Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Posts Tagged CPEC

Jeopardize OBOR by Asad Khan Betini

Jeopardize OBOR

Asad Khan Betini

 

China’s one belt one road (OBOR) is changing the world order since it is leading China to influence the western European market. Chinese liberal policy in terms of trade is being viewed as a windfall while CPEC being part of it is the foundation milestone of the project. China is Pakistan’s time-tested friend and has always backed Pakistan economically and logistically despite Islamabad’s cuddling with Washington. Sino-Pak friendship is a firm knot which can’t be unlocked but yet it seems that conspiracies have amplified to imbalance Sino-Pak relations and may endanger the grant. India has recently put proposals before China to reconsider Bangladesh, China, India, and Myanmar (BCIM) as an alternate corridor. India has also resorted to developing Chabahar and Abbass ports to improve trade with Iran and Afghanistan. India’s participation in developing Iran’s Chabahar port with an investment of $85.21 million is being viewed as dominant role in South Asia. Dehli’s investment in Chabahar port will definitely permit India to access & control the Strait of Hormuz that will even provide Israel an access to the Strait of Hormuz for the reason that India is Israel’s time-test friend.  

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, India has raised concerns over growing militant hideouts in Pakistan, India is also proposing China to unleash Pakistan’s secret support to militants that are threatening the regional security and stability, even BRICS summit was predisposed by India to speak on Islamabad’s role on terrorism that brought China to play part for Indian bogey.

Accordingly, India has made reservations that East Turkistan Islamic Party (ECIP) is becoming threat to Chinese projects in deep state with sanctuaries in Tribal areas of Pakistan, but all these claims are yet unacceptable to China since Indo-US and Israel’s nexus is getting stronger and India has been identified as the largest recipient of U.S economic assistance.US may endanger the track of China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) once India gains its access and control Chabahar port.

India aspired to play a more dominant role in South Asia and it is openly believed that India intensified its attacks through proxy militants in Pakistani resource-rich province “Balochistan” and yet engaged in destruction activities, target killings, bomb blasts in Balochistan but security apparatus in Baluchistan has failed to counter terrorism. 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not a portent anymore rather a fact, Kulbhoshan Jadhav has claimed all responsibilities for the operations carried out in Pakistani mineral-rich province yet Indo-US plans are to reinvigorate Free Balochistan Movement through fundraising campaigns abroad which are deeply seen as a threat to the existence of Pakistan. It may knock Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine to save its self from foreign aggression, China strongly backs Pakistan in a bid to protect its OBOR’s objectives.

Indo-Us fulcrum is seen as a threat by China since the US is concerned with Chinese liberal influence in the Western Europe. China is softly influencing the international market, particularly developing countries are now getting loans from Chinese International Investment bank (CIIB) rather than World Bank or IMF.

The world order is slowly spinning and CPEC is becoming game changer project in the region. Pakistan needs to promote its education sector, enhance security apparatus and ensure development, friendship, and peace with the neighboring countries for the long term to make it more successful. Pakistan needs to promote Islamic coalition bloc and must arbitrate between Saudi and Iran for détente, even Chinese foreign direct investments can fulfill the needs of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, so Pakistan must step forward to integrate Muslim brotherhood.

The Writer is Balochistan Based Freelance Journalist – He can be reached at asdprg@gmail.com

, , , ,

No Comments

CPEC and Gwadar by By Zahra Niazi THE EXPRESS TRIBUNE

THE EXPRESS TRIBUNE

 OPINION

CPEC and Gwadar

By Zahra Niazi

Published: August 11, 2017

The writer is a freelance columnist

The writer is a freelance columnist

The city of Gwadar that we proudly own today did not belong to us. Our government bought it from the Sultanate of Oman in 1958. Only if Oman had known the fate of this land earlier, it probably would have never sold it to Pakistan. Now, Pakistan gladly reaps the reward while Oman silently observes.

It wouldn’t be unfair to credit Worth Condrick, the man who carried out a survey of the area and realised the worth of the land of Gwadar when Oman had known little about its value and was ready to get rid of it since Oman and Gwadar were geographically detached. Neither was it profitable to them. Additionally, the inhabitants of Gwadar were willing to join Pakistan.

A somewhat riveting fact is that Pakistan wasn’t the only country to which this land was offered. It was originally offered to India. It was India’s hard luck that it refused and Pakistan’s fortune that Gwadar was geographically contiguous to it. Today, the consequences are much harsher for India. Their angst is quite clear from the recent terrorist activities being carried out in Balochistan in order to undermine the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. It was a few months ago that an Indian submarine was found lurking in the waters around the port. RAW networks are also active in Karachi and along the western border. The deep sea port of Gwadar can prove to be a major security threat for India that may scale down its influence in the Indian Ocean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alfred Thayer Mahan was a geo-political strategist. Today, Chinese maritime strategy is based upon Mahan’s theory of sea dominance. He foresaw the superiority of the Indian Ocean. He was of the view that the one who controls the Indian Ocean could become dominant in the whole of Asia. According to him, securing the sea lines of communication can prove beneficial for countries in order to impose a blockade against others.

India is fearful that China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA) and the Pakistan Navy (PN) together could diminish its dominance in the Indian Ocean. The PLA Navy would become permanent in the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman. In case of a war, both the allies can easily impose a naval blockade against India and thereby hinder its trade. Competing against allies wouldn’t be plain sailing for India. They would keep an eye on India’s activities in the Indian Ocean particularly the Arabian Sea. China would also be able to secure its sea lines of communication. The capability of the PLA Navy as well as the PN would grow. China sees this as an opportunity to turn the port into its naval base.

China would have never invested this laboriously in Pakistan if Gwadar wasn’t bought. Giving and receiving is a fundamental law. According to this, you need to give something in order to receive something. China’s string of pearls strategy, initially coined by US analysts, includes setting up a number of military and naval areas of influence across a widespread region. Each of the area would be a pearl and one of those pearls is the deep sea port of Gwadar. China wants to diversify the trade routes and find an alternative to the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea. The Strait of Malacca is under the watchful eyes of the US and Indian naval forces. In case of any major conflict, this strait could be halted and this would affect the Chinese economy. Additionally, the strait is also surrounded by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands owned by India. Hence, the trade route through Gwadar port is fairly economical for China.

Balochistan, a resource rich region, hasn’t been able to contribute enough to the economy of Pakistan since the beginning of the creation of the country. Now, Gwadar is going to materialise our dream of sustainable prosperity for Pakistan by turning from a fishing village into a port city. Gwadar is expected to generate massive revenue. Along with this, different industrial estates could be established in the adjacent areas. Not only people from other provinces but foreigners would also be tempted to invest here if the security situation is duly maintained. Gwadar is expected to generate almost two million jobs for the people of Balochistan. The trade capacity of Gwadar port is more than that of Port Qasim and Karachi port combined.

In order to reap maximum benefits, skilled labour is a major need otherwise the job opportunities could easily be exploited by the Chinese and all the money Beijing is investing will benefit them with interest. After all, the port has been leased to a Chinese company for a period of 40 years. Along with this, the dependence on the Chinese expertise for maintenance should be reduced. Pakistan should increase its economic activities and exports. Hambantota port is the finest example where Sri Lanka was trapped in a debt and the port had to be leased to China for a period of 99 years. All the essential steps should be taken before it’s too late.

Furthermore, maritime crimes should be controlled. Crimes like illegal entry and carrying of weapons, smuggling, drug and human trafficking are frequent, and therefore need special attention. Another noteworthy issue is that of marine pollution. In order to tackle these issues, there should be strict rules and regulations for all the moving ships and efficient monitoring with the use of a system to track shipments.

Internal instability combined with external factors is another stumbling block to the success of CPEC. The Baloch people have been living with a sense of deprivation for years now. Another rather disturbing fact is RAW’s involvement with the ‘Baloch liberation movement’ and Baloch student federations. The sense of deprivation of the Baloch could be reduced by giving them due rights and bring their province at a par with others.

Balochistan Chief Minister Sanaullah Zehri and an Iranian delegation led by the governor of the Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchestan, Aaqa Ali Hosth Hashmi, decided to set up a railway track between Chabahar and Gwadar. If this becomes a reality, Iran and Pakistan would be able to have a mutually beneficial relation, putting an end to RAW’s involvement along the western border.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 11th, 2017

, ,

No Comments

Sabotaging the Gwadar and CPEC Project by Nasurullah Brohi

 

The external infiltration has always been a major reason for the instability in Pakistan and despite huge diplomatic efforts and raising voices at various international forums; the issue has never been resolved. Particularly, right from the proclamation of the China’s investment plans for the development of Gawadar port and CPEC projects with an announcement of $46 billion development projects for Pakistan, the regional rogue powers never sat with ease. Since, with its immense trade potential, the Gwadar Port provides the shortest trade route and serves as a corridor between the Persian Gulf and Western China.

Notably, China provides over 80 percent of the $248 million for the development of the Gwadar Port. The decision to invest on Gwadar Port, allows the regional states and the trade partners to benefit through a short, safe and convenient trade route that effectively passes through the South China Sea, Pacific Rim, Malacca Strait and Sri Lanka and effectively connects the entire region with the European markets.

Pakistan has always shown serious concerns over the Indian efforts to sabotage the China-Pakistan-Economic-Corridor (CPC) by possible terror attacks aimed at making the CPEC a failure. The issue of sabotaging the projects through the clandestine nexuses against the Pakistan as revealed after the recent apprehension of Indian spy Kulbhushan Yadav with a series of his confessions about the tasks and operations yet were in the pipeline to carry out in Pakistan.

Such motives do not seem merely confined with the objectives to put a single target in chaos but in fact, reflect the eager pursuits of creating muddle the situations that ultimately delay the completion of the development projects particularly those underway with the friendly states and predominantly that aim at boosting Pakistani economy.

At the diplomatic fronts, ambitious efforts also try to isolate Pakistan by creating a typical sense of bitterness amidst the relations of Pakistan with its friendly states like China but fortunately, the time-tested friendship

a typical sense of bitterness amidst the relations of Pakistan with its friendly states like China but fortunately, the time-tested friendship between the two countries, and the wisdom of their leaderships never let such immoral tactics to become successful. Many analysts believe, since, India considers China as a regional competitor, therefore; it frequently tries overcoming the China rise that greatly diminishes the chances of Indian ambitions of becoming a regional and later on a global power.

With over 46 billion dollars investment, the project would greatly increase the political and economic influence of China in the region, therefore; the Indian side always attempted through the despicable means to creating law and order situation in the region. Such tactics often used as a tool to compel the Chinese to vacate the Gawadar port and eventually lose interest in the completion of the CPEC and Gwadar projects. Though India poured an initial investment of $150 million for the development of Iranian Port of Chah Bahar but such strives could not undermine the significance of the Gwadar Port.

Comparatively, the Gwadar port enables the regional countries to carry out the trade activities much easier access than Chah Bahar. In addition, the Port also provides landlocked Afghanistan and the Central Asian states with much cheaper opportunity than the Chah Bahar. The Gwadar Port also reduces the trade distances of regional partners from 10,000 km to 2,500 km. moreover; the regional trade partners will effectively save the cost and time as well.

However, the firmness Chinese and Pakistani government is always obvious for making the long cherished dream a resounding success. For the reasons of security and the timely completion of the CPEC project additionally with the successful functioning of the Gwadar Free Trade Zone, Pakistan has allocated a special security division of over 8, 000 military personnel. In addition, an estimated number of 90,000 security personnel comprising the paramilitary and other security services of Pakistan also vigilantly monitor and ready to curb all the Indian secret activities for sabotaging the Chinese investment plans in Pakistan.

Reference

, , ,

No Comments

Pak-India Water Dispute Accelerates By Sajjad Shaukat

Pak-India Water Dispute Accelerates

Sajjad Shaukat

 

Pakistan is a grave victim of water scarcity, because of being on lower riparian in relation to the rivers emanating from the Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK). India has never missed an opportunity to harm Pakistan since its inception; it is creating deliberate water shortages for Pakistan with the aim to impair Pakistan agriculturally. Historically, India has been trying to establish her hegemony in the region by controlling water sources and damaging agricultural economies of her neighbouring states. India has water disputes with Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. Indian extremist Prime Minister Narendra Modi who has given the concerned departments to continue construction of dams has ordered diverting water of Chenab River to Beas, which is a serious violation of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. Therefore Pak-India water dispute has accelerated.

 

 

 

 

 

In this regard, an article By: Zofeen T. Ebrahim, Joydeep Gupta (Co-Authors) under the caption, “India resists World Bank move to resolve Indus Water Treaty dispute”, published in The Third Pole and reproduced-updated by a Pakistan’s renowned daily on January 6, 2017 is notable.

 

Zofeen T. Ebrahim and Joydeep Gupta wrote, “India has asked the World Bank not to rush in to resolve a dispute with Pakistan over the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects. Indian officials told a World Bank representative in New Delhi on January 5 that any differences over the projects can be resolved bilaterally or through a neutral expert. Pakistan has objected to the projects–being built by India in Jammu and Kashmir–on the grounds that they violate the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) between the two countries. After India rejected the charge, Pakistan has gone to the World Bank–the designated IWT mediator.”

 

 

1 The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960 by the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s President Ayub Khan.

 

They indicated, “Islamabad has also asked the United States (US) government to intervene, and has added the component of water security to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) agreement. Of the rivers in the Indus basin, the Indus and the Sutlej start in China and flow through India before reaching Pakistan. The other four rivers–Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi and Beas – start in India and flow to Pakistan”.

 

The writers pointed out, “The Kishanganga project is on a tributary of the Jhelum, while the Ratle project is on the Chenab. The State Department in Washington has already said it wants India and Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues bilaterally, a route favoured by India.”

 

Zofeen T. Ebrahim and Joydeep Gupta elaborated, “As the dispute flared up, the World Bank had recently suspended all proceedings–the setting up of a court of arbitration or the appointment of a neutral expert. On January 5, World Bank representative Ian H Solomon met officials of India’s External Affairs and Water Resources ministries in New Delhi in an effort to break the deadlock.The Indian delegation, led by Gopal Baglay, Joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, made a detailed a presentation on the two projects to support their argument that neither project violated the IWT. After the meeting, a government official told journalists that the Indian side had described the objections raised by Pakistan as “technical”, and therefore they would be best resolved by a neutral expert.”

 

They wrote, “Pakistan has dismissed this suggestion earlier, and is seeking a full court of arbitration. The World Bank had agreed to a court of arbitration and then to the appointment of a neutral expert, leading to objections by both countries. That was when both processes were suspended. Explore: World Bank pauses dam arbitration to ‘protect Indus Waters Treaty.’ At the January 5 meeting, Solomon did not raise any question on the designs of the two projects, according to the Press Trust of India news agency. Instead, he explored ways to resolve the dispute. With nothing decided, the World Bank official is going from New Delhi to Islamabad to continue this effort. The official added that India is fully conscious of its international obligations and is ready to engage in further consultations to resolve the differences regarding the two projects. Under the IWT, India is allowed only non-consumptive use of water from the three western rivers in the Indus basin–Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.”

 

The co-authors mentioned, “The Kishanganga and Ratle projects are on the western rivers. They are run-of-the-river hydropower projects that do not hold back any water, though Pakistan’s objection is about the height of the gates in the dams from which water is allowed to flow downstream. The three eastern rivers–Ravi, Beas and Sutlej–are reserved for the use of India. Meanwhile, in Pakistan. The Pakistani government approached the World Bank last September, saying the design of the Kishanganga project was not in line with the criteria laid down under IWT, and sought the appointment of a court of arbitration. Since the Kishanganga project has been going on for years, the “inordinate” delay by Islamabad to approach the World Bank would give India more time to complete its projects, Jamait Ali Shah, former Indus Water Commissioner on behalf of the Pakistani government, told thethirdpole.net”.

 

Their article pointed out, “However, Pakistan’s Finance Minister Ishaq Dar wrote to the World Bank on December 23, stressing that it was not withdrawing its request to set up a court of arbitration. This was followed by a call from the outgoing US Secretary of State John Kerry to Dar, saying that the US would like to see an amicable solution to the transboundary water row. Karachi-based newspaper…quoted diplomatic observers in Washington to say, “seriousness of this dispute, particularly the fear that it may harm the treaty, forced Mr. Kerry to make this call.”

 

The writers explained, “For a while now Pakistan has also wanted to bring China into the picture. At the sixth meeting of the Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) of the CPEC which was held in Beijing on December 29, a special group on water storage was formed to pre-empt any “severe water crisis” impacting economic and food security of Pakistan, an official statement said. After a Chinese delegation visits Pakistan later this month, the JCC – the highest policy-making forum of the CPEC – may consider including the Diamer-Bhasha dam into the CPEC agreement. Planned at an estimated cost of around USD 15 billion, if Pakistan succeeds in getting the dam financed under CPEC, planning and development minister Ahsan Iqbal would consider it a “landmark achievement”. Both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have refused to lend money to Pakistan for this hydropower project. Pakistani experts react leading lawyer and former federal law minister, Ahmer Bilal Soofi termed the inclusion of water security into CPEC essentially a |political choice for Pakistan and China” though the issue does not “squarely fall within the otherwise commercial mandate of CPEC”.

 

Zofeen T. Ebrahim and Joydeep Gupta wrote, “Speaking to thethirdpole.net, Soofi said Pakistan and China need to exchange notes on a “contradicting state practice of India as an upper riparian to Pakistan and a lower riparian to China, that will help both the states to confront India.” He further added that Pakistan should raise its voice at an international level that “India’s building of reservoir and fully utilising the water storage capacity under the treaty poses a serious threat to Pakistan in particular backdrop of India’s present posturing as it improves India’s capability to manipulate water flows into Pakistan.” This was echoed by former commissioner Shah who said the international community should be duly briefed about the “dilution of the violation of the provisions of the treaty” by India. At the same time, he said both countries should continue to work closely and quietly to resolve the grievances and find a middle ground”.

 

They added, “The recent stance by India where it “lobbied aggressively and influenced” the World Bank, he feared, had further undermined the already “fragile” treaty. “The WB needs to take the right action–which is to act as arbitrator in this matter, as it has done before,” pointed out water expert Simi Kamal.The reason why the IWT, 74 pages long with 12 articles and 8 annexures and has no expiry date, has worked so far, she said was partly because the Bank acted as a third party. “The Bank needs to maintain this role and not back off now, when its arbitration role is most required in the face of a belligerent Indian government.”

 

According to the writers, “Kamal further said the solution lay not in the pause by the Bank “or for hawks to call for dismantling the treaty”, but for both governments to act responsibly and for the Bank to play its role in “containing adventurism by either government–in this matter the Indian government”. Shah also felt when Pakistan plans to proceed with such cases, it never does its homework thoroughly and therefore always appears the weaker party. The same was endorsed by noted economist Kaiser Bengali when he told thethirdpole.net that he found “the intellectually deficient and politically inane manner in which Pakistan has been pursuing the matter”, criminal. Bengali had little confidence in the Pakistan IWT team. He said, “It has no strategy on dealing with water issues with India. Pakistan’s chief negotiator for more than a decade and a half had limited intellectual capacity to lead on such a strategically life and death issue,” he said”.

 

They indicated, “He said Pakistan keeps harping on the “spirit” of the agreement. “Four decades after a treaty is signed, what matters is the letter of the print, not the spirit of the time when the document was signed.” Bengali believed India was not violating the letter of the agreement. “India has been building power plants on western rivers, but not diverting any water”. Nor, he said, were Pakistan’s contentions on the design “substantive enough to warrant a full scale confrontation”. He also observed, like Shah, that differences can and should be resolved in a more “low key” manner. He feared that since India was not violating the treaty per se, if Pakistan does take the latter to court, it will meet the same fate as the Baglihar Dam case of 2007”.

 

Zofeen T. Ebrahim and Joydeep Gupta maintained, “While Indian officials maintain that they are sticking to the IWT, the government has hardened its stand in recent months after attacks on Indian Army camps in Kashmir by suspected militants. (Read: South Kashmir’s role in anti-India struggle) New Delhi had earlier said it was setting up a task force to examine what projects it could undertake in the three western rivers of the Indus basin under the ambit of the IWT. In the last week of 2016, the government announced that the task force would be headed by Nripendra Mishra, principal secretary to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.”

 

Nevertheless in light of the above article, it is mentionable that since the 9/11 tragedy, international community has been taking war against terrorism seriously, while there are also other forms of bloodless wars, being waged in the world and the same are like terrorism. Political experts opine that modern terrorism has many meanings like violent acts, economic terrorism etc., but its main aim is to achieve political, economic and social ends. Judging in these terms, Pak-India water dispute which has become serious needs special attention of the US and other major powers, as India remains stern on her illegitimate stand in this respect.

 

, , , , ,

No Comments

Game On Ha

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Game On Ha

Correct with the news that Orange Train is not part of CPEC.
Sharif brothers tried hard in getting it connected to CPEC, to hijack credit for this part of CPEC, however, the Chinese Govt. did not approve a loan to Sharif Govt and cleverly they offered a soft loan, as the Chinese knew there was no way to recover the money. 
 
Right now this project is in a lot of trouble. Originally project awarded to 2 parties. Maqbool/Calson and Habib construction.
 
Exim bank had released $300 million and when they released the next $30 million they sent their experts to check progress. Turns out that on M/C side some of the pile foundations are not even half the required depth and there is a FIR against 3 Nespak site engineers. Maqbool/Calson guarantee of 980 million was encashed however they have been overpaid Rs.3 billion so no loss to them.
 
Now the contract is awarded to ZKB/Reliable…however Exim bank has refused to make any additional payments. 
The Punjab govt. acquired some short-term financing from Bank of Punjab and paid a markup of Rs392 million plus payments of Rs. 217 million was to be paid in Oct and so on.
Workaround heritage sites have been stopped by the High Court and case is now pending in Supreme Court.
 
Work is at a snail’s pace and the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
 
Just think what the govt. could have achieved with $2 billion. But then we’re not the thinking type…can cause brain cancer.

, ,

No Comments


Skip to toolbar