is not heavily militarised.

Imran Khan government most disappointing in Pakistan's recent history: Ex-diplomat Husain Haqqani to WION

<p>Contrary to conventional notions of a harmonious diplomatic relationship, there is a sharp difference in the way Nepal and India view each other. Following Independence, India emulated Britain’s approach in having a treaty-based relationship with Nepal, which led to Nepal’s grudging acceptance of India’s dominion.&nbsp;</p>

<p>To be sure, China’s engagement in Nepal is not new. More importantly—and contrary to how it is portrayed in Nepal—it is not entirely positive. However, the engagement is crucial, since China’s newfound economic power is as yet unmatched.</p>

<p>This challenges India’s privileged position in Nepal. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has taken various initiatives and has indicated that he intends to address Nepal’s concerns regarding India.</p>

<p>Nepal’s eagerness to engage with China has been of interest to observers and largely misinterpreted as Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli’s strategy to acquire more from India.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, the current approach fits perfectly in Nepal’s long tradition of pursuing a diversified foreign policy and partners, taking advantage of its key geostrategic position. Oli’s government aims to keep Nepal’s relationship with China independent of the one it shares with India. The question to ask is whether Nepal will be able to achieve this, given India’s discomfort with the increasing Chinese proximity.</p>

<p>New Delhi was for long perceived in Kathmandu as “hawkish” in dealing with sensitive matters.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The most notable instances of this include different river treaties, reluctance to respond to regular border-encroachment complaints, high-structure build-up along the border, inundation complaints, trade and transit crises and embargoes.</p>

<p>There are historical reasons that explain the dynamics of the Indo-Nepal bilateral relationship. To maintain a sphere of influence, India needs sufficient soft power, as well as hard power, along with the confidence to act.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Indeed, the nature of India-Nepal relations has always been a mixed bag. Due to its provisions and protocols, the 1950 treaty quickly became controversial and set the conflictive tone of the bilateral relationship. The provisions of the 1950 Indo-Nepal Peace and Friendship Treaty constrained Nepal as an ally and a state under India’s security umbrella.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Given the asymmetrical size of the two countries, and Nepal’s reservations towards India due to the treaty-based unequal treatment, the open border has always been a crucial area of contention, except for communities and business groups that benefit from it directly.</p>

<p>Nepal’s largest trading partner is India (the total trade accounting for 65 per cent), with whom Nepal runs the largest trade deficit. There was an improvement following the amendment of the trade commerce treaty with India in 1996, as exports increased and the deficit dropped.&nbsp;</p>

<p>While, on paper, Nepal remains an ally of India, it has constitutionally asserted that its foreign policy is “based on the Charter of the United Nations, non-alignment, principles of Panchsheel (and) international law.”</p>

<p>Despite Oli’s “ultranationalist” election rhetoric, he has responded positively to Modi’s and Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj’s overtures. Modi and Oli have established a relationship of trust, negotiating some important agreements during their visits. The agreement on the controversial Arun III hydel project, and their cooperation in revitalising the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation or BIMSTEC, are some of these indicators.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The recent joint communiqués between India and Nepal seem to have all the right words and tone for a constructive move forward in their bilateral relations. Immediately after the successive visits of Modi and Oli to Nepal, there has been unprecedented progress in several areas.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Regarding China’s inroads into Nepal, an option for India would be to defend the status quo by attempting to block Nepal’s options to diversify its cooperation with neighbours, through projects such as the infrastructure development by Chinese investment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>India must introduce new economic, developmental and infrastructure initiatives with Nepal that will not only bring tangible benefits to Nepali citizens, but also address the vulnerabilities that will emerge in Nepal as the country engages with China.&nbsp;</p>

<p>As things are, Nepal cannot dispense with its reliance on India. India is and will remain vital for the country in many ways. However, Nepal is now a member of China’s massive BRI, which puts India in a difficult position.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Disregarding India’s traditional muscular diplomacy, PM Modi seems to have been following this line of cooperative diplomacy. The results are evident: the rapport between Modi and Oli, and Nepal’s increasing cooperation in Modi’s initiatives, which would have been impossible just a year ago.<br />
<br />
<em>(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-pm-modi-has-changed-tack-cooperated-closely-with-nepal-2687307">original article</a>)</em></p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</em></p>


Contrary to conventional notions of a harmonious diplomatic relationship, there is a sharp difference in the way Nepal and India view each other. Following Independence, India emulated Britain’s approach in having a treaty-based relationship with Nepal, which led to Nepal’s grudging acceptance of India’s dominion.

Contrary to conventional notions of a harmonious diplomatic relationship, there is a sharp difference in the way Nepal and India view each other. Following Independence, India emulated Britain’s approach in having a treaty-based relationship with Nepal, which led to Nepal’s grudging acceptance of India’s dominion. To be sure, China’s engagement in Nepal is not new. More importantly—and contrary to how it is portrayed in Nepal—it is not entirely positive. However, the engagement is crucial, since China’s newfound economic power is as yet unmatched. This challenges India’s privileged position in Nepal. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has taken various initiatives and has indicated that he intends to address Nepal’s concerns regarding India. Nepal’s eagerness to engage with China has been of interest to observers and largely misinterpreted as Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli’s strategy to acquire more from India. However, the current approach fits perfectly in Nepal’s long tradition of pursuing a diversified foreign policy and partners, taking advantage of its key geostrategic position. Oli’s government aims to keep Nepal’s relationship with China independent of the one it shares with India. The question to ask is whether Nepal will be able to achieve this, given India’s discomfort with the increasing Chinese proximity. New Delhi was for long perceived in Kathmandu as “hawkish” in dealing with sensitive matters. The most notable instances of this include different river treaties, reluctance to respond to regular border-encroachment complaints, high-structure build-up along the border, inundation complaints, trade and transit crises and embargoes. There are historical reasons that explain the dynamics of the Indo-Nepal bilateral relationship. To maintain a sphere of influence, India needs sufficient soft power, as well as hard power, along with the confidence to act. Indeed, the nature of India-Nepal relations has always been a mixed bag. Due to its provisions and protocols, the 1950 treaty quickly became controversial and set the conflictive tone of the bilateral relationship. The provisions of the 1950 Indo-Nepal Peace and Friendship Treaty constrained Nepal as an ally and a state under India’s security umbrella. Given the asymmetrical size of the two countries, and Nepal’s reservations towards India due to the treaty-based unequal treatment, the open border has always been a crucial area of contention, except for communities and business groups that benefit from it directly. Nepal’s largest trading partner is India (the total trade accounting for 65 per cent), with whom Nepal runs the largest trade deficit. There was an improvement following the amendment of the trade commerce treaty with India in 1996, as exports increased and the deficit dropped. While, on paper, Nepal remains an ally of India, it has constitutionally asserted that its foreign policy is “based on the Charter of the United Nations, non-alignment, principles of Panchsheel (and) international law.” Despite Oli’s “ultranationalist” election rhetoric, he has responded positively to Modi’s and Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj’s overtures. Modi and Oli have established a relationship of trust, negotiating some important agreements during their visits. The agreement on the controversial Arun III hydel project, and their cooperation in revitalising the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation or BIMSTEC, are some of these indicators. The recent joint communiqués between India and Nepal seem to have all the right words and tone for a constructive move forward in their bilateral relations. Immediately after the successive visits of Modi and Oli to Nepal, there has been unprecedented progress in several areas. Regarding China’s inroads into Nepal, an option for India would be to defend the status quo by attempting to block Nepal’s options to diversify its cooperation with neighbours, through projects such as the infrastructure development by Chinese investment. India must introduce new economic, developmental and infrastructure initiatives with Nepal that will not only bring tangible benefits to Nepali citizens, but also address the vulnerabilities that will emerge in Nepal as the country engages with China. As things are, Nepal cannot dispense with its reliance on India. India is and will remain vital for the country in many ways. However, Nepal is now a member of China’s massive BRI, which puts India in a difficult position. Disregarding India’s traditional muscular diplomacy, PM Modi seems to have been following this line of cooperative diplomacy. The results are evident: the rapport between Modi and Oli, and Nepal’s increasing cooperation in Modi’s initiatives, which would have been impossible just a year ago. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

PM Modi has changed tack, cooperated closely with Nepal

<p>Interpol, the France-based global police agency, is supposed to find missing or wanted people. Last week, to its embarrassment, it said it couldn’t locate its own president, Meng Hongwei, who was on a visit to China. Beijing finally revealed on October 7 that Meng had been detained on arrival. A former Chinese vice-minister, he is being investigated on charges of corruption and has resigned from Interpol.</p>

<p>The incident raises questions about the legitimacy of China’s rise as the world’s pre-eminent superpower, seizing that mantle from the United States. Three other developments could stall China’s rise. First, the trade war with the US which is going badly for Beijing. US Defence Secretary James Mattis’ official visit to China has been called off though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Beijing earlier this week to calm tempers. Washington has meanwhile imposed a second round of tariffs on Chinese exports valued at $200 billion. Since China buys only about a third of what it sells to the US, it has little economic leverage to fight back. The escalating trade war could shave a full percentage point off China’s GDP growth rate in 2018-19.</p>

<p>The second headwind facing China are growing concerns over the viability of its ambitious $500-billion Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Dubbed China’s ‘new Silk Route’, the BRI is President Xi Jinping’s brainchild. He has invested so much political capital in the BRI that any setback to it could spark domestic opposition to his tenure as president for life.</p>

<p>When Sri Lanka couldn’t repay high-interest Chinese debt for building infrastructure at the Hambantota port, China simply took it over on a 99-year lease. Malaysia was next. Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir on a visit to China defied protocol to publicly cancel or rework a slew of Chinese infrastructure projects in Malaysia worth $23 billion.</p>

<p>Pakistan soon followed. Over the past week, ministers in the Imran Khan government have complained about the high-cost debt of projects under the $60 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is a key component of the BRI. Islamabad directed its ire at China’s investment of $8.2 billion to upgrade a railway line from Karachi to Peshawar. Railways Minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad said the cost of the project is being cut to $6.2 billion and will later be reduced further to $4.2 billion — half its original value.</p>

<p>For a while, Pakistan’s new government toyed with the idea of inviting cash-rich Saudi Arabia as the third partner in CPEC. Annoyed, Beijing shot the proposal down. It wants the BRI and its cogs like the CPEC to be Chinese-funded, Chinese-owned and Chinese-run. The Pakistani government backed down and said Saudi Arabia would only be involved as a contractor for specific ancillary projects within the CPEC.</p>

<p>With Pakistan’s economy in a shambles, Islamabad is in a bind. It needs China’s funds but has realised that it is rapidly sinking into a debt trap. Other Asian countries are waking up to the threat as well. Myanmar has slashed the cost of its proposed China-funded Kyaukpyu port from $7.3 billion to $1.3 billion. Bangladesh too is downsizing — or cancelling — BRI projects.</p>

<p>In Europe, where Xi Jinping went on a charm offensive, Hungary and other EU countries are developing cold feet over the BRI’s inflated infrastructure costs and high-interest debt. In Africa too, where China is investing heavily, countries like Tanzania are cancelling or resizing BRI projects.</p>

<p>The third factor stalling China’s rise lies closer to home. With the Chinese economy cooling and GDP growth slowing, local infrastructure projects are running ahead of demand. As The Economist recently pointed out, “The infrastructure boom (in China) has lost steam this year. After expanding at a double digit pace for much of the past three decades, investment in it has slowed sharply. Since May, spending on projects ranging from railways to power plants has fallen compared with a year earlier, the longest weak patch on record.”</p>

<p>All this doesn’t mean the BRI is doomed. It will continue to be China’s most ambitious geo-economic initiative, linking the country to the world with a series of interlocking infrastructure projects. But this modern version of China’s historic Silk Route will shrink in size and scope as the complex geopolitical trade battles with the US play out.</p>

<p>India has long opposed the BRI because its CPEC component violates Indian sovereignty in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). India watched closely as Washington snubbed Beijing recently by selling arms to Taiwan worth over $330 million. A near-clash last week between a US destroyer and a Chinese warship just beyond the 12 nautical mile exclusion zone off the Spratly islands claimed by Beijing underscores Washington’s determination to not cede ground to China as hegemon of the South China Sea.</p>

<p>Beijing, meanwhile, continues to veto the designation by the United Nations of Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. It continues to block India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Both reveal Beijing’s mala fide intent. But with the global tide turning against it across multiple fronts, China has been pushed on to the back foot. Will that help change its behaviour? Unlikely.</p>

<p>The detention of Interpol’s ex-president Meng Hongwei shows that Beijing continues to behave as a law unto itself.</p>

<p><em>(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-silk-route-hits-roadblocks-2673949">original article</a>)</em></p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</em></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Interpol, the France-based global police agency, is supposed to find missing or wanted people. Last week, to its embarrassment, it said it couldn’t locate its own president, Meng Hongwei, who was on a visit to China.

Interpol, the France-based global police agency, is supposed to find missing or wanted people. Last week, to its embarrassment, it said it couldn’t locate its own president, Meng Hongwei, who was on a visit to China. Beijing finally revealed on October 7 that Meng had been detained on arrival. A former Chinese vice-minister, he is being investigated on charges of corruption and has resigned from Interpol. The incident raises questions about the legitimacy of China’s rise as the world’s pre-eminent superpower, seizing that mantle from the United States. Three other developments could stall China’s rise. First, the trade war with the US which is going badly for Beijing. US Defence Secretary James Mattis’ official visit to China has been called off though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Beijing earlier this week to calm tempers. Washington has meanwhile imposed a second round of tariffs on Chinese exports valued at $200 billion. Since China buys only about a third of what it sells to the US, it has little economic leverage to fight back. The escalating trade war could shave a full percentage point off China’s GDP growth rate in 2018-19. The second headwind facing China are growing concerns over the viability of its ambitious $500-billion Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Dubbed China’s ‘new Silk Route’, the BRI is President Xi Jinping’s brainchild. He has invested so much political capital in the BRI that any setback to it could spark domestic opposition to his tenure as president for life. When Sri Lanka couldn’t repay high-interest Chinese debt for building infrastructure at the Hambantota port, China simply took it over on a 99-year lease. Malaysia was next. Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir on a visit to China defied protocol to publicly cancel or rework a slew of Chinese infrastructure projects in Malaysia worth $23 billion. Pakistan soon followed. Over the past week, ministers in the Imran Khan government have complained about the high-cost debt of projects under the $60 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is a key component of the BRI. Islamabad directed its ire at China’s investment of $8.2 billion to upgrade a railway line from Karachi to Peshawar. Railways Minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad said the cost of the project is being cut to $6.2 billion and will later be reduced further to $4.2 billion — half its original value. For a while, Pakistan’s new government toyed with the idea of inviting cash-rich Saudi Arabia as the third partner in CPEC. Annoyed, Beijing shot the proposal down. It wants the BRI and its cogs like the CPEC to be Chinese-funded, Chinese-owned and Chinese-run. The Pakistani government backed down and said Saudi Arabia would only be involved as a contractor for specific ancillary projects within the CPEC. With Pakistan’s economy in a shambles, Islamabad is in a bind. It needs China’s funds but has realised that it is rapidly sinking into a debt trap. Other Asian countries are waking up to the threat as well. Myanmar has slashed the cost of its proposed China-funded Kyaukpyu port from $7.3 billion to $1.3 billion. Bangladesh too is downsizing — or cancelling — BRI projects. In Europe, where Xi Jinping went on a charm offensive, Hungary and other EU countries are developing cold feet over the BRI’s inflated infrastructure costs and high-interest debt. In Africa too, where China is investing heavily, countries like Tanzania are cancelling or resizing BRI projects. The third factor stalling China’s rise lies closer to home. With the Chinese economy cooling and GDP growth slowing, local infrastructure projects are running ahead of demand. As The Economist recently pointed out, “The infrastructure boom (in China) has lost steam this year. After expanding at a double digit pace for much of the past three decades, investment in it has slowed sharply. Since May, spending on projects ranging from railways to power plants has fallen compared with a year earlier, the longest weak patch on record.” All this doesn’t mean the BRI is doomed. It will continue to be China’s most ambitious geo-economic initiative, linking the country to the world with a series of interlocking infrastructure projects. But this modern version of China’s historic Silk Route will shrink in size and scope as the complex geopolitical trade battles with the US play out. India has long opposed the BRI because its CPEC component violates Indian sovereignty in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). India watched closely as Washington snubbed Beijing recently by selling arms to Taiwan worth over $330 million. A near-clash last week between a US destroyer and a Chinese warship just beyond the 12 nautical mile exclusion zone off the Spratly islands claimed by Beijing underscores Washington’s determination to not cede ground to China as hegemon of the South China Sea. Beijing, meanwhile, continues to veto the designation by the United Nations of Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. It continues to block India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Both reveal Beijing’s mala fide intent. But with the global tide turning against it across multiple fronts, China has been pushed on to the back foot. Will that help change its behaviour? Unlikely. The detention of Interpol’s ex-president Meng Hongwei shows that Beijing continues to behave as a law unto itself. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

China on back foot as Silk Route hits roadblocks

<p>Pakistan, following in the footsteps of Malaysia and Myanmar, is the latest country to balk at the China and infrastructure focus of Beijing’s Belt and Road-related investments.</p>

<p>Preparing for his first visit to China as Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan is insisting that the focus of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a $60 billion plus crown jewel of the Belt and Road, shift from infrastructure to agriculture, job creation and foreign investment.</p>

<p>“Earlier, the CPEC was only aimed at construction of motorways and highways, but now the prime &nbsp;minister decided that it will be used to support the agriculture sector, create more jobs and attract other foreign countries like Saudi Arabia to invest in the country,” said information minister Fawad Chaudhry.</p>

<p>Khan’s determination to ensure that more benefits accrue to Pakistan from Chinese investment comes at a time that various Asian and African countries worry that Belt and Road-related investments in infrastructure risk trapping them in debt and forcing them to surrender control of critical national infrastructure, and in some cases media assets.</p>

<p>Preceding Khan’s move, protests against the forced resettlement of eight Nepali villages persuaded CWE Investment Corporation, a subsidiary of China Three Gorges, to consider pulling out of a 750MW hydropower project.</p>

<p>Malaysia has suspended or cancelled $26 billion in Chinese-funded projects while Myanmar is negotiating a significant scaling back of a Chinese-funded port project on the Bay of Bengal from one that would cost $ 7.3 billion to a more modest development that would cost $1.3 billion in a bid to avoid shouldering an unsustainable debt.</p>

<p>Fears of a debt trap started late last year when unsustainable debt forced Sri Lanka to hand China an 80 per cent stake in Hambantota port.</p>

<p>Khan’s move takes on added significance given that Pakistan appears to have decided to ask the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help it avert a financial crisis with a loan of up to $12 billion and discussions with Saudi Arabia that could produce up to $10 billion in investments that would be separate but associated with CPEC.</p>

<p>Pakistani finance minister Asad Umar is expected later this week to initiate discussions with the IMF during the fund’s annual meeting in Bali. The decision was taken after Saudi Arabia refused to delay Pakistani payments for oil imports, opting instead to build a refinery and strategic oil reserve in the CPEC port of Gwadar.</p>

<p>Pakistani officials see investment by Saudi Arabia as one possible way of facilitating a Pakistani request to the IMF for help. They hope that even an informal association with CPEC of Saudi Arabia, one of the United States’ closest allies in the greater Middle East, may alleviate Washington’s concern that IMF money could be used to repay Chinese debt.</p>

<p>Yet, even that is unlikely to prevent the IMF, backed by the United States, from demanding that the veil of secrecy be lifted that shrouds the commercial and financial terms of many CPEC-related, Chinese-funded projects, as a pre-condition for assistance from the fund.</p>

<p>Apparently concerned about Pakistan’s intentions, China’s deputy chief of mission in Islamabad, Lijian Zhao, insisted in an interview as well as a series of tweets that China welcomed Saudi investment and “always supported&amp; stood behind @ Pakistan, helping #develop it’s #infrastructure&amp; raise #living standards while creating #job.”</p>

<p>Lijian’s comments followed a statement last month by Chinese foreign minister Wang Ji after talks with Khan in Islamabad that appeared to indicate that China, while acknowledging Pakistani demands, would not address them immediately. Wang suggested that CPEC would only “gradually shift to industrial cooperation."</p>

<p>Indications suggest further that China may be looking to Pakistan’s military to shave off the rough ends of the government’s determination to effectively renegotiate CPEC.</p>

<p>Pakistan’s army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa visited Beijing in August days after commerce minister Abdul Razak Dawood suggested that the government may suspend CPEC projects for a year.</p>

<p>Making his comments shortly after Wang’s departure from Islamabad, Dawood also asserted that the previous government had negotiated terms that were favourable to China rather than Pakistan.</p>

<p>China this week, in a move likely designed as much to strengthen Pakistani counter-terrorism capabilities as a gesture towards the country’s politically influential armed forces, made Pakistan the second country after Saudi Arabia to receive killer drones and the associated technology.</p>

<p>The US has refused to sell its more advanced killer drones to either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.</p>

<p>The Khan government’s desire to refocus CPEC tackles key issues raised by critics of the project that potentially could impact China’s plan to pacify its troubled north-western province of Xinjiang through a combination of economic development and brutal repression and re-education of its Turkic Muslim population.</p>

<p>The initial plan for CPEC appeared to position Pakistan as a raw materials supplier for China, an export market for Chinese products and labour, and an experimental ground for the export of the surveillance state China is rolling out in Xinjiang.</p>

<p>The plan envisioned Chinese state-owned companies leasing thousands of hectares of agricultural land to set up “demonstration projects” in areas ranging from seed varieties to irrigation technology. Chinese agricultural companies would be offered “free capital and loans” from various Chinese ministries as well as the China Development Bank.</p>

<p>The plan envisaged the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps introducing mechanization as well as new technologies in Pakistani livestock breeding, development of hybrid varieties, and precision irrigation. Pakistan effectively would become a raw materials supplier rather than an added-value producer, a prerequisite for a sustainable textiles industry.</p>

<p>The plan saw the Pakistani textile sector as a supplier of materials such as yarn and coarse cloth to textile manufacturers in Xinjiang. “China can make the most of the Pakistani market in cheap raw materials to develop the textiles &amp; garments industry and help soak up surplus labour forces in (Xinjiang’s) Kashgar,” the plan said. Chinese companies would be offered preferential treatment with regard to “land, tax, logistics and services” as well as “enterprise income tax, tariff reduction and exemption and sales tax rate” incentives.</p>

<p>For Khan to ensure that Pakistani agriculture benefits, the very concept of Chinese investment in Pakistani agriculture would have to renegotiated.</p>

<p>Similarly, Khan has yet to express an opinion on the plan’s incorporation of a full system of monitoring and surveillance that would be built in Pakistani cities to ensure law and order. The system would involve deployment of explosive detectors and scanners to “cover major roads, case-prone areas and crowded places…in urban areas to conduct real-time monitoring and 24-hour video recording.”</p>

<p>The surveillance aspect of the plan that identifies Pakistani politics, such as competing parties, religion, tribes, terrorists, and Western intervention” as well as security as the greatest risk to CPEC could, if unaddressed, transform Pakistani society in ways that go far beyond economic and infrastructure development.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</em></p>


Pakistan, following in the footsteps of Malaysia and Myanmar, is the latest country to balk at the China and infrastructure focus of Beijing’s Belt and Road-related investments.

Pakistan, following in the footsteps of Malaysia and Myanmar, is the latest country to balk at the China and infrastructure focus of Beijing’s Belt and Road-related investments. Preparing for his first visit to China as Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan is insisting that the focus of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a $60 billion plus crown jewel of the Belt and Road, shift from infrastructure to agriculture, job creation and foreign investment. “Earlier, the CPEC was only aimed at construction of motorways and highways, but now the prime minister decided that it will be used to support the agriculture sector, create more jobs and attract other foreign countries like Saudi Arabia to invest in the country,” said information minister Fawad Chaudhry. Khan’s determination to ensure that more benefits accrue to Pakistan from Chinese investment comes at a time that various Asian and African countries worry that Belt and Road-related investments in infrastructure risk trapping them in debt and forcing them to surrender control of critical national infrastructure, and in some cases media assets. Preceding Khan’s move, protests against the forced resettlement of eight Nepali villages persuaded CWE Investment Corporation, a subsidiary of China Three Gorges, to consider pulling out of a 750MW hydropower project. Malaysia has suspended or cancelled $26 billion in Chinese-funded projects while Myanmar is negotiating a significant scaling back of a Chinese-funded port project on the Bay of Bengal from one that would cost $ 7.3 billion to a more modest development that would cost $1.3 billion in a bid to avoid shouldering an unsustainable debt. Fears of a debt trap started late last year when unsustainable debt forced Sri Lanka to hand China an 80 per cent stake in Hambantota port. Khan’s move takes on added significance given that Pakistan appears to have decided to ask the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help it avert a financial crisis with a loan of up to $12 billion and discussions with Saudi Arabia that could produce up to $10 billion in investments that would be separate but associated with CPEC. Pakistani finance minister Asad Umar is expected later this week to initiate discussions with the IMF during the fund’s annual meeting in Bali. The decision was taken after Saudi Arabia refused to delay Pakistani payments for oil imports, opting instead to build a refinery and strategic oil reserve in the CPEC port of Gwadar. Pakistani officials see investment by Saudi Arabia as one possible way of facilitating a Pakistani request to the IMF for help. They hope that even an informal association with CPEC of Saudi Arabia, one of the United States’ closest allies in the greater Middle East, may alleviate Washington’s concern that IMF money could be used to repay Chinese debt. Yet, even that is unlikely to prevent the IMF, backed by the United States, from demanding that the veil of secrecy be lifted that shrouds the commercial and financial terms of many CPEC-related, Chinese-funded projects, as a pre-condition for assistance from the fund. Apparently concerned about Pakistan’s intentions, China’s deputy chief of mission in Islamabad, Lijian Zhao, insisted in an interview as well as a series of tweets that China welcomed Saudi investment and “always supported& stood behind @ Pakistan, helping #develop it’s #infrastructure& raise #living standards while creating #job.” Lijian’s comments followed a statement last month by Chinese foreign minister Wang Ji after talks with Khan in Islamabad that appeared to indicate that China, while acknowledging Pakistani demands, would not address them immediately. Wang suggested that CPEC would only “gradually shift to industrial cooperation." Indications suggest further that China may be looking to Pakistan’s military to shave off the rough ends of the government’s determination to effectively renegotiate CPEC. Pakistan’s army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa visited Beijing in August days after commerce minister Abdul Razak Dawood suggested that the government may suspend CPEC projects for a year. Making his comments shortly after Wang’s departure from Islamabad, Dawood also asserted that the previous government had negotiated terms that were favourable to China rather than Pakistan. China this week, in a move likely designed as much to strengthen Pakistani counter-terrorism capabilities as a gesture towards the country’s politically influential armed forces, made Pakistan the second country after Saudi Arabia to receive killer drones and the associated technology. The US has refused to sell its more advanced killer drones to either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. The Khan government’s desire to refocus CPEC tackles key issues raised by critics of the project that potentially could impact China’s plan to pacify its troubled north-western province of Xinjiang through a combination of economic development and brutal repression and re-education of its Turkic Muslim population. The initial plan for CPEC appeared to position Pakistan as a raw materials supplier for China, an export market for Chinese products and labour, and an experimental ground for the export of the surveillance state China is rolling out in Xinjiang. The plan envisioned Chinese state-owned companies leasing thousands of hectares of agricultural land to set up “demonstration projects” in areas ranging from seed varieties to irrigation technology. Chinese agricultural companies would be offered “free capital and loans” from various Chinese ministries as well as the China Development Bank. The plan envisaged the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps introducing mechanization as well as new technologies in Pakistani livestock breeding, development of hybrid varieties, and precision irrigation. Pakistan effectively would become a raw materials supplier rather than an added-value producer, a prerequisite for a sustainable textiles industry. The plan saw the Pakistani textile sector as a supplier of materials such as yarn and coarse cloth to textile manufacturers in Xinjiang. “China can make the most of the Pakistani market in cheap raw materials to develop the textiles & garments industry and help soak up surplus labour forces in (Xinjiang’s) Kashgar,” the plan said. Chinese companies would be offered preferential treatment with regard to “land, tax, logistics and services” as well as “enterprise income tax, tariff reduction and exemption and sales tax rate” incentives. For Khan to ensure that Pakistani agriculture benefits, the very concept of Chinese investment in Pakistani agriculture would have to renegotiated. Similarly, Khan has yet to express an opinion on the plan’s incorporation of a full system of monitoring and surveillance that would be built in Pakistani cities to ensure law and order. The system would involve deployment of explosive detectors and scanners to “cover major roads, case-prone areas and crowded places…in urban areas to conduct real-time monitoring and 24-hour video recording.” The surveillance aspect of the plan that identifies Pakistani politics, such as competing parties, religion, tribes, terrorists, and Western intervention” as well as security as the greatest risk to CPEC could, if unaddressed, transform Pakistani society in ways that go far beyond economic and infrastructure development. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Remodelling the Belt and Road: Pakistan picks up the torch

<p>Pakistan today cut the size of China's "Silk Road" by $2 billion due to rising debt constraints, Railways Minister Sheikh Rasheed said.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/cpec-projects-risk-widening-social-divides-in-pakistan-report-149556">Also Read:&nbsp;CPEC projects risk widening social divides in Pakistan, says Report</a></p>

<p>"Pakistan is a poor country that cannot afford huge burden of the loans," Rasheed said, adding,"therefore, we have reduced the loan from China under CPEC for rail projects from $8.2 billion to $6.2 billion."&nbsp;</p>

<p>The project was hit over cost leading the Pakistan government to rethink the 1,872 km road infrastructure deal.</p>

<p>China has been a big investor in Pakistan with investments of over $60 billion in China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). However, recent reports have suggested the deal has led to large-scale debts for the Pakistan government, already reeling under huge current account deficit.</p>

<p>Rasheed said the government remains "committed" to the Karachi-Peshawar Main Line-1 (ML-1) project but asserted that he wishes to further reduce the cost to $4.2 billion from $6.2 billion.</p>

<p>"CPEC is like the backbone for Pakistan, but our eyes and ears are open," Rasheed said.</p>

<p>Pakistan's Army chief General Baig who had recently visited China had assured government officials in China on over the viability of the CPEC.</p>

<p>But US Senators last month had flagged concern over risk of debt distress due to rising current account deficit and external debt obligations stemming from the CPEC project. The Centre for Global Development has estimated that of the 68 countries currently hosting BRI-funded projects, 23 countries are at risk of debt distress.</p>

<p>Last year, the Sri Lankan government, after being unable to repay over $1 billion of Chinese debt for construction of the Hambantota Port, granted a Chinese state company, a 99-year lease on the facility.</p>

<p>"In China's String of Pearls strategy for the Indo-Pacific, Gwadar and Hambantota are important footholds that if converted into naval bases will enable the PLA Navy to maintain a permanent presence in the Indian Ocean," the US Senators had said.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>


Pakistan today cut the size of China's "Silk Road" by $2 billion due to rising debt constraints, Railways Minister Sheikh Rasheed said. Also Read: CPEC projects risk widening social divides in Pakistan, says Report "Pakistan is a poor country that cannot afford huge burden of the loans," Rasheed said, adding,"therefore, we have reduced the loan from China under CPEC for rail projects from $8.

Pakistan today cut the size of China's "Silk Road" by $2 billion due to rising debt constraints, Railways Minister Sheikh Rasheed said. Also Read: CPEC projects risk widening social divides in Pakistan, says Report "Pakistan is a poor country that cannot afford huge burden of the loans," Rasheed said, adding,"therefore, we have reduced the loan from China under CPEC for rail projects from $8.2 billion to $6.2 billion." The project was hit over cost leading the Pakistan government to rethink the 1,872 km road infrastructure deal. China has been a big investor in Pakistan with investments of over $60 billion in China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). However, recent reports have suggested the deal has led to large-scale debts for the Pakistan government, already reeling under huge current account deficit. Rasheed said the government remains "committed" to the Karachi-Peshawar Main Line-1 (ML-1) project but asserted that he wishes to further reduce the cost to $4.2 billion from $6.2 billion. "CPEC is like the backbone for Pakistan, but our eyes and ears are open," Rasheed said. Pakistan's Army chief General Baig who had recently visited China had assured government officials in China on over the viability of the CPEC. But US Senators last month had flagged concern over risk of debt distress due to rising current account deficit and external debt obligations stemming from the CPEC project. The Centre for Global Development has estimated that of the 68 countries currently hosting BRI-funded projects, 23 countries are at risk of debt distress. Last year, the Sri Lankan government, after being unable to repay over $1 billion of Chinese debt for construction of the Hambantota Port, granted a Chinese state company, a 99-year lease on the facility. "In China's String of Pearls strategy for the Indo-Pacific, Gwadar and Hambantota are important footholds that if converted into naval bases will enable the PLA Navy to maintain a permanent presence in the Indian Ocean," the US Senators had said.

$2 billion cut from China's 'silk road' in Karachi-Peshawar road project due to debts: Pakistan

<p>China`s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to build a trade and infrastructure network connecting Asia with Europe and Africa along the ancient trade routes of Silk Road, has hit a roadblock in seven countries, according to a recent report. The Gwadar Port in Pakistan`s Balochistan province is the venue of the USD 63 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).</p>

<p>China is developing Pakistan`s power plants, airports, highways and other infrastructure under the project. Also, Beijing aims to link its landlocked western region to Gwadar. Despite this, some analysts have expressed concerns such as rising trade deficit of Pakistan with China.</p>

<p>There are also doubts on how Islamabad will repay off its debt to Beijing if the former is unable to do so. Also, there are worries that the price of such investment can be a huge debt burden, according to the report by Nikkei Asian Review. "The China-Pakistan corridor will no doubt be a game changer for Pakistan, but we need to be careful.</p>

<p>Ten years` tax concessions, 90-year leases for Chinese companies and cheap imports will impact the competitiveness of existing domestic industries," Nikkei Asian Review quoted Ehsan Malik, the CEO of Pakistan Business Council, a business policy advocacy forum, as saying. Nikkei Asian Review and The Banker magazine have published a detailed report on the status of the BRI projects in seven countries - Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, Poland, Laos and Pakistan.</p>

<p>The report also deduces the concerns of these countries ranging from a lack of participation by local workers and banks to unmanageable debts.In Indonesia, the BRI project has been experiencing serious delays. Construction on a USD 6 billion railway line is running behind schedule, coupled with rising costs.</p>

<p>This has been the same scenario in Kazakhstan and Bangladesh.In terms of deficits, concerns have been raised about owing unmanageable debts to China in Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Laos, along with Pakistan.As per the report, Beijing`s massive economic project is also plagued with sovereignty concerns.</p>

<p>In Sri Lanka, China`s takeover of the Hambantota Port has raised eyebrows over the "loss of sovereignty. "In 2008, former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa had ordered the construction of the USD 1.5 billion Hambantota Port.Colombo has granted a 99-year lease on the port to China Merchants Port Holdings in a bid to eliminate its debts.</p>

<p>The first phase of the project, which ended in 2010, costs USD 361 million. The Export-Import Bank of China financed 85 percent of the work during the first phase. The Sri Lankan Government found itself unable to repay its debts as the port`s losses started piling up. The country had an external debt of USD 48.3 billion in 2017-end, and its annual external financing needs are USD 11 billion.</p>

<p>Colombo owes a debt of USD 8 billion to Beijing and is said to carry an interest rate of 6 per cent, according to the report.In 2009, Rajapaksa flagged off the construction of Sri Lanka`s second international airport in Mattala, situated 20km from the port. Of the USD 209 million construction cost, the Exim Bank of China put up USD 190 million with a concessionary loan.</p>

<p>The Mattala airport is now known as "the world`s emptiest international airport" since it has only four regular flights arriving and departing per week. The Sri Lankan government has plans to sell off the airport as it is mounting losses. China is also constructing a USD 15 billion project to build "Port City Colombo" on reclaimed land in the Sri Lankan capital.</p>

<p>The first phase of the project, costing around USD 1.4 billion is being undertaken by a subsidiary of China Communications and Construction Co, which is also bearing the total cost of reclaiming 269 hectares of land.In Indonesia`s Bandung city, a 142 km-railway line connecting the city with the capital Jakarta, which was supposed to open next year, has experienced delays, the report notes.</p>

<p>According to local officials, in February, only 10 per cent of the work has been completed so far. Also, a funding crunch is also starting to raise concerns over the financial health of Indonesian companies involved in the construction of the railway line.Adding to the problems are paperwork and permit issues, which halted the project in its first several months.</p>

<p>Land acquisition has been painfully slow, as half of the total land has been taken so far. Rising land prices during delays have also led to the further hampering of the progress of the railway line. The country`s second BRI project is the Morowali Industrial Park on Sulawesi island, which already hosts Chinese nickel smelters and a stainless steel factory.</p>

<p>According to the report, an agreement totalling USD 1.6 billion was signed in Beijing last year that includes the construction of a carbon steel factory and a power plant. Furthermore, Indonesia`s Investment Coordinating Board has designated three provinces for investment purposes - North Sulawesi, North Kalimantan and North Sumatra respectively. Other future plans include - development of new industrial parks, ports, airports and tourism industry.</p>

<p>In Bangladesh, the CSIS Reconnecting Asia Project has identified three key BRI projects - the Dhaka-Jessore rail line, the Payra power plant and the Karnaphuli Tunnel, which is the country`s first-ever underwater tunnel. Construction has already begun for the USD 1.65 billion coal-fired power plant by the port of Payra.</p>

<p>The plant is a joint venture involving Chinese power company, CMC and Bangladesh`s state-owned North-West Power Generation Co. The financing of the plant is fully provided by Beijing and is scheduled to be operational by December 2019.The USD 4.4 billion Dhaka-Jessore rail line is currently under preparatory phase.</p>

<p>Announced in 2016, the line is expected to be operational by 2022. State-owned China Railway Construction is the project`s contractor. For the construction of Karnaphuli Tunnel, China Communications Construction Co. signed a USD 705 million contract with the Bangladesh Bridge Authority (BBA) in 2015. However, Bangladeshi newspaper The Financial Express reported last year that construction work on the tunnel had not started because the BBA was waiting for the Exim Bank of China to release funds for the project.In Laos, a brand new railway line, spanning 414 km, connecting its capital, Vientiane to the China-Laos border is scheduled to be completed in December 2021, as per the report. Talks of a rail project in the country began long ago.</p>

<p>After numerous delays, a groundbreaking ceremony was held in December 2016 at Luang Prabang, Laos` ancient royal capital, marking the official start of the construction of the railway line. However, there are complaints among Laotians that the labour on the construction of the railway line is dominated by the Chinese.</p>

<p>Development banks have also expressed concerns that the USD 6 billion rail project will further worsen Laos` already precarious debt levels, which reached 68 per cent of GDP in 2016, increasing the debt distress level from "moderate" to "high" in the recent World Bank/IMF Debt Sustainability Analysis, according to the report.</p>

<p>Both China and Laos have set up a 70-30 joint venture to finance the railway project. Each side needs to contribute 40 per cent of their investment commitment in cash. This means that Laos, with 30 per cent of the joint venture, needs to contribute USD 715 million for the construction of the railway line.</p>


China is developing Pakistan`s power plants, airports, highways and other infrastructure under the project. Also, Beijing aims to link its landlocked western region to Gwadar. Despite this, some analysts have expressed concerns such as rising trade deficit of Pakistan with China

China`s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to build a trade and infrastructure network connecting Asia with Europe and Africa along the ancient trade routes of Silk Road, has hit a roadblock in seven countries, according to a recent report. The Gwadar Port in Pakistan`s Balochistan province is the venue of the USD 63 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). China is developing Pakistan`s power plants, airports, highways and other infrastructure under the project. Also, Beijing aims to link its landlocked western region to Gwadar. Despite this, some analysts have expressed concerns such as rising trade deficit of Pakistan with China. There are also doubts on how Islamabad will repay off its debt to Beijing if the former is unable to do so. Also, there are worries that the price of such investment can be a huge debt burden, according to the report by Nikkei Asian Review. "The China-Pakistan corridor will no doubt be a game changer for Pakistan, but we need to be careful. Ten years` tax concessions, 90-year leases for Chinese companies and cheap imports will impact the competitiveness of existing domestic industries," Nikkei Asian Review quoted Ehsan Malik, the CEO of Pakistan Business Council, a business policy advocacy forum, as saying. Nikkei Asian Review and The Banker magazine have published a detailed report on the status of the BRI projects in seven countries - Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, Poland, Laos and Pakistan. The report also deduces the concerns of these countries ranging from a lack of participation by local workers and banks to unmanageable debts.In Indonesia, the BRI project has been experiencing serious delays. Construction on a USD 6 billion railway line is running behind schedule, coupled with rising costs. This has been the same scenario in Kazakhstan and Bangladesh.In terms of deficits, concerns have been raised about owing unmanageable debts to China in Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Laos, along with Pakistan.As per the report, Beijing`s massive economic project is also plagued with sovereignty concerns. In Sri Lanka, China`s takeover of the Hambantota Port has raised eyebrows over the "loss of sovereignty. "In 2008, former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa had ordered the construction of the USD 1.5 billion Hambantota Port.Colombo has granted a 99-year lease on the port to China Merchants Port Holdings in a bid to eliminate its debts. The first phase of the project, which ended in 2010, costs USD 361 million. The Export-Import Bank of China financed 85 percent of the work during the first phase. The Sri Lankan Government found itself unable to repay its debts as the port`s losses started piling up. The country had an external debt of USD 48.3 billion in 2017-end, and its annual external financing needs are USD 11 billion. Colombo owes a debt of USD 8 billion to Beijing and is said to carry an interest rate of 6 per cent, according to the report.In 2009, Rajapaksa flagged off the construction of Sri Lanka`s second international airport in Mattala, situated 20km from the port. Of the USD 209 million construction cost, the Exim Bank of China put up USD 190 million with a concessionary loan. The Mattala airport is now known as "the world`s emptiest international airport" since it has only four regular flights arriving and departing per week. The Sri Lankan government has plans to sell off the airport as it is mounting losses. China is also constructing a USD 15 billion project to build "Port City Colombo" on reclaimed land in the Sri Lankan capital. The first phase of the project, costing around USD 1.4 billion is being undertaken by a subsidiary of China Communications and Construction Co, which is also bearing the total cost of reclaiming 269 hectares of land.In Indonesia`s Bandung city, a 142 km-railway line connecting the city with the capital Jakarta, which was supposed to open next year, has experienced delays, the report notes. According to local officials, in February, only 10 per cent of the work has been completed so far. Also, a funding crunch is also starting to raise concerns over the financial health of Indonesian companies involved in the construction of the railway line.Adding to the problems are paperwork and permit issues, which halted the project in its first several months. Land acquisition has been painfully slow, as half of the total land has been taken so far. Rising land prices during delays have also led to the further hampering of the progress of the railway line. The country`s second BRI project is the Morowali Industrial Park on Sulawesi island, which already hosts Chinese nickel smelters and a stainless steel factory. According to the report, an agreement totalling USD 1.6 billion was signed in Beijing last year that includes the construction of a carbon steel factory and a power plant. Furthermore, Indonesia`s Investment Coordinating Board has designated three provinces for investment purposes - North Sulawesi, North Kalimantan and North Sumatra respectively. Other future plans include - development of new industrial parks, ports, airports and tourism industry. In Bangladesh, the CSIS Reconnecting Asia Project has identified three key BRI projects - the Dhaka-Jessore rail line, the Payra power plant and the Karnaphuli Tunnel, which is the country`s first-ever underwater tunnel. Construction has already begun for the USD 1.65 billion coal-fired power plant by the port of Payra. The plant is a joint venture involving Chinese power company, CMC and Bangladesh`s state-owned North-West Power Generation Co. The financing of the plant is fully provided by Beijing and is scheduled to be operational by December 2019.The USD 4.4 billion Dhaka-Jessore rail line is currently under preparatory phase. Announced in 2016, the line is expected to be operational by 2022. State-owned China Railway Construction is the project`s contractor. For the construction of Karnaphuli Tunnel, China Communications Construction Co. signed a USD 705 million contract with the Bangladesh Bridge Authority (BBA) in 2015. However, Bangladeshi newspaper The Financial Express reported last year that construction work on the tunnel had not started because the BBA was waiting for the Exim Bank of China to release funds for the project.In Laos, a brand new railway line, spanning 414 km, connecting its capital, Vientiane to the China-Laos border is scheduled to be completed in December 2021, as per the report. Talks of a rail project in the country began long ago. After numerous delays, a groundbreaking ceremony was held in December 2016 at Luang Prabang, Laos` ancient royal capital, marking the official start of the construction of the railway line. However, there are complaints among Laotians that the labour on the construction of the railway line is dominated by the Chinese. Development banks have also expressed concerns that the USD 6 billion rail project will further worsen Laos` already precarious debt levels, which reached 68 per cent of GDP in 2016, increasing the debt distress level from "moderate" to "high" in the recent World Bank/IMF Debt Sustainability Analysis, according to the report. Both China and Laos have set up a 70-30 joint venture to finance the railway project. Each side needs to contribute 40 per cent of their investment commitment in cash. This means that Laos, with 30 per cent of the joint venture, needs to contribute USD 715 million for the construction of the railway line.

China's BRI initiative hits roadblock in 7 nations

<p>Xi Jinping&#39;s pet Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) can pose a &quot;major challenge&quot; in resetting China&#39;s ties with India, analysts here have said, days after the Chinese parliament backed his plan to rule indefinitely amid Sino-India rapprochement following the Dokalam standoff.</p>

<p>The BRI, a multi-billion-dollar initiative launched by Xi when he came to power in 2013, has become a major sticking point in the bilateral ties. The BRI also includes the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which India opposed as it goes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.</p>

<p>India had also boycotted last year&#39;s Belt and Road Forum organised by China.</p>

<p>The BRI, aimed at promoting a network of roads, ports and rail networks all over the world to spread China&#39;s influence, is now expected to vigorously push by Xi after the National People&#39;s Congress on March 11 removed the two-term limit for the president.</p>

<p>The historic mandate for Xi to continue in office for life came just as India and China began a high-level dialogue to put the ties back on track after the relations were bogged down by a host of issues including, the CPEC and the 73-day long standoff at Dokalam last year.</p>

<p>Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will visit China next month which officials say will send a very strong message to the international community about efforts by both countries to improve relations.</p>

<p>&quot;There are very serious efforts are being made by both countries to improve relations and China attaches a lot of importance to its ties with India in the region,&quot; Hu Shisheng, Director of the official China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations told.</p>

<p>As the two countries seek to address a number of issues like China blocking India&#39;s efforts to list JeM leader Masood Azhar as a global terrorist by the UN as well as India&#39;s entry to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) besides Dokalam, they need to come up with a creative solution to address differences on the BRI, Hu said.</p>

<p>&quot;Now Xi is set to be at the helm for a long term and he is going to pursue the BRI very seriously&quot; as this is his project, he said.</p>

<p>China, which has been maintaining that the BRI will not have any impact on its stand that Kashmir issue should be resolved between India and Pakistan, has also offered initiatives like renaming the CPEC to address India&#39;s reservations.</p>

<p>Officials say Chinese investment flows into India have been affected as China has been routing all its external investments in recent years only under the BRI. India is also a part of the Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar (BCIM) corridor which is also part of the BRI but has made little progress.</p>

<p>Officials say China&#39;s investments in India were just about $3.5 billion far less than $20 billion promised by Xi during his visit to India in 2015.</p>

<p>He said both countries need to show flexibility. While China should be flexible by not pressing India to cooperate under the BRI framework for investments in India, New Delhi could make reciprocal gestures to get the investments for infrastructure projects.</p>

<p>Rong Ying, the vice president of China Institute of International Studies, which is affiliated to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said both the countries need to address the trust deficit.</p>

<p>&quot;Equally important is for both countries to find a way to address differences in a constructive and forward-looking manner,&quot; he told.</p>

<p>He also said there was no need to worry about the long-term rule by Xi.</p>

<p>&quot;I don&#39;t see any reason for worry. I only want to see that the two sides draw correct lessons (out of Dokalam standoff). Then we can work hard for a stable relationship,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>&quot;No one wants an incident like Dong Long (Dokalam). We are able to solve it through peaceful way through talks shows the maturity of the relationship,&quot; Rong, who formerly worked as a Chinese diplomat in India, said.</p>

<p>About what effect Xi&#39;s long-term rule will have on the boundary dispute, he said, &quot;the boundary dispute has to be better managed. I don&#39;t see in the near future the possibility of an early settlement in sight,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>The annual border talks by special representatives and other mechanisms would&nbsp;help to develop the trust, he said.</p>

<p>The two sides have held 20 rounds of border talks to resolve differences over the 3,488 long Line of Actual Control (LAC).</p>


Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will visit China next month which officials say will send a very strong message to the international community about efforts by both countries to improve relations

Xi Jinping's pet Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) can pose a "major challenge" in resetting China's ties with India, analysts here have said, days after the Chinese parliament backed his plan to rule indefinitely amid Sino-India rapprochement following the Dokalam standoff. The BRI, a multi-billion-dollar initiative launched by Xi when he came to power in 2013, has become a major sticking point in the bilateral ties. The BRI also includes the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which India opposed as it goes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. India had also boycotted last year's Belt and Road Forum organised by China. The BRI, aimed at promoting a network of roads, ports and rail networks all over the world to spread China's influence, is now expected to vigorously push by Xi after the National People's Congress on March 11 removed the two-term limit for the president. The historic mandate for Xi to continue in office for life came just as India and China began a high-level dialogue to put the ties back on track after the relations were bogged down by a host of issues including, the CPEC and the 73-day long standoff at Dokalam last year. Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will visit China next month which officials say will send a very strong message to the international community about efforts by both countries to improve relations. "There are very serious efforts are being made by both countries to improve relations and China attaches a lot of importance to its ties with India in the region," Hu Shisheng, Director of the official China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations told. As the two countries seek to address a number of issues like China blocking India's efforts to list JeM leader Masood Azhar as a global terrorist by the UN as well as India's entry to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) besides Dokalam, they need to come up with a creative solution to address differences on the BRI, Hu said. "Now Xi is set to be at the helm for a long term and he is going to pursue the BRI very seriously" as this is his project, he said. China, which has been maintaining that the BRI will not have any impact on its stand that Kashmir issue should be resolved between India and Pakistan, has also offered initiatives like renaming the CPEC to address India's reservations. Officials say Chinese investment flows into India have been affected as China has been routing all its external investments in recent years only under the BRI. India is also a part of the Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar (BCIM) corridor which is also part of the BRI but has made little progress. Officials say China's investments in India were just about $3.5 billion far less than $20 billion promised by Xi during his visit to India in 2015. He said both countries need to show flexibility. While China should be flexible by not pressing India to cooperate under the BRI framework for investments in India, New Delhi could make reciprocal gestures to get the investments for infrastructure projects. Rong Ying, the vice president of China Institute of International Studies, which is affiliated to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said both the countries need to address the trust deficit. "Equally important is for both countries to find a way to address differences in a constructive and forward-looking manner," he told. He also said there was no need to worry about the long-term rule by Xi. "I don't see any reason for worry. I only want to see that the two sides draw correct lessons (out of Dokalam standoff). Then we can work hard for a stable relationship," he said. "No one wants an incident like Dong Long (Dokalam). We are able to solve it through peaceful way through talks shows the maturity of the relationship," Rong, who formerly worked as a Chinese diplomat in India, said. About what effect Xi's long-term rule will have on the boundary dispute, he said, "the boundary dispute has to be better managed. I don't see in the near future the possibility of an early settlement in sight," he said. The annual border talks by special representatives and other mechanisms would help to develop the trust, he said. The two sides have held 20 rounds of border talks to resolve differences over the 3,488 long Line of Actual Control (LAC).

BRI could be sticking point in India-China ties: Experts

<p>Chinese efforts to make best of the French President Macron&rsquo;s visit to claim the success of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), recently enshrined in the Constitution, have not been bought by the West. Macron has been balanced in choosing his words to say &ldquo;I want us to define together the rules of a balanced relationship in which everyone will win.&rdquo; Referring specifically to China&rsquo;s BRI to revive Silk Road trade routes, he said &ldquo;the ancient Silk Roads were never only Chinese&rdquo; and also &ldquo;the new roads cannot only go one way&rdquo;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Macron&#39;s words, therefore, underlines the fact that the BRI cannot be only China-centric with the bulk of contracts going to Chinese companies to revive their sliding economy.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Many countries in the European Union see the $1 trillion BRI as an example of Chinese expansionism and the proposed deals lacking transparency and level playing field, highly skewed in favor of China.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>From the conception of the One Belt One Road (OBOR), later published in BRI document, it was quite clear that the BRI project has been conceived by China, to improve its connectivity with four continents to increase its infrastructure investments, utilise it&#39;s capacities and trade surpluses, besides increasing its strategic footprints globally. It is a &#39;China First&#39; programme without calling it so. China planned to organised OBOR Summit last year, expecting attendance of all global leaders, but when it was clear that the world will not sign on the dotted line of China, and most top leaders will not attend, it was renamed as Belt and Road Forum (BRF).</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>BRI is also a tool for creating connectivity for Chinese global deployability to be able to take on a global leadership role. China wants the world to believe that it is a benign project for inclusive growth of partners, but the idea has been bought by only those countries which need Chinese capital or other support. Some others who cannot oppose China for various reasons have also followed it because of lack of choices.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The countries which joined the Chinese bandwagon were helpless, in dire need of capital to develop infrastructure in their country.&nbsp; Most of them now realise that it was exploitative. The problem still remains that who will provide the capital for such a fancy one-sided project conceived for China&#39;s economic survival and to fulfill its global leadership ambition? The European countries realise that with major contracts planned for Chinese companies, it is not a win-win project but only a China- win project.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>India boycotted BRF because China-Pakistan-Economic-Corridor (CPEC), (part of BRI) passes through Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), which as sovereign territory of India violates Indian sovereignty. No other country is confronted with an issue as serious as &ldquo;sovereignty issue&rdquo; in context of BRI as India, hence, India stance is well-justified.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Moreover, it is wishful thinking that militants harboured in Pakistan will ever allow our trade to pass through to CAR/Afghanistan. In case of Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM), India has already established connectivity through Bangladesh from Kolkata to Agartala. The roads in the northeastern states are being developed by India, and connectivity to Myanmar is being developed bilaterally, hence, China-driven BCIM has very little to charm India.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>I feel that Chinese advertisement of Macron&#39;s support to BRI is part of popularising it. On Macron&#39;s part, it is part of diplomatic niceties, the depth of which will be known only when contracts pertaining to BRI are inked.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).</em></p>


Chinese advertisement of Macron's support to BRI is part of popularising it. On Macron's part, it is part of diplomatic niceties.

Chinese efforts to make best of the French President Macron’s visit to claim the success of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), recently enshrined in the Constitution, have not been bought by the West. Macron has been balanced in choosing his words to say “I want us to define together the rules of a balanced relationship in which everyone will win.” Referring specifically to China’s BRI to revive Silk Road trade routes, he said “the ancient Silk Roads were never only Chinese” and also “the new roads cannot only go one way”. Macron's words, therefore, underlines the fact that the BRI cannot be only China-centric with the bulk of contracts going to Chinese companies to revive their sliding economy. Many countries in the European Union see the $1 trillion BRI as an example of Chinese expansionism and the proposed deals lacking transparency and level playing field, highly skewed in favor of China. From the conception of the One Belt One Road (OBOR), later published in BRI document, it was quite clear that the BRI project has been conceived by China, to improve its connectivity with four continents to increase its infrastructure investments, utilise it's capacities and trade surpluses, besides increasing its strategic footprints globally. It is a 'China First' programme without calling it so. China planned to organised OBOR Summit last year, expecting attendance of all global leaders, but when it was clear that the world will not sign on the dotted line of China, and most top leaders will not attend, it was renamed as Belt and Road Forum (BRF). BRI is also a tool for creating connectivity for Chinese global deployability to be able to take on a global leadership role. China wants the world to believe that it is a benign project for inclusive growth of partners, but the idea has been bought by only those countries which need Chinese capital or other support. Some others who cannot oppose China for various reasons have also followed it because of lack of choices. The countries which joined the Chinese bandwagon were helpless, in dire need of capital to develop infrastructure in their country. Most of them now realise that it was exploitative. The problem still remains that who will provide the capital for such a fancy one-sided project conceived for China's economic survival and to fulfill its global leadership ambition? The European countries realise that with major contracts planned for Chinese companies, it is not a win-win project but only a China- win project. India boycotted BRF because China-Pakistan-Economic-Corridor (CPEC), (part of BRI) passes through Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), which as sovereign territory of India violates Indian sovereignty. No other country is confronted with an issue as serious as “sovereignty issue” in context of BRI as India, hence, India stance is well-justified. Moreover, it is wishful thinking that militants harboured in Pakistan will ever allow our trade to pass through to CAR/Afghanistan. In case of Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM), India has already established connectivity through Bangladesh from Kolkata to Agartala. The roads in the northeastern states are being developed by India, and connectivity to Myanmar is being developed bilaterally, hence, China-driven BCIM has very little to charm India. I feel that Chinese advertisement of Macron's support to BRI is part of popularising it. On Macron's part, it is part of diplomatic niceties, the depth of which will be known only when contracts pertaining to BRI are inked. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Should India take French President's visit to China as endorsement of BRI?

<p>Not many relationships in international politics make headlines like China-India relations often do. The chronicle of the transient year 2017 suggests that China-India relations continued to struggle to thrive, even though this relationship commanded plenty of promises and pledges. Best remembered as the &ldquo;year of Doklam&rdquo;, 2017 witnessed Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping pledging a &ldquo;forward-looking constructive&rdquo; bilateral relationship.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>During the September Xiamen BRICS summit, both the leaders tried to overcome the setback that the relationship has faced in recent times. How will this envisioned &ldquo;constructive&rdquo; China-India relationship that aims to have a &ldquo;forward-looking&rdquo; spirit unfold in 2018?&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Fundamentally speaking, a &ldquo;forward-looking constructive&rdquo; relationship would imply that the two countries manage to handle their differences, including the age-old boundary dispute while fostering an engaging economic partnership that will enhance their bilateral and global relationship.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The official media transcript after the Xiamen BRICS summit stated that the established intergovernmental mechanisms between China and India are supposed to play a stronger role to this effect. Their common pledge to scrutinise neoliberal ideas, uphold the structure of a multipolar world order, and reform the global order in favour of the developing world are all indicators of a constructive forward-looking relationship.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The pledge to have a &ldquo;forward-looking&rdquo; and &ldquo;constructive&rdquo; relationship is, however, not entirely a new proposition. Both sides have used similar phrasing in the past to offer a &ldquo;political&rdquo; guidance to their relationship, which is often marred by a range of conflicts &ndash; boundary to geopolitics. Indeed, the proposition to have a &ldquo;constructive&rdquo; relationship is part and parcel of their &ldquo;developmental partnership&rdquo;, which was officially instituted during President Xi Jinping&rsquo;s visit to India in September 2014.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The core essence of this &ldquo;developmental partnership&rdquo; was to guide China-India relations through a stronger economic engagement. The economic engagement has been nurtured under a number of bilateral mechanisms, such as the Joint Economic Group (JEG), Strategic Economic Dialogue and Financial Dialogue to name just a few. These have acted as stabilisers, preventing the relationship from going on a conflict path.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Consequently, bilateral trade, seen often as a &lsquo;stable variable&rsquo; in China-India relations, witnessed a steady rise over the last one decade amidst the rising border tensions and mutual mistrust. From a meagre US$10 billion in 2004, the bilateral trade has expanded to reach around $71 billion by 2017.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>in the recent past, however, a subtle change is noticed in the pattern of relationship. Bilateral trade and institutional dialogue have become extraneous to a stable bilateral relationship.&nbsp; In fact, bilateral trade has been constant around $70 billion for last few years without showing much improvement. The trade imbalance between the two sides is expanding, much to China&rsquo;s favour, creating an increasing discord among the Indian business community.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Additionally, the institutional mechanisms look obsolete to address the rising differences between the two countries. Even frequent leadership meetings have offered little to push ahead their envisioned &ldquo;developmental partnership&rdquo;. For example, before their meeting at the Xiamen BRICS summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping met during the SCO summit in Astana and the G-20 summit in Hamburg in 2017. These meetings, however, could not generate necessary maturity on both sides so as not to engage in an episode like the Doklam stand-off.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Besides, India&rsquo;s decision not to participate in China&rsquo;s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) meeting held in Beijing in May 2017 spiralled their geopolitical differences into the international limelight. The two and a half months&rsquo; long Doklam stand-off damaged further the residual goodwill that their relationship had accomplished over the years, making 2017 the defining year for China-India relations.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>This changing treatise in China-India relations sufficiently indicates that the relationship would be thorny in 2018 and ahead. The official longing might be to carve out an &ldquo;upward trajectory&rdquo; in China-India relations, but fostering such a relationship in the current practical circumstances would be difficult to foresee. Three specific developments explain why China-India relations might continue to struggle to thrive even though there might be a temporary improvement in their overall relationship.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>First, foreign policy passages in both China and India are witnessing constant changes which might point to a more &ldquo;state-centric&rdquo; non-accommodative approach towards each other. After the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), China aims to push ahead it&rsquo;s national security ambitions, in terms of exploiting resource opportunities, expand the country&rsquo;s power base, and exhibit China&rsquo;s leadership both in Asia and beyond.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Xi Jinping sees the next few years as a &ldquo;period of strategic opportunities&rdquo; for China and India as a &lsquo;limited Asian power&rsquo; only.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>On the other hand, New Delhi&rsquo;s foreign policy, under an &ldquo;India first&rdquo; approach,&nbsp; seeks to engage more with big powers while having a focus on Asia and Asian neighbours. Currently, India&rsquo;s prime targets are resource exploration and increasing India&rsquo;s outreach in Asia. This would bring the Chinese and Indian foreign policy into a point of contestation than engagement.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Second, even though the scope and potential of greater China-India economic engagement are bigger today, still the differing approaches in the promotion of a &ldquo;developmental partnership&rdquo; would be the main barrier between them. China wants to pursue a more purposeful international economic engagement which will facilitate Chinese economic growth. The induction of the BRI into the revised CPC Constitution at the 19th National Congress points to that. This might create friction in the Sino-Indian relations since India is yet to endorse China&rsquo;s BRI.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The usual China-India &ldquo;sister-city&rdquo; and &ldquo;sister-province&rdquo; level engagements have been one of the most promising aspects of their bilateral relationship over the last one decade. But from Beijing&rsquo;s perspective, the &ldquo;sister-city&rdquo; and &ldquo;sister-province&rdquo; level engagements are today seen as an integral part of China&rsquo;s BRI scheme, which India may see as antithetical to its national interest. Besides, it is not clear how China would like to address India&rsquo;s economic concerns on the rising trade imbalance and would situate it in the overall relationship framework.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Third, China-India differences in the Asia-Pacific region is another new complicated chapter that would not be supportive of their bilateral relations. Beijing seems to be keen on following an intensive maritime strategy not only to protect its interests but also to expedite overseas maritime presence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Many democratic countries, including the United States, Japan and India are not in favour of China&#39;s expansion in the IOR.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Beijing under Xi Jinping is emerging fast as a &ldquo;trading nation&rdquo; and the new focus is to expedite its maritime trading routes in the IOR. That would bring Indian maritime interests into contestation. India&rsquo;s S-A-G-A-R (Security and Growth for All Region) initiative under Prime Minister Narendra Modi equally emphasises on the maritime economy and marine resources which would emerge as a matter of contest between the Chinese and Indian interests in the IOR.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>China aims to configure a bipolar world, sharing the &quot;major&quot; power platform with the United States. China wants to shun the existing &ldquo;status quo&rdquo;&nbsp; and emerge as a &ldquo;revisionist&rdquo; power. This would significantly influence China-India relations.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;Contrasting bilateral perspectives come as a major impediment to a working relationship between India and China today. Just like 2017, the year 2018, therefore, might equally witness conflicting trends between India and China, overriding their cooperative trends.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).</em></p>


China wants to shun the existing ?status quo? and emerge as a ?revisionist? power which would significantly influence China-India relations.

Not many relationships in international politics make headlines like China-India relations often do. The chronicle of the transient year 2017 suggests that China-India relations continued to struggle to thrive, even though this relationship commanded plenty of promises and pledges. Best remembered as the “year of Doklam”, 2017 witnessed Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping pledging a “forward-looking constructive” bilateral relationship. During the September Xiamen BRICS summit, both the leaders tried to overcome the setback that the relationship has faced in recent times. How will this envisioned “constructive” China-India relationship that aims to have a “forward-looking” spirit unfold in 2018? Fundamentally speaking, a “forward-looking constructive” relationship would imply that the two countries manage to handle their differences, including the age-old boundary dispute while fostering an engaging economic partnership that will enhance their bilateral and global relationship. The official media transcript after the Xiamen BRICS summit stated that the established intergovernmental mechanisms between China and India are supposed to play a stronger role to this effect. Their common pledge to scrutinise neoliberal ideas, uphold the structure of a multipolar world order, and reform the global order in favour of the developing world are all indicators of a constructive forward-looking relationship. The pledge to have a “forward-looking” and “constructive” relationship is, however, not entirely a new proposition. Both sides have used similar phrasing in the past to offer a “political” guidance to their relationship, which is often marred by a range of conflicts – boundary to geopolitics. Indeed, the proposition to have a “constructive” relationship is part and parcel of their “developmental partnership”, which was officially instituted during President Xi Jinping’s visit to India in September 2014. The core essence of this “developmental partnership” was to guide China-India relations through a stronger economic engagement. The economic engagement has been nurtured under a number of bilateral mechanisms, such as the Joint Economic Group (JEG), Strategic Economic Dialogue and Financial Dialogue to name just a few. These have acted as stabilisers, preventing the relationship from going on a conflict path. Consequently, bilateral trade, seen often as a ‘stable variable’ in China-India relations, witnessed a steady rise over the last one decade amidst the rising border tensions and mutual mistrust. From a meagre US$10 billion in 2004, the bilateral trade has expanded to reach around $71 billion by 2017. in the recent past, however, a subtle change is noticed in the pattern of relationship. Bilateral trade and institutional dialogue have become extraneous to a stable bilateral relationship. In fact, bilateral trade has been constant around $70 billion for last few years without showing much improvement. The trade imbalance between the two sides is expanding, much to China’s favour, creating an increasing discord among the Indian business community. Additionally, the institutional mechanisms look obsolete to address the rising differences between the two countries. Even frequent leadership meetings have offered little to push ahead their envisioned “developmental partnership”. For example, before their meeting at the Xiamen BRICS summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping met during the SCO summit in Astana and the G-20 summit in Hamburg in 2017. These meetings, however, could not generate necessary maturity on both sides so as not to engage in an episode like the Doklam stand-off. Besides, India’s decision not to participate in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) meeting held in Beijing in May 2017 spiralled their geopolitical differences into the international limelight. The two and a half months’ long Doklam stand-off damaged further the residual goodwill that their relationship had accomplished over the years, making 2017 the defining year for China-India relations. This changing treatise in China-India relations sufficiently indicates that the relationship would be thorny in 2018 and ahead. The official longing might be to carve out an “upward trajectory” in China-India relations, but fostering such a relationship in the current practical circumstances would be difficult to foresee. Three specific developments explain why China-India relations might continue to struggle to thrive even though there might be a temporary improvement in their overall relationship. First, foreign policy passages in both China and India are witnessing constant changes which might point to a more “state-centric” non-accommodative approach towards each other. After the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), China aims to push ahead it’s national security ambitions, in terms of exploiting resource opportunities, expand the country’s power base, and exhibit China’s leadership both in Asia and beyond. Xi Jinping sees the next few years as a “period of strategic opportunities” for China and India as a ‘limited Asian power’ only. On the other hand, New Delhi’s foreign policy, under an “India first” approach, seeks to engage more with big powers while having a focus on Asia and Asian neighbours. Currently, India’s prime targets are resource exploration and increasing India’s outreach in Asia. This would bring the Chinese and Indian foreign policy into a point of contestation than engagement. Second, even though the scope and potential of greater China-India economic engagement are bigger today, still the differing approaches in the promotion of a “developmental partnership” would be the main barrier between them. China wants to pursue a more purposeful international economic engagement which will facilitate Chinese economic growth. The induction of the BRI into the revised CPC Constitution at the 19th National Congress points to that. This might create friction in the Sino-Indian relations since India is yet to endorse China’s BRI. The usual China-India “sister-city” and “sister-province” level engagements have been one of the most promising aspects of their bilateral relationship over the last one decade. But from Beijing’s perspective, the “sister-city” and “sister-province” level engagements are today seen as an integral part of China’s BRI scheme, which India may see as antithetical to its national interest. Besides, it is not clear how China would like to address India’s economic concerns on the rising trade imbalance and would situate it in the overall relationship framework. Third, China-India differences in the Asia-Pacific region is another new complicated chapter that would not be supportive of their bilateral relations. Beijing seems to be keen on following an intensive maritime strategy not only to protect its interests but also to expedite overseas maritime presence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Many democratic countries, including the United States, Japan and India are not in favour of China's expansion in the IOR. Beijing under Xi Jinping is emerging fast as a “trading nation” and the new focus is to expedite its maritime trading routes in the IOR. That would bring Indian maritime interests into contestation. India’s S-A-G-A-R (Security and Growth for All Region) initiative under Prime Minister Narendra Modi equally emphasises on the maritime economy and marine resources which would emerge as a matter of contest between the Chinese and Indian interests in the IOR. China aims to configure a bipolar world, sharing the "major" power platform with the United States. China wants to shun the existing “status quo” and emerge as a “revisionist” power. This would significantly influence China-India relations. Contrasting bilateral perspectives come as a major impediment to a working relationship between India and China today. Just like 2017, the year 2018, therefore, might equally witness conflicting trends between India and China, overriding their cooperative trends. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: 'Year of Doklam' points to a conflicting China-India relation in 2018

<p>President Xi Jinping&rsquo;s position before and after the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China has a very little direct impact on India. Notwithstanding Xi&#39;s boastful speeches to his captive audience&nbsp;at the conference, there is not much change in the stance and drivers steering China &ndash; India relations.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>India is unlikely to join&nbsp;BRI or CPEC, even if he has included it in the Chinese constitution.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=India is unlikely to join?BRI or CPEC, even if he has included it in the Chinese constitution." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Evidently, there is no appreciable change in the areas of convergence and divergence in the national interest of two countries. India is unlikely to join&nbsp;Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) or China&ndash;Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) even if Xi has included these in the Chinese constitution. These initiatives are seen as no worth to India and clearly as violating Indian sovereignty.</p>

<p>Rather, indirect factors may cause a major difference for India. For instance, some of our common neighbours may give in to the more aggressive &lsquo;Purse diplomacy&rsquo; of China or may even get coerced into accepting it. Maldives signing free-trade agreement (FTA) with China, land grabbing efforts of China in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan are few such examples affecting Indian security adversely, which India needs to work on.</p>

<p>With a greater possibility of facing an aggressive, unchecked Xi Jinping, India needs to work on enhancing hard as well as soft power. China&rsquo;s strategic leveraging of water sources by diverting it or flooding it (being upper riparian country) is a new threat to South Asia, which India needs to be prepared for.</p>

<p>When President Trump indicated his enthusiasm to work with India to improve capabilities of Indian military on the sidelines of the&nbsp;ASEAN summit, it has some positive message for India, because no nation has ever become a recognisable power in global history without a strong military. Besides ongoing efforts to strengthen Indian military, we also need to increase the pace of infrastructure development on the borders and Northeastern region.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>India is better located to be the hub of global sea lanes with lesser choke points.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=India is better located to be the hub of global sea lanes with lesser choke points." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>On the diplomatic side, we need to not only &lsquo;Act East&rsquo; but &lsquo;Act West&rsquo; also. India is better located to be the hub of global sea lanes with lesser choke points on either side, and is working towards this capability to provide an alternate model of global connectivity like Asia- Africa Growth Corridor connecting further West.</p>

<p>The inauguration of Chabahar port in Iran, with an opportunity to connect with Afghanistan, CAR, and further West carries the message that determined nations will find its way even if blocked by adversarial designs. If India could stand up to China to protect its strategic choices during Doklam episode, I am sure that it can do the same in future as well, on its own strength. Any leverage we derive from friendly countries/groupings/strategic partnerships/alliances should be treated as a bonus.</p>

<p>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).</p>


If India could stand up to China to protect its strategic choices during Doklam issue then it can do the same in future as well, on its own strength

President Xi Jinping’s position before and after the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China has a very little direct impact on India. Notwithstanding Xi's boastful speeches to his captive audience at the conference, there is not much change in the stance and drivers steering China – India relations. India is unlikely to join BRI or CPEC, even if he has included it in the Chinese constitution. × Evidently, there is no appreciable change in the areas of convergence and divergence in the national interest of two countries. India is unlikely to join Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) or China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) even if Xi has included these in the Chinese constitution. These initiatives are seen as no worth to India and clearly as violating Indian sovereignty. Rather, indirect factors may cause a major difference for India. For instance, some of our common neighbours may give in to the more aggressive ‘Purse diplomacy’ of China or may even get coerced into accepting it. Maldives signing free-trade agreement (FTA) with China, land grabbing efforts of China in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan are few such examples affecting Indian security adversely, which India needs to work on. With a greater possibility of facing an aggressive, unchecked Xi Jinping, India needs to work on enhancing hard as well as soft power. China’s strategic leveraging of water sources by diverting it or flooding it (being upper riparian country) is a new threat to South Asia, which India needs to be prepared for. When President Trump indicated his enthusiasm to work with India to improve capabilities of Indian military on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit, it has some positive message for India, because no nation has ever become a recognisable power in global history without a strong military. Besides ongoing efforts to strengthen Indian military, we also need to increase the pace of infrastructure development on the borders and Northeastern region. India is better located to be the hub of global sea lanes with lesser choke points. × On the diplomatic side, we need to not only ‘Act East’ but ‘Act West’ also. India is better located to be the hub of global sea lanes with lesser choke points on either side, and is working towards this capability to provide an alternate model of global connectivity like Asia- Africa Growth Corridor connecting further West. The inauguration of Chabahar port in Iran, with an opportunity to connect with Afghanistan, CAR, and further West carries the message that determined nations will find its way even if blocked by adversarial designs. If India could stand up to China to protect its strategic choices during Doklam episode, I am sure that it can do the same in future as well, on its own strength. Any leverage we derive from friendly countries/groupings/strategic partnerships/alliances should be treated as a bonus. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: What does Xi's autocratic position mean for India?

<p>Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the only world statesman to have stood up to China&#39;s <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/india-welcome-to-join-belt-and-road-initiative-says-china-22994">Belt and Road Initiative</a>, also known as One Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR), even though the US has been silent on the ambitious project till recently, a top American expert on China said on Friday.</p>

<p>During a Congressional hearing, Michael Pillsbury, Director of Center on Chinese Strategy at the prestigious think-tank Hudson Institute, told lawmakers that Modi and his team have been quite outspoken against Chinese President Xi Jinping&#39;s ambitious project.</p>

<p>&quot;The only statesman in the world who stood up to it yet, is Prime Minister Modi. He and his team have been quite outspoken, partly because the Belt and Road Initiative includes violation of Indian sovereign claims, Pillsbury said.</p>

<p>&quot;But the US government, until now and this is a five- year-old initiative if you count the early part of it, has been silent, he said.</p>

<p>Praising the Trump administration for its new Indo- Pacific strategy, the former Pentagon official said in recent days people have heard more than 50 times by members of the Trump administration including the president himself mentioning &quot;free and open&quot; Indo-Pacific region.</p>

<p>&quot;The Chinese have already attacked this. They don&#39;t like it, said Pillsbury, who is considered an authority on China- related issues.</p>

<p>&quot;The Indians, fairly recently, were joking about we want to make the Indian Ocean the Indian Ocean, by which they meant the purchase of several billion dollars worth of American PA aircraft, which have weapon systems in the back that can sink ships, frankly, and other improvements including maritime situational awareness and a big new center in Delhi where the Indians can keep track of both blue holes and grey holes going through the Indian Ocean, he said.</p>

<p>&quot;Chinese are very angry about this. They have criticised the Obama administration for its effort to, as they say, boost India, to a higher rank order in comprehensive power than the Chinese believe India deserves, the top American expert on China said in response to a question.</p>

<p>Senator Ed Markey said China&#39;s signature Belt and Road Initiative that aims to position China as the uncontested leading power in Asia &quot;may further coerce&quot; its neighbours through loans they cannot repay.</p>

<p>The BRI aimed at building a vast network of infrastructure projects expanding China&#39;s expertise and capital to different parts of the world includes US $50 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) over which India has protested as it traversed through Pakistan- occupied-Kashmir (PoK).</p>

<p>India boycotted the Belt and Road Forum (BRF) organised by China in May this year to highlight its concerns over Beijing pushing projects through the the PoK.</p>

<p>He said the US companies face the threat of intellectual property theft with reports that China has been stealing cutting-edge research as well as sensitive trade secrets from the US.</p>

<p>And that includes companies working in the clean energy sector who cannot compete with state-backed firms, he alleged.</p>

<p>Pillsbury said Chinese are offering low interest loans to countries that cannot afford it.</p>

<p>&quot;We&#39;re already saw the example of Sri Lanka, which fell behind in its payments and then was the subject of coercion that if you transfer the main port here in Sri Lanka to Chinese control, we will forgive the debt. The Sri Lankans did it, he said.</p>

<p>There were concerns of debt burden brought in by the BRI projects after Sri Lanka opted for long-term lease of its Hambantota port for US $1.12 billion debt swap.</p>

<p>&quot;...So we are beginning to see, just through the media, what the Belt and Road Initiative may mean, Pillsbury told the lawmakers.</p>

<p>Senator Markey said China is challenging the very underpinnings of the global order that has brought peace and prosperity.</p>

<p>China has not lived up to its international obligations to help denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, he said.</p>

<p>&quot;No country has greater leverage than China, which is responsible for approximately 90 per cent of North Korean trade,&quot; he noted.</p>

<p>Markey said, &quot;China is challenging the international system elsewhere as well. It has constructed in violation of international law, military bases on artificial islands and disputed areas of the South China Sea.&quot;&nbsp;</p>

<p>&quot;Through economic coercion, Beijing undermined the sovereignty of its smaller neighbours and countries including South Korea and the Philippines face Chinese retaliation for taking legal and sovereign actions in their own defence,&quot; he said.</p>


Michael Pillsbury, Director of Center on Chinese Strategy at the prestigious think-tank Hudson Institute, said that Modi and his team have been quite outspoken against Chinese President Xi Jinping's ambitious project.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the only world statesman to have stood up to China's Belt and Road Initiative, also known as One Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR), even though the US has been silent on the ambitious project till recently, a top American expert on China said on Friday. During a Congressional hearing, Michael Pillsbury, Director of Center on Chinese Strategy at the prestigious think-tank Hudson Institute, told lawmakers that Modi and his team have been quite outspoken against Chinese President Xi Jinping's ambitious project. "The only statesman in the world who stood up to it yet, is Prime Minister Modi. He and his team have been quite outspoken, partly because the Belt and Road Initiative includes violation of Indian sovereign claims, Pillsbury said. "But the US government, until now and this is a five- year-old initiative if you count the early part of it, has been silent, he said. Praising the Trump administration for its new Indo- Pacific strategy, the former Pentagon official said in recent days people have heard more than 50 times by members of the Trump administration including the president himself mentioning "free and open" Indo-Pacific region. "The Chinese have already attacked this. They don't like it, said Pillsbury, who is considered an authority on China- related issues. "The Indians, fairly recently, were joking about we want to make the Indian Ocean the Indian Ocean, by which they meant the purchase of several billion dollars worth of American PA aircraft, which have weapon systems in the back that can sink ships, frankly, and other improvements including maritime situational awareness and a big new center in Delhi where the Indians can keep track of both blue holes and grey holes going through the Indian Ocean, he said. "Chinese are very angry about this. They have criticised the Obama administration for its effort to, as they say, boost India, to a higher rank order in comprehensive power than the Chinese believe India deserves, the top American expert on China said in response to a question. Senator Ed Markey said China's signature Belt and Road Initiative that aims to position China as the uncontested leading power in Asia "may further coerce" its neighbours through loans they cannot repay. The BRI aimed at building a vast network of infrastructure projects expanding China's expertise and capital to different parts of the world includes US $50 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) over which India has protested as it traversed through Pakistan- occupied-Kashmir (PoK). India boycotted the Belt and Road Forum (BRF) organised by China in May this year to highlight its concerns over Beijing pushing projects through the the PoK. He said the US companies face the threat of intellectual property theft with reports that China has been stealing cutting-edge research as well as sensitive trade secrets from the US. And that includes companies working in the clean energy sector who cannot compete with state-backed firms, he alleged. Pillsbury said Chinese are offering low interest loans to countries that cannot afford it. "We're already saw the example of Sri Lanka, which fell behind in its payments and then was the subject of coercion that if you transfer the main port here in Sri Lanka to Chinese control, we will forgive the debt. The Sri Lankans did it, he said. There were concerns of debt burden brought in by the BRI projects after Sri Lanka opted for long-term lease of its Hambantota port for US $1.12 billion debt swap. "...So we are beginning to see, just through the media, what the Belt and Road Initiative may mean, Pillsbury told the lawmakers. Senator Markey said China is challenging the very underpinnings of the global order that has brought peace and prosperity. China has not lived up to its international obligations to help denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, he said. "No country has greater leverage than China, which is responsible for approximately 90 per cent of North Korean trade," he noted. Markey said, "China is challenging the international system elsewhere as well. It has constructed in violation of international law, military bases on artificial islands and disputed areas of the South China Sea." "Through economic coercion, Beijing undermined the sovereignty of its smaller neighbours and countries including South Korea and the Philippines face Chinese retaliation for taking legal and sovereign actions in their own defence," he said.

Narendra Modi only world statesman to stand up to China on OBOR: US expert

<p>It is not important what Donald Trump achieved by accepting the invitation for the red-carpet gala reception from Xi Jinping during his short tour to China: it is rather, what China gained by offering a grand reception to the American President.</p>

<p>If the outcome of the Trump-Xi meet has to be read carefully this week, a lot is changing in Sino-US relations, especially to China&rsquo;s favour that the world will not afford to ignore.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>A lot is changing in Sino-US relations, especially to China&rsquo;s favour that the world will not afford to ignore.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=A lot is changing in Sino-US relations, especially to China?s favour that the world will not afford to ignore." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Trump&rsquo;s visit to China has perhaps lead to a new beginning in Sino-US relations.</p>

<p>Though the contours of this new beginning are yet to be well-defined, it has positioned the Sino-US relationships within a new framework while acknowledging each other as &lsquo;deciders&rsquo; of global politics in a complex international environment. This seems to be emerging as the fundamental premise.</p>

<p>The moot point of this premise is to manage the looming global challenges, from North Korea to terrorism to climate change, within a shared framework. Though it is too early to assume that the Sino-US relations will progress within a shared framework, but there are references in Xi&rsquo;s and Trump&rsquo;s speech that can&rsquo;t be overlooked completely.</p>

<p>For President Xi Jinping, the development of both China and the United States are &ldquo;mutually reinforcing&rdquo;. Donald Trump on a reciprocal note has stated that the United States would like to build a &ldquo;stronger relationship&rdquo; with China. These expressions probably point to their rhetorical political skills, but underlying these affirmations are a recognition that the United States needs the support of China and vice-versa. Importantly, this recognition comes at a time when both have emerged as the largest economies in the world and continue to lead the global economy as two key &ldquo;engines of global economic growth&rdquo;.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The US trade deficit with China which is around US$350 billion has been a thorn in the flesh which Trump addressed maturely without blaming China much during his visit.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The US trade deficit with China which is around US$350 billion has been a thorn in the flesh which Trump addressed maturely without blaming China much during his visit." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Trump-Xi meet witnessed both discussing a set of same old issues, bilateral and global, that have troubled the Sino-US relations for decades. Bilateral issues, such as the American demand to have greater access in the Chinese market, particularly in the field of financial sectors, addressing the trade imbalance that exists in China&rsquo;s favour and to work towards a closer economic cooperation. A US$ 250 billion two-way investment proposal and commercial deals were also the highlights of Trump&rsquo;s discussion with Xi.</p>

<p>The US trade deficit with China which is around US$350 billion has been a thorn in the flesh which Trump addressed maturely without blaming China much during his visit. Simply discussing these issues at a political level were not a big attainment. Most of these discussions between Trump and Xi were confined to forging a cooperative understanding between each other. However, a concrete set of agreements to address the American trade deficit with China and how to forge a better market access in China is still missing. Trump-Xi meet has promised to have a more keen understanding between the two countries on these bilaterally economic-centric issues which may mark a new beginning to their relationship.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>By gaining an open American support, China can convince the international community better about the merits of the BRI.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=By gaining an open American support, China can convince the international community better about the merits of the BRI." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Forging these bilateral-centric understanding with China was important to American interest since Trump is continuously trying to impress the domestic constituency in the United States by creating jobs and growth in United States economy. Addressing trade deficit, and having better Chinese market access will help Trump to create more jobs in the United States. More than Trump advancing American interest, Xi Jinping seems to have struck a better deal with Trump while discussing these bilaterally economic-centric issues.</p>

<p>To formulate a better economic cooperation, address the trade imbalance, and market access among other impending issues, the Chinese President pointed that both sides need to have a practical understanding on key areas, including on the flagship &lsquo;Belt and Road Initiative&rsquo; (BRI), to enhance cooperation. This is a significant development since China wants to gather an open American support on the BRI. By gaining an open American support, China can convince the international community better about the merits of the BRI.</p>

<p>Besides, this is a Chinese strategy to characterise the next phase of Sino-US economic cooperation within the belt and road framework. That meansChina would not like to move ahead on core bilateral issues, particularly in relation to the Sino-US trade conflict without a formal endorsement from the United States over &lsquo;Belt and Road Initiative&rsquo; (BRI).</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The highpoint of the Trump-Xi meet was the concrete discussion over North Korea which has been a prickly issue between them for some time now.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The highpoint of the Trump-Xi meet was the concrete discussion over North Korea which has been a prickly issue between them for some time now." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>A new beginning was also noticed in Sino-US relations on managing the global affairs, particularly the international security environment. Tackling global terrorism, bringing stability in Afghanistan, meeting the climate change challenges could be the crucial aspects of Trump-Xi meet, but these are old issues.</p>

<p>The highpoint of the Trump-Xi meet was the concrete discussion over North Korea which has been a prickly issue between them for some time now. Both Trump and Xi expressed their mutual commitment over &ldquo;complete denuclearisation&rdquo; of North Korea.</p>

<p>Strikingly, both expressed concern over the deteriorating security conditions in Northeast Asia and how the international community must generate a consensus to tackle nuclear North Korea. Discussion over North Korea is not a new topic of discussion between China and the United States. But to have a virtual understanding to handle the North Korean issue maturely is certainly an important development which puts China in a respectable position as the determining power on the northeast Asian security.</p>

<p>Trump&rsquo;s visit to China may not have offered anything new to the Sino-US relations. But a subtle change is noticed in their relationship which is more advantageous to China and that marks to a new beginning. This change is more noticed in their bilateral engagement where the Chinese are slowly projecting themselves as a peer-partner of the United States. This points to also a scenario that the Sino-US ties are moving towards a more engaging relationship factoring the &lsquo;Belt and Road Initiative&rsquo; (BRI) of Beijing where the United States would be required to pursue a more consultative relationship with China no matter how much the US strategic community might like to repudiate.</p>


More than Trump advancing American interest, Xi Jinping seems to have struck a better deal with Trump.

It is not important what Donald Trump achieved by accepting the invitation for the red-carpet gala reception from Xi Jinping during his short tour to China: it is rather, what China gained by offering a grand reception to the American President. If the outcome of the Trump-Xi meet has to be read carefully this week, a lot is changing in Sino-US relations, especially to China’s favour that the world will not afford to ignore. A lot is changing in Sino-US relations, especially to China’s favour that the world will not afford to ignore. × Trump’s visit to China has perhaps lead to a new beginning in Sino-US relations. Though the contours of this new beginning are yet to be well-defined, it has positioned the Sino-US relationships within a new framework while acknowledging each other as ‘deciders’ of global politics in a complex international environment. This seems to be emerging as the fundamental premise. The moot point of this premise is to manage the looming global challenges, from North Korea to terrorism to climate change, within a shared framework. Though it is too early to assume that the Sino-US relations will progress within a shared framework, but there are references in Xi’s and Trump’s speech that can’t be overlooked completely. For President Xi Jinping, the development of both China and the United States are “mutually reinforcing”. Donald Trump on a reciprocal note has stated that the United States would like to build a “stronger relationship” with China. These expressions probably point to their rhetorical political skills, but underlying these affirmations are a recognition that the United States needs the support of China and vice-versa. Importantly, this recognition comes at a time when both have emerged as the largest economies in the world and continue to lead the global economy as two key “engines of global economic growth”. The US trade deficit with China which is around US$350 billion has been a thorn in the flesh which Trump addressed maturely without blaming China much during his visit. × Trump-Xi meet witnessed both discussing a set of same old issues, bilateral and global, that have troubled the Sino-US relations for decades. Bilateral issues, such as the American demand to have greater access in the Chinese market, particularly in the field of financial sectors, addressing the trade imbalance that exists in China’s favour and to work towards a closer economic cooperation. A US$ 250 billion two-way investment proposal and commercial deals were also the highlights of Trump’s discussion with Xi. The US trade deficit with China which is around US$350 billion has been a thorn in the flesh which Trump addressed maturely without blaming China much during his visit. Simply discussing these issues at a political level were not a big attainment. Most of these discussions between Trump and Xi were confined to forging a cooperative understanding between each other. However, a concrete set of agreements to address the American trade deficit with China and how to forge a better market access in China is still missing. Trump-Xi meet has promised to have a more keen understanding between the two countries on these bilaterally economic-centric issues which may mark a new beginning to their relationship. By gaining an open American support, China can convince the international community better about the merits of the BRI. × Forging these bilateral-centric understanding with China was important to American interest since Trump is continuously trying to impress the domestic constituency in the United States by creating jobs and growth in United States economy. Addressing trade deficit, and having better Chinese market access will help Trump to create more jobs in the United States. More than Trump advancing American interest, Xi Jinping seems to have struck a better deal with Trump while discussing these bilaterally economic-centric issues. To formulate a better economic cooperation, address the trade imbalance, and market access among other impending issues, the Chinese President pointed that both sides need to have a practical understanding on key areas, including on the flagship ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI), to enhance cooperation. This is a significant development since China wants to gather an open American support on the BRI. By gaining an open American support, China can convince the international community better about the merits of the BRI. Besides, this is a Chinese strategy to characterise the next phase of Sino-US economic cooperation within the belt and road framework. That meansChina would not like to move ahead on core bilateral issues, particularly in relation to the Sino-US trade conflict without a formal endorsement from the United States over ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI). The highpoint of the Trump-Xi meet was the concrete discussion over North Korea which has been a prickly issue between them for some time now. × A new beginning was also noticed in Sino-US relations on managing the global affairs, particularly the international security environment. Tackling global terrorism, bringing stability in Afghanistan, meeting the climate change challenges could be the crucial aspects of Trump-Xi meet, but these are old issues. The highpoint of the Trump-Xi meet was the concrete discussion over North Korea which has been a prickly issue between them for some time now. Both Trump and Xi expressed their mutual commitment over “complete denuclearisation” of North Korea. Strikingly, both expressed concern over the deteriorating security conditions in Northeast Asia and how the international community must generate a consensus to tackle nuclear North Korea. Discussion over North Korea is not a new topic of discussion between China and the United States. But to have a virtual understanding to handle the North Korean issue maturely is certainly an important development which puts China in a respectable position as the determining power on the northeast Asian security. Trump’s visit to China may not have offered anything new to the Sino-US relations. But a subtle change is noticed in their relationship which is more advantageous to China and that marks to a new beginning. This change is more noticed in their bilateral engagement where the Chinese are slowly projecting themselves as a peer-partner of the United States. This points to also a scenario that the Sino-US ties are moving towards a more engaging relationship factoring the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI) of Beijing where the United States would be required to pursue a more consultative relationship with China no matter how much the US strategic community might like to repudiate.

Over Trump-Xi meet, China seeks US approval for OBOR

<p>Recently, concluded first plenum of 19th Congress of Communist Party of China (CPC) helped in consolidating Chinese President Xi Jinping position as a core leader, included his thought in the constitution of the party as Xi Jinping thought of Socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era along with his ambitious Belt and Road Initiative(BRI); and finally his emphasis on Chinese military modernisation, where army must be controlled by the communist party of China.</p>

<p>Now, one needs to carefully analyse the implications of these developments for Indian strategic and security interests in particular and foreign policy in general. Indeed, Chinese President Xi Jinping is the third most influential political leader after Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping in Chinese political history. China has world&rsquo;s second largest GDP in nominal terms $11,199,145 and hence, no short of money for Chinese military modernisation.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>As a chairman of Central Military Commission, Xi Jinping has reiterated &lsquo;basic mechanisation&rsquo; by 2020, &lsquo;complete modernisation&rsquo; by 2035; and finally having &lsquo;world-class military&rsquo; by 2050.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=As a chairman of Central Military Commission, Xi Jinping has reiterated ?basic mechanisation? by 2020, ?complete modernisation? by 2035; and finally having ?world-class military? by 2050."><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>China has increased their military spending 118 per cent between 2007 and 2016 along with biggest military spender in Asia and Oceania. As the chairman of Central Military Commission (CMC), Chinese President Xi Jinping has reiterated &lsquo;basic mechanisation&rsquo; by 2020, &lsquo;complete modernisation&rsquo; by 2035&nbsp;and finally having &lsquo;world-class military&rsquo; by 2050. He also asked the people&rsquo;s liberation army (PLA) to be prepared for not just fight but win a war at any time.</p>

<p>In this background, it would be important to observe profiles of some important diplomats and military leaders. To begin with, one of the top diplomats, Yang Jiechi who is a state councillor; and special representative of India-China Border Dispute Talk Mechanism has been retained as a politburo and central committee (CC) member of the CPC.</p>

<p>The Central Committee (204 members) is the third largest decision-making body after Politburo Standing Committee (7-members PBSC) and Politburo (25 members including PBSC) of the CPC. It is also presumed that current foreign minister; Wang Yi will replace Yang Jiechi as a new state councillor and special representative in upcoming next plenum of 19th Congress of CPC in March-2018.</p>

<p>The head of Western Command of PLA in Sichuan, General Zhao Zongqi has been promoted as a central committee member. He is in-charge of India-China boundary disputes on the ground and played a very crucial role during 73-days long Doklam faceoff recently. General Xu Qiliang has been retained as a vice-chairman CMC of the CPC. The names of newly elected vice-chairman Zhang Youxia, and members of CMC are Wei Fenghe, Li Zuocheng, Miao Hua, Zhang Shengmini. It is to be noted that Chinese infrastructure development and logistics are in much better condition than Indian side of the border. China is also working on hi-speed train projects to these border areas with central parts of China.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Xi Jinping tries to build his legacy in next 30 years with the help of his ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a grand strategy of China.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Xi Jinping tries to build his legacy in next 30 years with the help of his ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a grand strategy of China."><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>One can say that Chinese President Xi Jinping tries to build his legacy in next 30 years with the help of his ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a grand strategy of China. The Chinese official argument behind BRI is that to build a world community of shared destiny based on the sovereignty and national interests of every country in the world.</p>

<p>But what we notice in the case of their sensitivities towards &lsquo;Indian sovereignty and national interests&rsquo; that despite Indian government repetitive protests, China is already involved in infrastructure development projects like construction of motorways, railways, bridges, tunnel and dams in the disputed Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), Pakistan. In fact, China started building Karakoram highways in 1957 to increase their strategic influence in this disputed PoK region. No doubt, China-Pakistan Military Nexus is a strategic reality, which has been done against India. Today, both Chinese and Pakistani armies do joint patrolling in the disputed PoK region.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>With the help of BRI, China wants to increase their strategic influence in South Asia and Indian Ocean region.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=With the help of BRI, China wants to increase their strategic influence in South Asia and Indian Ocean region. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>With the help of BRI, China wants to increase their strategic influence in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. China is giving loans to India&rsquo;s neighbouring countries, such as Nepal, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Pakistan. China&rsquo;s new assertiveness towards South Asia and the Indian Ocean region is a manifestation of asymmetric military and economic capabilities between China and India.</p>

<p>One can witness this assertiveness and strategic signalling in the tone and tenor of psychological warfare and threatening and immature words used against India during the recent 73-days long Doklam faceoff. In fact, Doklam faceoff was an ad-hoc diplomatic victory because even Chinese PLA Major General Qiao Liang justified withdrawal of troops in order to secure strategic position and to host BRICS Xiament Summit 2017 between 3rd and 5th Sep-2017; and 19th congress of Chinese communist party between 18th and 25th Oct-2017.</p>

<p>These South Asian countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Pakistan are already raising the concerns about repayment of Chinese loans and debts. There are some questions which need to be answered in this context. What if these south small Asian countries default on their repayment of Chinese loan and its high-interest rates?</p>

<p>If China is serious about building a world community of shared destiny based on the sovereignty and national interests then, why it did not consult all the participating countries before unilaterally setting the agendas for BRI forum at Beijing on 14-15 May 2017?</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>BRI is a Chinese initiative launched for safeguarding the Chinese strategic and national interests.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=BRI is a Chinese initiative launched for safeguarding the Chinese strategic and national interests." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>No doubt, BRI is a Chinese initiative launched for safeguarding the Chinese strategic and national interests. In the foreseeable future, one cannot discount the possibilities of another India-China boundary disputes because, in Chinese power calculus, India is considered as a junior power merely due to asymmetry in economic and military capabilities of both countries.</p>


Chinese initiative for safeguarding the Chinese strategic and national interests seem alarming for India

Recently, concluded first plenum of 19th Congress of Communist Party of China (CPC) helped in consolidating Chinese President Xi Jinping position as a core leader, included his thought in the constitution of the party as Xi Jinping thought of Socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era along with his ambitious Belt and Road Initiative(BRI); and finally his emphasis on Chinese military modernisation, where army must be controlled by the communist party of China. Now, one needs to carefully analyse the implications of these developments for Indian strategic and security interests in particular and foreign policy in general. Indeed, Chinese President Xi Jinping is the third most influential political leader after Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping in Chinese political history. China has world’s second largest GDP in nominal terms $11,199,145 and hence, no short of money for Chinese military modernisation. As a chairman of Central Military Commission, Xi Jinping has reiterated ‘basic mechanisation’ by 2020, ‘complete modernisation’ by 2035; and finally having ‘world-class military’ by 2050. × China has increased their military spending 118 per cent between 2007 and 2016 along with biggest military spender in Asia and Oceania. As the chairman of Central Military Commission (CMC), Chinese President Xi Jinping has reiterated ‘basic mechanisation’ by 2020, ‘complete modernisation’ by 2035 and finally having ‘world-class military’ by 2050. He also asked the people’s liberation army (PLA) to be prepared for not just fight but win a war at any time. In this background, it would be important to observe profiles of some important diplomats and military leaders. To begin with, one of the top diplomats, Yang Jiechi who is a state councillor; and special representative of India-China Border Dispute Talk Mechanism has been retained as a politburo and central committee (CC) member of the CPC. The Central Committee (204 members) is the third largest decision-making body after Politburo Standing Committee (7-members PBSC) and Politburo (25 members including PBSC) of the CPC. It is also presumed that current foreign minister; Wang Yi will replace Yang Jiechi as a new state councillor and special representative in upcoming next plenum of 19th Congress of CPC in March-2018. The head of Western Command of PLA in Sichuan, General Zhao Zongqi has been promoted as a central committee member. He is in-charge of India-China boundary disputes on the ground and played a very crucial role during 73-days long Doklam faceoff recently. General Xu Qiliang has been retained as a vice-chairman CMC of the CPC. The names of newly elected vice-chairman Zhang Youxia, and members of CMC are Wei Fenghe, Li Zuocheng, Miao Hua, Zhang Shengmini. It is to be noted that Chinese infrastructure development and logistics are in much better condition than Indian side of the border. China is also working on hi-speed train projects to these border areas with central parts of China. Xi Jinping tries to build his legacy in next 30 years with the help of his ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a grand strategy of China. × One can say that Chinese President Xi Jinping tries to build his legacy in next 30 years with the help of his ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a grand strategy of China. The Chinese official argument behind BRI is that to build a world community of shared destiny based on the sovereignty and national interests of every country in the world. But what we notice in the case of their sensitivities towards ‘Indian sovereignty and national interests’ that despite Indian government repetitive protests, China is already involved in infrastructure development projects like construction of motorways, railways, bridges, tunnel and dams in the disputed Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), Pakistan. In fact, China started building Karakoram highways in 1957 to increase their strategic influence in this disputed PoK region. No doubt, China-Pakistan Military Nexus is a strategic reality, which has been done against India. Today, both Chinese and Pakistani armies do joint patrolling in the disputed PoK region. With the help of BRI, China wants to increase their strategic influence in South Asia and Indian Ocean region. × With the help of BRI, China wants to increase their strategic influence in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. China is giving loans to India’s neighbouring countries, such as Nepal, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Pakistan. China’s new assertiveness towards South Asia and the Indian Ocean region is a manifestation of asymmetric military and economic capabilities between China and India. One can witness this assertiveness and strategic signalling in the tone and tenor of psychological warfare and threatening and immature words used against India during the recent 73-days long Doklam faceoff. In fact, Doklam faceoff was an ad-hoc diplomatic victory because even Chinese PLA Major General Qiao Liang justified withdrawal of troops in order to secure strategic position and to host BRICS Xiament Summit 2017 between 3rd and 5th Sep-2017; and 19th congress of Chinese communist party between 18th and 25th Oct-2017. These South Asian countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Pakistan are already raising the concerns about repayment of Chinese loans and debts. There are some questions which need to be answered in this context. What if these south small Asian countries default on their repayment of Chinese loan and its high-interest rates? If China is serious about building a world community of shared destiny based on the sovereignty and national interests then, why it did not consult all the participating countries before unilaterally setting the agendas for BRI forum at Beijing on 14-15 May 2017? BRI is a Chinese initiative launched for safeguarding the Chinese strategic and national interests. × No doubt, BRI is a Chinese initiative launched for safeguarding the Chinese strategic and national interests. In the foreseeable future, one cannot discount the possibilities of another India-China boundary disputes because, in Chinese power calculus, India is considered as a junior power merely due to asymmetry in economic and military capabilities of both countries.

China's growing strategic influence in Asia is a threat to India

<p>The disengagement of both Chinese and Indian troops in Doklam has fortunately led to a less tense atmosphere for the ninth BRICS Summit. China as the host would naturally like to make it a big success.</p>

<p><strong>Evolution</strong></p>

<p>BRIC&nbsp;has come a long way from Jim O&rsquo;Neill&rsquo;s (of Goldman Sachs) 2001 concept of four attractive investment destinations comprising of Brazil, Russia, India and China. It expanded into BRICS with the inclusion of South Africa. The agenda has also steadily expanded and there is a growing awareness about its relevance. The group brought a unique and alternative narrative for global growth and development.</p>

<p>In the beginning, the group was confusing for many people, since it did not fit in with any of the recognised foundations for forming such groups. It was not based on region, ideology, language, religion or commodities. The common factor for the group was the success that these five countries had made out of the process globalisation and the rapid economic growth that they registered. The raison d&rsquo;etre of the group was the growth potential of these emerging markets.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Intra BRICS cooperation in sectors like health, education, urbanisation, inclusive growth, gender issues and the environment has been making steady gains, though these do not make headline news.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Intra BRICS cooperation in sectors like health, education, urbanisation, inclusive growth, gender issues and the environment has been making steady gains, though these do not make headline news." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Initially, BRICS countries concentrated on three main pillars &ndash; reform of the Global Financial Institutions (IMF and World Bank), intra-BRICS cooperation in various sectors and addressing Global Governance Issues. In all three, there has been considerable progress. At the Seoul G-20 Summit in 2010, a decision was taken to change the share quotas and voting powers in the IMF and World Bank. It was a modest success but the US Congress has stalled further progress on the issue.</p>

<p>Intra-BRICS cooperation in sectors, such as health, education, urbanisation, inclusive growth, gender issues and the environment have been making steady gains, though these do not make headline news. Here, the idea is to learn from each other&rsquo;s experiences and follow best practices.</p>

<p>On Global Governance, the group has been demanding an equitable sharing of global leadership commensurate with the economic and political influence of BRICS. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 clearly reiterated the need for a new approach to Global Economic and Political Governance with the inclusion of new emerging economies.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The most impressive achievement of BRICS, of course, is the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA) in a very short time.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The most impressive achievement of BRICS, of course, is the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA) in a very short time." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The most impressive achievement of BRICS, of course, is the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA) in a very short time. These come about because of the inability of the World Bank and the IMF to evolve with changing circumstances. This development proved that BRICS could indeed establish global institutions wherever needed.</p>

<p><strong>What are the expectations from the Xiamen Summit?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>Even though there are no big-ticket items like the NDB on the cards, some pending ideas like the establishment of a BRICS Credit Rating Agency and BRICS standardisation and benchmarking would be pursued. There are also new initiatives on cyber security and sustainable development goals.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>BRICS should step in to take the leadership role in promoting globalisation, free trade and multilateralism.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=BRICS should step in to take the leadership role in promoting globalisation, free trade and multilateralism." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The international scenario today is truly at a crossroads. This provides a unique opportunity for BRICS to step into global leadership roles. The US and the Western countries have retreated from promoting their pet themes of globalisation and free trade. These are issues of critical importance to BRICS because their economic success has been predicated on these principles. With the West taking a back seat on these questions, BRICS should step in to take the leadership role in promoting globalisation, free trade and multilateralism.</p>

<p>The question is does BRICS have the bandwidth to do it? If not, it will have to find it because it is an excellent opportunity for BRICS to play a role in Global Governance. Of course, it will not be easy because there is a divergence in BRICS on many of these issues. The original convergence that the five countries had on Global Governance does not appear to be strengthening. Nonetheless, BRICS should not miss this opportunity of taking over a leadership role in these three critical areas.&nbsp;</p>

<p>BRICS also suffers from structural and procedural issues. Summits every year hosted by different countries lead to a proliferation of agenda items with each host trying to outdo the predecessor. There is hardly any follow-up on many of these items. The time has come for BRICS to prioritise a select number of critical areas and work towards achieving concrete goals.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>China has invited leaders of Thailand, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Mexico and Guinea (African Union Chair) to the Xiamen Summit.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=China has invited leaders of Thailand, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Mexico and Guinea (African Union Chair) to the Xiamen Summit." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p><strong>BRICS Plus is not a good idea</strong></p>

<p>The question of deepening vs broadening BRICS has been debated many times. The consensus, so far, has been to deepen cooperation between the five before broadening the group. Of course, since the Summit in Durban (South Africa), there has been outreach activities as part of South-South Cooperation (AU countries in Durban, Latin American leaders in Fortaleza, SCO members in Ufa and BIMSTEC members in Goa). China has been keen to take it to a higher level with a &ldquo;BRICS plus&rdquo; concept. So long as it is within the outreach approach, it would work well. Any attempt to increase the membership could be counter-productive.</p>

<p>China has invited leaders of Thailand, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Mexico and Guinea (African Union Chair) to the Xiamen Summit. As an outreach activity, there is no harm so long as there is no formal induction into the group. It appears that China has since given up the idea of BRICS Plus due to objections from other members. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a remark to this effect on August 30.</p>

<p>Another aspect that India will have to look out for in the Xiamen Final Declaration is a reference to China&rsquo;s pet project of One Belt-One Road (OBOR) or the Belt-Road Initiative (BRI). India has held the view that this is a unilateral project of China without any multilateral consultations. Further, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) of the project impinges on India&rsquo;s sovereignty. Therefore, India has to make sure that there is no reference to this initiative in the Final Declaration.</p>


For BRICS to play an important role in Global Governance, it should step in to take the leadership role in promoting globalisation, free trade and multilateralism.

The disengagement of both Chinese and Indian troops in Doklam has fortunately led to a less tense atmosphere for the ninth BRICS Summit. China as the host would naturally like to make it a big success. Evolution BRIC has come a long way from Jim O’Neill’s (of Goldman Sachs) 2001 concept of four attractive investment destinations comprising of Brazil, Russia, India and China. It expanded into BRICS with the inclusion of South Africa. The agenda has also steadily expanded and there is a growing awareness about its relevance. The group brought a unique and alternative narrative for global growth and development. In the beginning, the group was confusing for many people, since it did not fit in with any of the recognised foundations for forming such groups. It was not based on region, ideology, language, religion or commodities. The common factor for the group was the success that these five countries had made out of the process globalisation and the rapid economic growth that they registered. The raison d’etre of the group was the growth potential of these emerging markets. Intra BRICS cooperation in sectors like health, education, urbanisation, inclusive growth, gender issues and the environment has been making steady gains, though these do not make headline news. × Initially, BRICS countries concentrated on three main pillars – reform of the Global Financial Institutions (IMF and World Bank), intra-BRICS cooperation in various sectors and addressing Global Governance Issues. In all three, there has been considerable progress. At the Seoul G-20 Summit in 2010, a decision was taken to change the share quotas and voting powers in the IMF and World Bank. It was a modest success but the US Congress has stalled further progress on the issue. Intra-BRICS cooperation in sectors, such as health, education, urbanisation, inclusive growth, gender issues and the environment have been making steady gains, though these do not make headline news. Here, the idea is to learn from each other’s experiences and follow best practices. On Global Governance, the group has been demanding an equitable sharing of global leadership commensurate with the economic and political influence of BRICS. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 clearly reiterated the need for a new approach to Global Economic and Political Governance with the inclusion of new emerging economies. The most impressive achievement of BRICS, of course, is the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA) in a very short time. × The most impressive achievement of BRICS, of course, is the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA) in a very short time. These come about because of the inability of the World Bank and the IMF to evolve with changing circumstances. This development proved that BRICS could indeed establish global institutions wherever needed. What are the expectations from the Xiamen Summit? Even though there are no big-ticket items like the NDB on the cards, some pending ideas like the establishment of a BRICS Credit Rating Agency and BRICS standardisation and benchmarking would be pursued. There are also new initiatives on cyber security and sustainable development goals. BRICS should step in to take the leadership role in promoting globalisation, free trade and multilateralism. × The international scenario today is truly at a crossroads. This provides a unique opportunity for BRICS to step into global leadership roles. The US and the Western countries have retreated from promoting their pet themes of globalisation and free trade. These are issues of critical importance to BRICS because their economic success has been predicated on these principles. With the West taking a back seat on these questions, BRICS should step in to take the leadership role in promoting globalisation, free trade and multilateralism. The question is does BRICS have the bandwidth to do it? If not, it will have to find it because it is an excellent opportunity for BRICS to play a role in Global Governance. Of course, it will not be easy because there is a divergence in BRICS on many of these issues. The original convergence that the five countries had on Global Governance does not appear to be strengthening. Nonetheless, BRICS should not miss this opportunity of taking over a leadership role in these three critical areas. BRICS also suffers from structural and procedural issues. Summits every year hosted by different countries lead to a proliferation of agenda items with each host trying to outdo the predecessor. There is hardly any follow-up on many of these items. The time has come for BRICS to prioritise a select number of critical areas and work towards achieving concrete goals. China has invited leaders of Thailand, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Mexico and Guinea (African Union Chair) to the Xiamen Summit. × BRICS Plus is not a good idea The question of deepening vs broadening BRICS has been debated many times. The consensus, so far, has been to deepen cooperation between the five before broadening the group. Of course, since the Summit in Durban (South Africa), there has been outreach activities as part of South-South Cooperation (AU countries in Durban, Latin American leaders in Fortaleza, SCO members in Ufa and BIMSTEC members in Goa). China has been keen to take it to a higher level with a “BRICS plus” concept. So long as it is within the outreach approach, it would work well. Any attempt to increase the membership could be counter-productive. China has invited leaders of Thailand, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Mexico and Guinea (African Union Chair) to the Xiamen Summit. As an outreach activity, there is no harm so long as there is no formal induction into the group. It appears that China has since given up the idea of BRICS Plus due to objections from other members. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a remark to this effect on August 30. Another aspect that India will have to look out for in the Xiamen Final Declaration is a reference to China’s pet project of One Belt-One Road (OBOR) or the Belt-Road Initiative (BRI). India has held the view that this is a unilateral project of China without any multilateral consultations. Further, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) of the project impinges on India’s sovereignty. Therefore, India has to make sure that there is no reference to this initiative in the Final Declaration.

What can the Xiamen BRICS Summit get for India and others?

Bri, News on Bri, stories on Bri, articles on Bri, Bri stories at Wion, Bri news, Bri latest news