India opposing CPEC

Indian Ocean is the oldest and most efficient trade corridor. On its one side are hydrocarbon rich countries and on the other side are energy deficient but major energy consuming and industrially developed countries. The ships carrying goods destined for Europe using Suez Canal also passes through Indian Ocean. In order to provide security to their maritime trade navies of different countries are also present in the Indian Ocean. In the recent past pirates having safe sanctuaries in Somalia have created serious havoc, which prompted many countries to further enhance their presence in the Indian Ocean, which also included India.

India not only claims that it is the strongest regional super power, but also openly denounces any world super power that refuses to accept its hegemony in the Indian Ocean. India is fully cognizant of the fact that bulk of the international trade, energy products, consumable and capital goods pass through Indian Ocean. It is also a fact that India and China have never enjoyed cordial relationships; in fact they are involved in boarder disputes for decades. In such a scenario, China has no option but to protect its maritime trade, particularly movement of energy products. The US Navy is also active in Indian Ocean and it has been constantly increasing its presence around Striate of Hurmaz and in the Malacca Striate. In South China Sea dispute, Japan and Korea are fully supported by the US, which also wishes to contain Chinese growth.

India has emerged as the biggest opponent of Chinese program, which is commonly known as ‘String of Pearls’. Under this program China is building sea ports in various countries and out of these Gwadar is one. While China says that all these ports fall under the category of ‘Listening Ports’ that helps in the movement of merchant ships. However, India has been refuting Chinese claim and call these ‘Chinese Naval Bases’ and term these a serious threat to its sovereignty.

India is actively operating in Afghanistan, under the disguise of developmental work. Afghanistan is a land locked country and bulk of its transit goods having been passing through Pakistan for ages. India often complains that its Afghan destined goods are not allowed to pass through Pakistan conveniently. In this backdrop India has invested huge amounts in constructing Chabahar port in Iran and linking it to the Central Asian Countries via Afghanistan by road and rail. While the Indian endeavor may succeed in offering an alternative route, the undeniable fact is that Pakistan offers the shortest and the most efficient passage to Afghanistan. This fact became most obvious when Pakistan stopped movement of NATO supplies though land route.

Pakistan decided to handover management control of Gwadar Port to China and also entered into an agreement for the construction of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The corridor will link Gwadar with Kashgar and enable China to contain transit time of its imports/exports. The goods will move on-land rather than sea. Under CPEC, Gwadar port will be linked to china by construction of allied infrastructure­ - road and railway track. India is opposing construction of CPEC section passing through newly constituted Gilgit-Baltistan Province of Pakistan.

With the commencement of full scale activities at Gwadar Port and construction of road and rail networks, Baluchistan is likely to reap enormous benefits. Over the years India has been supporting rebel groups and supplying them funds and arms. A banned outfit Jundullah had enjoyed external support but the group was disintegrated after the hanging of its chief in Iran. Lately, ‘Free Baluchistan’ banners were seen in Switzerland and analysts suspect that it is the work of those Baloch groups who have obtained political asylum there.

One can still recall that India announced to disassociate itself from Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) project due to security reasons as the gas pipeline has to pass through troubled Baluchistan province. Later on, it dawned that another gas pipeline project, Turkmenistan- Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) was being sponsored by the opponents of IPI.  A point beyond comprehension was that India decided to quit IPI because of security issue in Baluchistan, but joined TAPI that has to pass through war-torn Afghanistan.

A substantial part of road network that will ultimately become part of the CPEC has already been constructed and now it is being revamped to offer speedy and safe mode of transportation. It is believed that CPEC will change the entire landscape. India has the realization that it has missed the opportunity by strangulating its relationship with China. It also fears that Chabahar port would never be as efficient and cost effective as Gwadar. Therefore, it is making last ditched efforts to sabotage Gwadr Port and CPEC projects. Now it is the responsibility of all the Pakistanis to frustrate Indian efforts and make Pakistan ‘natural corridor for trade and energy’.

This article was originally published in Pakistan & Gulf Economist

CPEC Myths and Realities

In Pakistan a lot is being said and talked about China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). While some analysts term it a mega initiative by Pakistan’s ‘time tested friend’, cynics label it ‘another East India Company in Making”. Another group says, “British Raj undertook many mega developmental project in Indian subcontinent but most of these were aimed at taking the raw materials from one of its bountiful colony to the home town and sell its finished products to one of the huge markets enjoying substantial purchasing power, as against this CPEC is aimed at ushering prosperity in the rural areas of Pakistan”.

China has one of the largest population and industrial base. The country is deficient in indigenous production of energy products. To keep the factories running it has to import huge quantities of crude oil and finished products. Bulk of these products comes from Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Carrying these through ships takes long time and the cost is also high. Presence of navies of various super powers, particularly the US Navy, poses serious security risks for the ship carrying oil to China. Therefore, another route has to be constructed that is short, efficient and cost effective. Taking goods from Gwadar to Kashgar though Pakistan does not pose serious problems because most of the road and rail network is already in place, which can be further improvised at a faster pace and with lesser expenditures.

China, the fast growing economic power has embarked upon ‘One Road, One Belt’ program, which consists of economic belt and maritime road. A closer look at the illustration hardly shows any road or railway track passing through Pakistan. This implies that Pakistan is not the sole beneficiary of this grand plan but will reap the benefits to the extent it is able to use the corridor. At the best it will collect transit fee and the roads may make any contribution in boosting Pakistan’s GDP. The experts having futuristic vision say that adding to power generation and developing robust infrastructure can help in containing electricity outages and post-harvest losses, which means additional contribution to country’s GDP. However, reaping benefits will totally depend on conceiving right policies and their implementation in letter and spirit. The overwhelming perception is that the Government of Pakistan has not come up with any ‘home grown plan’ to fully exploit the true potential of CPEC.  

It is being said that CPEC envisages investment ranging from US$46 billion to US$72 billion. However, only scanty details are available about the projects and component of equity and debt. The overwhelming perception is that bulk of the money will come as debt and Pakistan may face serious debt serving constraints. Drawing substantial and sustainable income from infrastructure projects is a long drawn process. Sri Lanka already faces such a problem. Therefore, local policy planners have to take swift remedial steps to avoid a similar situation. It may be true that CPEC may yield enormous benefits for Pakistan, but it is more important to take into account any potential fallout and come up with ‘Disaster Recovery Plan’.

One of the basic lessons taught in management sciences is having a recovery plan in case the original plan fails. This is unavoidable because Pakistan faces internal and external treats. Even after seventy years of independence Pakistan is surviving on aid, grants, and loans and on the crutches of multilateral donors, particularly International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The primary obstacle to the CPEC’s full implementation is security. To address Chinese concerns and ensure the safety of these projects, Pakistan has created a dedicated CPEC force, but even a force of that size may not prove substantial. Many of the constituent projects are being constructed in the areas having sanctuaries of terrorist and anti-state groups. Attacks on the work force or Chinese engineers could delay or derail the CPEC.

A decades-long insurgency simmers in Baluchistan, where a number of important CPEC projects are underway. The CPEC also faces domestic political opposition in Pakistan, with infighting between provinces and the central government over the allocation of investments. The lack of transparency surrounding the negotiated deals has heightened concerns and skepticism that only a select few, if any in Pakistan, will benefit from the investments. In case Pakistan is unable to provide sufficient security or address the concerns of domestic opponents, projects will have trouble getting off the ground and will fail to prompt follow-on investments or deliver commercial success.

On the external front, CPEC face threats from the United States, India and Afghanistan. Indian Prime Minister has already lodged protest with China. Washington is likely to join hands with India, having concerns about the CPEC, as it represents the leading edge of China’s expanding access to, and likely influence within Eurasia. Any direct intervention by the US or India could be costly, unwinnable and almost certainly counterproductive to other US goals in Pakistan and the region.

This article was originally published in Pakistan & Gulf Economist

Implications of Kurd referendum outcome

The big news is that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi Kurds have voted in favor of an indecent state of their own. Now the big question is, will the other states harboring Kurds approve splitting of Iraq or support it in defying the Kurd verdict.

The initial reports indicate that Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran, having already rejected the idea of holding a referendum collectively decided to resist formation of an independent Kurd state. However, it is feared that the US and Israel will provide money and arms to the Kurds to initiate full-scale encounter with Iraqi forces that are already busy in fighting ISIS. All the stakeholders must keep in mind that the war among the Muslim countries, which are also major oil producing countries would benefit their enemies.

While many Muslim countries of the Arabian Peninsula have chosen to remain silent, Hezbollah has categorically stated that Kurdish vote marked the first step towards fragmentation of the Middle East, which could lead to the Muslims killing each other. Hezbollah Chief, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, said Kurds vote for independence was a threat to the whole region and not just Iraq and neighboring states with Kurdish populations.

Nasrallah said pointblank that arch enemy of Muslims, Israel had come out in support of independent Kurdish state and described the referendum as part of a US-Israeli plot to carve up the region. He had warned earlier this year that a future Israeli war against Syria or Lebanon could draw thousands of fighters from countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan, and could take place inside Israel.

Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan said that Iraqi Kurdish authorities would pay the price of the referendum. Turkey had built strong commercial ties with Kurdish authorities, which pump hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil daily through Turkey for export to world markets. However, after the referendum Turkey threatened to impose economic sanction, effectively cutting their main access to international markets. Erdogan went to the extent of saying that Iraqi Kurds would go hungry if Ankara halted export of Kurdish oil.

Prior to referendum, Saudi Arabia had urged Kurdish leaders to call off planned referendum in the interests of Iraq’s stability, security, unity and sovereignty. The referendum “may result in negative repercussions” for the fight against terrorist organizations, and “it would be best to avoid new crises,” said a Saudi government.

I am of the view that the Kurd referendum is part of creation of ‘Greater Kurdistan’ which will be formed by instigating Kurds from Turkey, Iran and Syria to also take similar decision. I would also say that separating Kurds from Iraq is the preamble of splitting the country into Sunni and Shia states. The US has been working on this plan ever since it attacked Iraq accusing it for developing weapons of mass destruction soon after 9/11.