Is
CPEC Marshall Plan of South Asia?
Dr
Shabir Choudhry London 18 April 2017
Some Pakistani officials refer CPEC as a Marshall Plan. In my opinion,
this is an insult to the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan, among other things
wanted to empower people. It aimed to strengthen democracies and alleviate
poverty and misery. It wanted to enrich people and educate people by establishing
new infrastructure, and by establishing new schools, colleges and universities;
and investing in new industries and new technology. American Secretary of
State, George Marshall said:
‘Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger,
poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in
recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the USA. Its purpose should
be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence
of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist’.
United States gave over $12 billion[1] (approximately $120 billion in current
dollar value as of June 2016) in economic support to help rebuild Western
European economies after the end of World War II. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in
April 8, 1948. Much of this aid was designed to restore infrastructure, build factories
and help refugees with food and shelter.
The second World War
virtually destroyed many European countries with very serious shortage of
housing and food. The food production was about two third of the pre - war
level in 1946-48; and even where there was food it could not be transported
quickly to places where it was urgently needed because of destroyed infrastructure.
In the Western Europe, approximately 5,000,000 houses were destroyed and around
12,000,000 refugees were present. Very harsh winter also did not help the
situation as it destroyed most of the wheat crop the following year. This resulted
in majority of Europeans to rely on a 1,500 calorie per day diet.
By 1952, as the funding
ended, the economy of every participant state had surpassed pre-war levels; for
all Marshall Plan recipients, output in 1951 was at least 35% higher than in
1938. As a result of good planning,
investment, sincerity and hard work the Western Europe which was destroyed by
the war, is where we see it today.
Situation in Pakistan
The Western Europe had an educated, qualified and
dedicated workforce to restore the infrastructure, this is something which is
lacking in Pakistan. The Pakistani society, unfortunately is corrupt to the
core; and nothing moves without the greasing the wheels of corruption.
Officials employed to help and serve the society will not move a file until
they are given a lump sum under the table.
Compared
to the European countries Pakistan has no agenda of helping refugees or
restoring infrastructure. Restoring means structure already existed. The
Europeans countries had know - how and technical ability to restore what was
destroyed in the war. Pakistan, on the other hand, wants to build a new infrastructure
and heavily relies on financial and technical support of China.
CPEC was not initiated because the recipient, Pakistan
was recovering from a war. Pakistan is there because of rampant corruption,
military rules, extremism, terrorism and very bad governance.
There was a democratic system in America, so they
wanted to ensure that with help of their funds economic and political stability
is established where civil society and democratic institutions can flourish.
China, on the other hand has no democracy and does
not care about human rights abuses and complaints of others. In other words,
China is not interested in institution building or democratic values or
fundamental human rights. Result of this approach is clear lack of consultation
and transparency in all matters associated with the CPEC Projects. There is
denial of fundamental rights. There is exploitation of natural resources of
Gilgit Baltistan and Balochistan. In case of Gilgit Baltistan, it is not a
Pakistani territory. Even Baloch rebels claim they are also occupied and
Pakistan is exploiting their resources.
The elite that
controls the CPEC or expect to benefit from this mega project, and rightly or
wrongly believe that the CPEC will change lives and standards of people of
Pakistan; and especially that of people of Gwadar and Balochistan. They think
the CPEC will alleviate poverty and help the government to eradicate extremism,
terrorism and insurgency. They believe Pakistan can soon be an ‘Asian tiger’.
To make this mega
project successful, and to transform Pakistan as an Asian tiger, they need
immaculate planning and corruption free implementation, which is nearly
impossible to get in present day Pakistan. The infrastructure they have in
Gwadar, and in most of Balochistan is far from standards required in modern
cities in the 21st century. One can say it is primitive.
Interestingly, electricity in Gwadar is supplied by Iran, and people have to go
to Karachi to get a reasonable medical treatment.1
The people of
Gwadar do not have good schools, colleges, universities and technical
institutes to equip people with necessary skills to administer different
projects and run the city effectively. With the prevailing situation one has a
right to ask what exactly is being built in Gwadar? And more appropriately, how
can people concentrate on other issues when they don’t have basic facilities
like clean water and basic medical treatment.
What Pakistani leaders say about Gwadar and the promises
they make to the local people and people of Balochistan is one thing; but the
bitter reality is totally different. Shezad Baloch, in his
article titled: ‘CPEC promises the moon but Gwadar just wants water’ wrote:
He
further writes: ‘It is hard to imagine going without clean drinking water
for 15 to 20 days consecutively, but for the citizens of Gwadar, it is a fact
of life. Residents of this coastal city get clean drinking water for just one
hour, every two to three weeks. “If you come to Gwadar, bring clean drinking
water. These days it’s the most valuable gift you can give,” a friend from
Gwadar messaged recently’. 3
Pakistani government
and their foot soldiers claim CPEC is a game changer. May be the CPEC is a game
changer, but question is in whose favour will this game change? Many Pakistani
economists have serious doubts about the CPEC projects and what they can offer
to people of Pakistan. We can all agree that the CPEC has potential to make
some more billionaires in China and in Pakistan. It can also help China to advance
its economic and strategic agenda.
Questions people should ask about CPEC
However, I have the following questions
and see if the CPEC satisfies them, and which will enable readers to comprehend
if this mega project will empower Pakistan, its society; and if it is anywhere
near to the Marshall Plan:
1. People of Balochistan have very serious
apprehensions about the CPEC. They feel it is imperial in design and is intended
to utilize China’s military and economic might to further fortify slavery of
Balochistan; and help Pakistan to loot and plunder natural resources of
Balochistan.
There
are many statements and interviews of rebel Balochi leaders to support the
above view point; and the insurgency in Balochistan and movement of Balochi
Diaspora also supports this. People of other Pakistani provinces and Gilgit
Baltistan also have similar complaints about the CPEC. If I start giving
details of all then the article will become too long.
2. According to many Pakistani economists and
business people, Pakistani products will not be able to complete with the
Chinese products; and that will seriously hurt the Pakistani industries and
exports. Already there is a big trade deficit in trade; and poor infrastructure
and inadequate facilities will increase this gap further.
3. Pakistan is unequal partner in the CPEC and
decisions will go in favour of the stronger partner, China. This will result in
Pakistan losing economically, strategically and will also lose its sovereignty
in many spheres of governance.
4. People need to see if the CPEC will empower
women and other disadvantaged people in the Pakistani society?
5. Will the CPEC promote peace and stability in
the region? Or it will invite other competing powers to intervene in affairs of
the region?
6. Will the CPEC create more space for civil
society; or it will enable Pakistan to curb more fundamental rights and shrink
already very little space?
7. Will the CPEC help to promote democratic and
secular ideals; or those who promote them will be hunted and punished?
8. Will the CPEC empower anti - democratic
forces and help to militarise the society; or it will empower the human rights
activists to stand up and fight their corner.
It must
be remembered that even the elected government with a big mandate is losing
power and losing ground to non- state actors and unelected forces; and that vacuum
is filled by anti - democratic forces. Militarisation of the society is taking
place systematically; and evidence of that is even in a cricket match in
Lahore, half an hour was spent in promoting army.
9. Will CPEC a promote vibrant and resilient society?
Or it will strengthen undemocratic forces?
It must
be noted that a vibrant and resilient civil society does not suite governments
of China and Pakistan. So it will be foolish to expect from them to empower
civil society.
10. Will CPEC promote transparency and
accountability? Evidence so far available does not support this. Anyone who
asks about the CPEC is given a shut-up call. Or they are accused of being an
agent of India or some other perceived enemy country.
In my considered opinion, nexus between
army and religious extremists is going to become stronger. Space for human
rights activists and civil society will further shrink. Dissent will be
brutally crushed, especially in Balochistan and in Gilgit Baltistan. Export of
extremism and terrorism will continue to be unofficial policy of the state
policy; and ideology of hatred and intolerance will be promoted under the cover
of religion.
Writer is a political analyst, TV anchor and
author of many books and booklets. Also he is Chairman South Asia Watch and
Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhr
References:
2/ Ibid
3/ Ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment