Chinese expansionism and relations with India and Pakistan.
Dr Shabir Choudhry 6 January 2021
With every passing day, the agenda of Beijing is becoming apparent. More and more countries, groups and individuals now feel that the Chinese investment is not transparent, as it is designed to advance their world agenda, and trap economically vulnerable countries in hefty loans.
In this context, Sino India relations are pivotal. It is clear that Pakistan has completely aligned itself with the interests of China, as Pakistan is becoming more reliant and dependent on Beijing.
However, despite massive investment from China, the desired progress on the projects related to the CPEC is not taking place because of political instability in Pakistan, security and some differences on the various matters.
India
Although China has many disputes with other countries, where hostilities can start anytime, still China, with some understanding with Pakistan, decided to give India a tough time in Ladakh, and in other areas along the Line of Actual Control.
At the beginning of 2020, both New Delhi and Beijing started their relations with a positive note by chalking out a number of programmes to commemorate 70 years of the ‘establishment of diplomatic relations between them’.
While this was going on, and all looked rosy, China was secretly finalising its military adventure in Ladakh to teach India a lesson; and ensure that India did not take any action in Gilgit Baltistan to endanger the CPEC or embarrass Pakistan, China’s close friend or a ‘client state’.
As far as the India policy makers are concerned they don’t trust designs of Islamabad and Beijing. They both can unite and take action against India for strategic and military gains.
It is interesting that on one hand, India is taking its seat as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for a two-year term, on the other hand, relations with Pakistan and China are deteriorating.
India has consolidated their relationship with some Arab countries, and especially with the United States. However, this has come at some cost, as India’s relationship with Moscow is not as friendly as it used to be.
It must be noted that Russia is still a big player in international matters, and their position in international disputes cannot be underestimated. For the past two decades, both India and Russia had annual summits, however, in 2020, annual summits did not materialise, apparently due to Covid -19.
However, analysts feel it is not because of the Covid -19, but because of the frosty relations. Both New Delhi and Moscow playdown any speculations about differences on issues. Nevertheless, analysts are of the view that Russia had reservations about strong ties between Washington and New Delhi; and India’s active role in the ‘Quad’ strategic group, which consists of the United States, India, Australia and Japan.
But there were clear suggestions that Moscow had reservations over New Delhi playing an active role in the Indo-Pacific initiative. In view of Dr Subhash Kapila:
‘Russia-India relations today are marked by more strategic divergences than strategic convergences of yesteryears’.
Indian policy makers may feel that Russia, a one-time old friend and close ally is developing strategic and military relationships with China and Pakistan, whereas these two countries have antagonistic designs against India. New Delhi cannot digest, Russia having close military and strategic alliance with Pakistan, because of deep rooted hatred and antagonism between India and Pakistan.
However, the counter argument could be that India, a close friend and ally is moving away from Moscow, and developing close military and strategic alliances with the United States; and this new realignment can have adverse impact on the new round of the Great Power Game.
There are more than one reasons why India opposes the CPEC. One such reason is the encirclement of India by China and Pakistan. They believe that the port of Gwadar has military and strategic aspects, which propounds serious challenges to economic and security interests of India.
The CPEC goes through Gilgit Baltistan, which New Delhi claims is an ‘integral’ part of India. In other words, the CPEC runs through an area that is occupied by Pakistan, hence, the construction of the CPEC is illegal; and is designed to harm the Indian strategic, defence and economic interests.
In 2018, I interviewed one political and human rights activist from Xinjiang region, who fled for safety to Europe. We met in Geneva during the UN Human Rights Council Session, he said:
Is it not interesting that the CPEC starts from an occupied territory, Kashgar, he regards Xinjiang as a territory occupied by China by force. From the Chinese territory, it enters the Pakistani occupied territory, Gilgit Baltistan; then it enters another territory, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which is part of Pakistan, but is very restive, and people are denied their fundamental rights. The CPEC ends in Gwadar in Balochistan, which the local people say is also an occupied territory. 1
With the construction of the CPEC, China’s stand on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute has also changed. Not only Beijing’s narrative on Jammu and Kashmir is closer to Pakistani stand, but also China has decided to encroach more territory of Jammu and Kashmir by force, as they did in Ladakh. Also, they want to take more strategically important and mineral rich areas from Gilgit Baltistan, which is currently occupied by Pakistan. Unlike their strategy in Ladakh, they want to gain land from Pakistan by twisting their arm with the power of the debt trap.
Pakistan
The CPEC and One Belt One Road have many implications for the countries which are involved in these projects. Also there are repercussions for other countries who could be adversely affected by these projects.
The CPEC has strengthened the Sino Pakistan relations. Significance of that is increased defence and strategic cooperation, more supply of arms, technology and goods, which in view of some critics, is making Islamabad more dependent on Beijing. A vulnerable and heavily dependent Pakistan is not good for India, or for the peace and stability of South Asia.
Some analysts believe that Pakistan is gradually succumbing to the pressure and stratagem of China, as they cannot find a way out of the ‘debt trap’ of China. Increasingly thinking Pakistanis have started realising that Pakistan is in a quandary – on one hand there is political instability, and on the other hand their economy is still in shambles with no light at the end of the tunnel.
The pressure of the International Monetary Fund and deteriorating relationship with the countries of the Middle East is also making things difficult for Pakistan. However, if hundreds of thousands of people from the Middle East are sent back to Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, that will further exacerbate economic, social and political problems.
Apart from that, the CPEC projects have not yielded the desired results, and debt is very fast increasing with no signs of economic improvement. Despite lofty claims on the success of the CPEC projects, only thirty two projects have satisfactorily progressed. The other ninety projects identified for the CPEC have either stopped because of differences, or they are not progressing satisfactorily.
China may have used different subterfuge to trap other developing countries in the web of debts, however, it is becoming apparent that Pakistan is also in predicament because of the CPEC. Using the term of chess, they have been ‘checkmated’, or trapped. One expert said: ‘they are trapped’...’China is taking over Pakistan's political, strategic autonomy with debt-trap ruse’.
He further said:
"And its ‘iron brother’ China, in the name of CPEC, is exploiting it economically and strategically. The most important rider continues to be that only Chinese companies, equipment, and entities will be involved in the execution of these projects". 2
A Pakistani think tank, Institute of Policy Reforms, which is affiliated with the Pakistan’s ruling party, PTI, is also of the opinion that the country has already got into a debt-trap. It cited the government’s failure to bring reforms and fiscal restraint that have made the situation a national security concern’. 3
In a view of one Indian expert, Mr Sinha, ‘China's debt-diplomacy resembles the colonial-era British practices’. He says:
"The way Pakistan today is being forced to follow Chinese dictates, albeit informally, coupled with political turmoil, economic decline, and a dwindling number of friends and benefactors in the world, it’s quite possible to see Pakistan or its parts being ceded to China like strategic Shaksgam Valley was done in 1963". 4
In order to resolve obstacles related to the CPEC projects, the officials of both China and Pakistan held a meeting in Urumqi, Xinjiang, on 25 December 2020. This was the second meeting of the Joint Working Group, which was attended by China’s Vice Foreign Minister Luo Zhaohui and Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Sohail Mahmood. Despite many problems and differences, both sides applauded the progress of the CPEC in spite of Covid -19; and pronounced to continue with the CPEC projects with a new momentum.
Notwithstanding this buoyant attitude and determination, some English dailies in Pakistan, for example, Express Tribune, raised important questions about viability of some of the CPEC projects, and how the country’s hard hit economy will be able to pay back the loans.
Also, there was a question of Chinese dissatisfaction about Pakistan's economy, and China seeking additional guarantees for the $6 billion loan for the Main Line -1 project, which includes upgrading the rail line from Karachi to Peshawar.
Although the Chinese Foreign Office called this story ‘baseless’, but critics claim, the Chinese know how unstable the Pakistani economy is, and there are no signs of improving the economy with the present policies, and the incumbent unexperienced and inefficient government of Pakistan.
In this context, there were some rumours that Pakistan has agreed to give away the region of Hunza, or some parts of it to China, just like they handed over Shaksam Valley in the past. My contacts in the region also confirmed that it is true, however, they were not in a position to provide any evidence. 5
If this story of Hunza turns out to be true, then it can result in many serious problems. Just to remind readers, apart from India, which claims the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir, which includes Gilgit Baltistan and so called Azad Kashmir as its ‘integral part’; China has also claimed the region of Hunza.
Even if Hunza is ceded to China, one can safely say that India, despite lofty claims may issue a formal statement. However, the people of Gilgit Baltistan, the people of so called Azad Kashmir, and the people of Jammu and Kashmir will take this as another stab in the back, and this will add to their resentment against Pakistan.
In the December meeting of the Joint Working Group, both China and Pakistan agreed to promote the CPEC positively. In this regard, both agreed to ‘encourage’ media, film and television to publicise positive aspects of the CPEC and bilateral cooperation.
Of course, from the word ‘encourage’ one can infer, incentives for the ‘good journalists’, as there were incentives for ‘Good Talibans’ and ‘good jihadis’. It means there will be many articles, TV debates and documentaries produced to satisfy the people of Pakistan, especially those who criticise the CPEC.
The CPEC has entered its sixth year of operations, and has enormously added to the debt burden of Pakistan, however, the promised or perceived economic miracles and advantages are still not achieved yet. This is adding to the frustration and resentment of the people, especially people of Balochistan, who think they are colonised and their natural resources are being syphoned off.
It must be pointed out that twenty two projects of the CPEC, known as ‘early harvest projects’ were completed by the end of 2018, during the Muslim League N rule. The cost of these projects was $18 billion. Most of these projects were related to energy and transport. The cost of energy related projects was $12.8 billion. Out of this $9.8 was obtained from the commercial banks with an interest rate of 5%, and must be paid with a 12 – 18 year payment plan.
This is not good news for the Pakistani consumers, as the government can only pay back these loans, other loans taken from IMF and other lenders by increasing the cost of living. Due to severe economic crises the people of Pakistan are already suffering immensely. It is difficult to say for how long they will quietly endure this suffering and the added burden.
In October 2019, Imran Khan’s government established the CPEC Authority, something Nawaz Sharif refused to do. Lt General Asim Saleem Bajwa was appointed Head of this Authority which has billions of dollars at its disposal. What a choice to appoint General Bajwa to this lucrative post, as the man made headlines for corruption and embezzlement some months ago, but no action was taken against him.
Who dares to challenge the might of the army Generals, or issue proceeding against them in the Pakistani courts. Nawaz Sharif tried it, and we all know what they did to him.
The CPEC has apparently four areas where the work needs to be done.
1. Gwadar, where China is expanding a port on the Arabian Sea and has ambitious plans for a Free Trade Zone,
2. Energy,
3. Transport Infrastructure, which includes airport, bridges, highways and railways etc
4. Industrial Cooperation.
5. Apart from that, a very essential component is the security, and Pakistan is responsible for that. Despite a large force, especially established for the protection of the CPEC projects, hitherto, Pakistan has not been very successful in this field. China for obvious reasons is not satisfied with this and is applying more pressure on Pakistan to ‘do more’.
6. Other than attacks by militants, there is a big issue of landslides and extremely cold weather in Gilgit Baltistan.
Some critics point out that the ‘cost of sending [one barrel of oil] overland via Gwadar and Xinjiang would run at between four and five times that of the sea route through Shanghai”.
The critics argue it doesn’t make economic sense for the CPEC. There must be another hidden agenda for the Corridor. Andrew Small points out that:
‘for China it is a redundant transport corridor that can protect China during a naval blockade or other wartime scenarios. At the same time, Gwadar’s potential military value may have become more salient to Beijing in light of its recent far flung military expansion’. 6
Some analysts believe that China also has a role in Pakistani endeavours to employ non – state actors to be used against other countries, particularly India; and supporting violence and terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and in other Indian states in northeast. Whenever Pakistan gets in hot water because of this policy, China actively supports Pakistan and rescues them.
Pakistan gained great experience in coordination of non – state actors, and managing covert operations in the Afghan Jihad against Soviet Russia. After the Soviet Russia withdrew from Afghanistan, Pakistan used that experience and resources in Jammu and Kashmir to advance it’s foreign policy agenda.
Pakistan also has experience in establishing and controlling these non – state actors. They used the name of Islam and Jihad to establish a complex network of recruitment, fundraising, training and committing acts of violence and terrorism. Despite their apparent strong commitment to the Islamic cause, Pakistan on demands of China did not hesitate to thrash Uighur militants, who were also Muslims, and were fighting the Chinese occupation in name of Islam.
Writers like Andrew Small believe that Pakistan was also playing a double game, as they played with the United States. On one hand Pakistan crushed Uighur militants, under pressure of China, and on the other hand their controlled private militias were training and supporting the Uighur militants. 7
One objective of the CPEC was to stimulate economic growth in South Asia and Central Asia by 2025. This economic progress will promote further growth in other areas which will ultimately strengthen the CPEC and China’s ambitious programme of One Belt One Road -OBOR.
Experts, however, believe that the CPEC will accomplish targets related to building infrastructure for transport and energy, but it does not mean this will alone prove to be a ‘game changer’ for the Pakistani economy.
Also, it does not mean that the Pakistani economy will be in a position to pay back the loans and enable Pakistan to get out of this debt trap. If the targets set out for the CPEC are not achieved as planned and publicised, then this failure may have a negative impact on other projects of the OBOR in other countries.
Gwadar
Gwadar has a ‘great strategic location between South Asia, Central Asia and West Asia at the mouth of the Persian Gulf’. It is just outside the Strait of Hormuz. Its strategic importance was not fully recognised by the countries of the region.
This small town of Gwadar was not even part of Pakistan in 1947. Gwadar was given to Oman as a gift by Khan of Kalat in 1783. This was the overseas territory of the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman at the time of the Partition of India in 1947.
This territory was purchased by the Pakistani Prime Minister Feroz Khan Noon in 1958. This is why the Pakistani critics say when the Pakistan army rules Pakistan, we lose territory and when civilians rule we add more areas to our territory.
Among the countries that speak against the CPEC and the development of Gwadar as a deep sea port with military and strategic significance, India surely stands out. However, is it not interesting that India had an opportunity to purchase Gwadar in 1958.
The Sultan of Oman had good relations with India, and he offered Nehru to purchase the territory for only $1 Million US dollars. India under Nehru, did not appreciate the strategic importance of Gwadar, and declined the offer.
On 8 September 1958, Feroz Khan Noon purchased Gwadar for Pakistan for the amount of $3 Million US dollars. This shows the vision of the leader. Gwadar was integrated with the Province of Balochistan in July 1970 as Gwadar district.
Just imagine if Nehru had purchased it, Gwadar as part of India, could have created many difficulties for Pakistan. One thing is sure, without Gwadar, there would have been no CPEC and friendship deeper than sea, higher than mountains and sweeter than honey, because China only extends a friendly hand when they know that they can take control of that hand if not control of the entire body.
Indian critics of Nehru call it a ‘strategic blunder’ of Nehru, as he could not foresee enormous benefits, which Gwadar was offering to India. Rajnikant Puranik, an Indian writer and analyst says:
India should have acquired it, so that it could have been used as a bargaining chip with Pakistan, vis – a -vis Kashmir and other matters’. 8
If the CPEC is the key component of the OBOR, China’s ambitious plan to control and influence the world economy, then the port of Gwadar has immense importance for the CPEC, and Sino Pakistan economic, strategic and defence stratagems.
References:
1. He was a Muslim human rights activist who strongly believed that China occupied his motherland – Turkistan- by force. He said the majority of the Muslims wanted an independent Turkistan. He was imprisoned and tortured, and he left him home to continue his struggle against China.
3. Ibid
4. Ibid
5. Ibid
6.The China-Pakistan Axis: Asia’s New Geopolitics, by Andrew Small, page 102
7. Ibid, page 319
8. Nehru’s 97 Major Blunders, page 152
No comments:
Post a Comment