Tag: Belt And Road Initiative

Tricky For Journalists To Cover A War

How Tricky It Is For Journalists To Cover A War

By Sanjoy Narayan

Last week, Israel accused four freelance Gaza-based journalists who have worked with Western media outlets of having advance knowledge of the Hamas attack on October 7, which triggered the ongoing bloody conflict in Gaza. The journalists, mainly photographers, were accused of collaborating with Reuters, Associated Press, CNN, and the New York Times, all of them media outlets of considerable repute.

The accusation, made by Israeli communications minister Shlomo Karhi, was based on a report by a pro-Israeli media watchdog group, Honest Reporting, which stated that the journalists and, therefore, the organisations they were working for had prior knowledge of the horrific attacks by Hamas. In the past also, Honest Reporting has accused newspapers such as the New York Times and other western publications of an anti-Israel bias in their coverage of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

The accusations have serious implications. In the October 7 attack, 1,200 Israelis died and more than 240 were taken hostage. It has led to a bloody battle with Israel seeking retribution by launching a full-scale attack against Hamas but the collateral damage from which has killed, displaced or injured thousands of civilians.

On their part, the four media outlets—Reuters, AP, CNN, and the New York Times—have denied any prior knowledge of the attacks. They emphasised that there were no arrangements in advance with the journalists to provide photos. The New York Times described the accusations as “untrue and outrageous,” highlighting the risk such unsupported claims pose to journalists on the ground in Israel and Gaza.

Covering wars such as the one that is ongoing in Gaza or the one that is raging for nearly two years in Ukraine after Russia attacked the country in February 2022 is fraught with risks. Of course, the primary risks that journalists face are obvious: the possibility of getting caught in the attacks, suffering injuries, or even getting killed. But there are other risks. How credible are journalists’ war-time sources?

In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the picture of what is happening can vary sharply, depending on what the source is. If it is the Russian propaganda machinery, which also includes pro-Kremlin bloggers “embedded” in Russia’s military in the war zone, then you will get the pro-Russia view; if it is sourced from Ukraine, then it is likely going to be an entirely different view.

In Gaza, journalists covering the conflict face significant challenges. First, there are the restrictions. Israel has not allowed foreign journalists to enter Gaza. As a result, Western correspondents (as well as Indian media outlets that sent their representatives there) have reported extensively on the grief of Israeli families, but they miss a vital aspect of the story by not being able to witness the situation firsthand in Gaza. Without experiencing the prayers Palestinians make when they lose loved ones or learning about the life stories of those who have been killed, the coverage of Gaza remains incomplete compared to the coverage of Israel.

Israel has been steadily suppressing news reporting in the Gaza Strip. Journalists have faced danger, with some killed or wounded, media premises destroyed, and communication disruptions. There is a looming threat of an all-out media blackout in Gaza.

Journalists also face entry bans in Gaza. Since Israel blockaded the area 16 years ago, journalists cannot enter the Palestinian territory without authorisation from Israeli authorities. In addition, there could be further restrictions on Muslim journalists as three Muslim journalists from MSNBC—Mehdi Hasan, Ayman Mohieddine, and Ali Velshi—were suspended. This decision coincided with escalating tensions in the Gaza area.

On the other side too, Hamas, the ruling group in Gaza, has imposed (and later rescinded) some restrictions on journalists covering the conflict. After the recent conflict in Gaza, Hamas issued sweeping new restrictions on journalists in the Palestinian enclave. These rules included not reporting on Gazans killed by misfired Palestinian rockets; and avoiding coverage of the military capabilities of Palestinian terror groups. However, these guidelines were rescinded after discussions with authorities in Gaza. The Foreign Press Association (FPA), which represents international media, expressed that such restrictions would have been a severe limitation on press freedom and safety. Hamas confirmed the reversal and stated that there are currently no restrictions.

For journalists, trying to cover a war objectively and without bias could be an oxymoron. Most journalists are dependent on one or the other side of the warring nations. If reporters and photographers are in Israel covering what is going on in Gaza, you can expect their reports and dispatches to reflect the Israeli view of things; if they are on the other side, then the views could be quite different. Over the past nearly two years, making sense of who is making progress or suffering more losses in Ukraine has become a complex business: you either get the Russian view or the Ukrainian view, none of which might be the “true” picture.

The Cosmic Blueprint of Xi Jinping

There is a photograph that you can find with relative ease on the Internet. It shows China’s supreme leader and President Xi Jinping, flanked by Russian President Vladimir Putin, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres, and some two dozen top dignitaries from around the world. The photograph is from the third Belt & Road Forum for International Cooperation that was held on October 17 & 18 in Beijing.

It also marked the 10th anniversary of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a global infrastructure and investment project announced by Xi in 2013. Many see this as part of China’s and Xi’s larger vision of a blueprint for a new world order to challenge the existing international system that it feels is unfairly skewed in favour of the United States and its allies.

Xi’s vision transcends mere governance and is more of a cosmic plan to reshape China’s role, influence, prominence, and, indeed, dominance of the world.

China was once happy to hide its capacities–economic, military, and cultural–and bide its time. It is no longer content to do so. Xi, who is on an unprecedented third term at the helm of his nation, wants to redefine the norms, dismantle existing “western biased” hierarchies and meld together a world where China’s rise is unstoppable. This vision unambiguously pervades every forum, conference, policy formulation, and international strategy that China now espouses.

The Belt & Road Forum was no different. The heads of states who attended it hailed China’s strategy and Xi’s vision. Notably, the United Nations’ Secretary General was a participant at the forefront of the forum.

For the West, Xi’s gambit resembles a tectonic shift. American wars overseas, erratic foreign policy shifts, and deep political polarisation have eroded confidence in US global leadership. Moreover, within the US, opinions, support, and allegiances are sharply polarised and divisive, raising questions there and elsewhere in the world about the relevance and effectiveness of a US-led world order. Is its approach sustainable? Can it navigate the tempests of climate change, geopolitical tensions, and humanitarian crises?

As China’s assertiveness grows, the West faces a choice: adapt or resist. Xi’s alternative model—multilateralism reframed as great-power balancing—tempts some. Yet, lurking beneath are shadows of Beijing’s iron-fisted rule—surveillance, censorship, and repression.

Where does India fit into this? Thus far, India’s approach has been cautious as it tries to balance ancient wisdom and modern ambitions. India seeks economic ties with China while guarding its strategic interests. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) looms large—an infrastructure web that binds nations but also raises sovereignty concerns. India is not a signatory to that initiative.

India’s strategy has been a sort of tightrope walk where it has tried to tango with both the West and with Beijing. It wants to harness economic opportunities from both, yet remains wary of Beijing’s territorial assertiveness and military buildup in the Indo-Pacific.

Xi’s vision does resonate with a large swathe of regions and countries around the world, including predominantly developing nations in Asia, Africa, and South America. His vision exhorts countries to forge creative coalitions—beyond simplistic divisions of democracies versus autocracies. North Korea and Iran share this stage with moderate, modernising nations. The global future, Xi suggests, demands nimble alliances.

In this scenario, India, which has had a rich history of alliances with international partners, has to traverse a shifting landscape. As the most populous nation in the world and with hundreds of millions of young people with high aspirations, India would ideally like to have a louder voice in the emerging new order, and not merely be a spectator. For that to happen, perhaps it is time for India to review its tightrope-walking style of geopolitical strategy and be more decisive.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Beijing Sharpens BRI To Woo Global South

By Kunal Bose

Whatever success is claimed by the Delhi Summit of G20 countries under the presidency of India, the absence of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin from the conclave of leaders even while they were represented by their prime minister and foreign minister, respectively, robbed the meeting of some glitz.

Putin has been extremely circumspect with foreign travel since the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for his arrest on alleged war crimes in March. Though India like the US is not part of ICC, Putin must have believed that his presence in Delhi would invite smirks from many attendees. Then he has preoccupation with the challenges that the Ukrainian war has thrown up and internal dissensions. Xi had quite a few considerations to avoid being in the summit, for he knew that with the support of the West, the summit would herald an ambitious infrastructure project touching many countries amounting to a challenge of China’s own Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

While many saw Xi’s absence as a snub to the G20 summit, Prime Minister Li Qiang who joined the party instead played, to every other participating country’s relief, a role that didn’t leave a room for dissonance. In the meantime, Xi is continuing with subtle that finally would amount to something profound changes in diplomacy aimed at seeking leadership of the global South. At the recent BRICS meet in South Africa’s Johannesburg, Xi had reasons to celebrate that Saudi Arabia and Iran in whose reconciliation Beijing had an important role were inducted as two of the six new members.

At the same time, it is to be said to the credit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that he is making an outreach to the Islamic world and this has come for praise from none other than Congress Working Committee member Shashi Tharoor. It was largely at the instance of Modi that the African Union representing 55 countries was inducted as a new member of G20.

India has good relations with all the new BRICS inductees. But for Beijing BRI is an important handle to have the global South on its side in the influence war with the West, the US in particular. Launched ten years ago, BRI that revived vision of Chinese attempts to revive the Silk Road is seen as Xi’s signature foreign policy initiative. Since its launch, China’s cumulative BRI engagement amounts to over $1 trillion, with nearly $596 billion in construction and $420 billion in non-financial investments.

Even while many flaws have been identified in project selection and execution and governance resulting in many project and aid receiving developing countries now tittering on the brink of default, BRI finance and investments are once again picking up. A report by think tank Green Finance and Development Center says in the first half of the current year, over 103 BRI deals worth $43.3 billion were done compared with approvals claiming investment of $35 billion in six months to June 2022.

This is proof that though Xi is aware of the factors telling on many BRI projects such as bending of rules by Chinese banks while financing projects in unstable countries marked by human rights violations, rigged elections and fratricidal warfare, he will not allow atrophying of the programme. At the same time, he wants the projects to pay for themselves. Times have changed since the unveiling of BRI. The country’s economic performance continues to disappoint, the economy having grown at an annualised rate of 3.2 per cent in the second quarter. China grew by only 3 per cent in 2022.

ALSO READ: China And West – A Poisoned Relationship

According to a survey of 37 economists by Nikkei, the Chinese GDP growth counting average opinion will be 4.7 percent this year, but with many putting it still lower at 4.0 per cent. Beijing is greatly concerned that the country’s exports took a year on year dive of 8.8 per cent in August, the fourth month in a row of decline. Property developers continue to be haunted by payment defaults to banks and the economy is facing deflationary risk unlike the Western countries and India where inflation continues to remain a major concern.

As China remains in search of economic recovery, citizens keep on wondering why Beijing should remain the world’s largest creditor to developing countries supporting their infrastructure development instead of announcing a big bang fiscal stimulus package to fix its own faltering economy. But for China there is no backtracking on BRI, for it will now be engaged in a contest with India inspired India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEE-EC) project accepted at New Delhi G20 summit. Earlier, sensing that they are missing out on the goodwill of low and middle income countries where China’s presence is increasingly felt, advanced economies represented in G-7 have too proposed an investment of $600 billion in infrastructure development of poorer regions. But nothing concrete has happened as yet.

Facing such challenges, Xi wants cleaning up BRI related accounts without, however, going for a haircut. Earlier dodgy lending practices are shunned and funds siphoning by politician-bureaucrat nexus at aid receiving countries are largely plugged. Beijing has given a clear message that henceforward projects will be chosen based on their viability and a fair return. The Economist says Chinese President wants investors to focus on “small but beautiful” projects with promise of good returns, effective governance and oversight not to allow fund misuse. While funding of infrastructure that poor and developing nations need more than anything else, Beijing now is also talking of a digital silk road through the global south enabling it to participate in world digitalisation.

Arguably, IMEE-EC is the single most important breakthrough at the G20 summit, which if funded properly will prove to be a significant booster of trade encompassing India, the Middle East and Europe. Multi-modal connectivity of the three continents is a much discussed idea. The challenge is in getting all the countries on board and arranging funds. What, however, is to be accepted that in scope and the number of countries to be covered, IMEE-EC will not stand in comparison with BRI.

Xi must be patting himself on the back that over 150 countries touching all geographies and home to nearly 75 per cent of the world population and accounting for half the global GDP are part of BRI initiative. Come October, China will be hosting the third BRI forum in its capital city where it is expecting attendance of more than 90 countries. Interestingly, President Putin will make his first trip abroad since the issue of arrest warrant by ICC to attend the Beijing meeting.

Ahead of the BRI meeting, Xi is hosting Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. BRI is no charity. China is carefully choosing the countries rich in minerals and crude oil and gas but short of resources to build infrastructure. Thereby it is earning goodwill. Some years preceding the launch of BRI, China became a key lender to Venezuela in 2007 providing funds for infrastructure and oil projects. In the next phase of development of its oil industry, Maduro will need more foreign funding. He has described his visit to China as historic since this is happening after years of frosty relations with the BRI promoter. In the meantime, the US is seeking engagement with Venezuelan officials after lifting of sanctions. But this will be conditional on Maduro making a promise of fair elections to be held next year.

While this being so, Beijing is not in the habit of raising issues of human rights violation and absence of democracy in its engagement with aid receiving countries. Incidentally, President Biden while in Delhi for the G20 summit made it a point to raise the “importance of respecting human rights” with the Indian prime minister. Biden told reporters in Hanoi: “As I always do, I raised the importance of respecting human rights and the vital role the civil society and a free Press have in building a strong and prosperous country with Biden.” If this is the kind of US engagement with the world’s largest democracy, then it does not leave to one’s imagination what Washington will be demanding of Venezuela for lifting sanctions. No wonder Beijing has an edge in dealing with regimes, which are not bound by democratic norms.

China is the world’s largest importer of oil and despite US sanctions, Beijing is importing crude – mostly heavy sour Merey and Boscan – from Venezuela. The South American country with proved reserves of 304 billion barrels are ahead of Saudi Arabia’s 298 billion barrels. Naturally China will be keen to have normal relations with Venezuela likely resulting it investing in development of oilfields and related infrastructure. Repairing relationship with China will help Maduro in his bid for third presidential terms as he is to derive political and economic benefits from rivalries between the world’s two largest economies. It will be recalled that Beijing was a major lender to Venezuela in 2007 when the country under the leadership of Hugo Chavez was engaged in developing its oil industry and infrastructure.

Kuwait Saves Itself From Falling Into Guanxi Trap

By LokMarg

Kuwaiti government seems to have understood the Chinese Guanxi trap which is synonymous with bribery and corruption in China.

But its latest move of excluding Chinese-sponsored Beijing Enterprises Water Group (BEWG) from Al-Mutla’s waste water purification plant shows that the country is rectifying its past mistakes.
According to Financial Post, Guanxi is a system of mutually beneficial relationships that works as a lubricant for the wheels of the business transaction and is often synonymous with bribery and corruption in China.

Recently, Kuwait’s Ministry of Public Works disqualified the BEWG’s tender for setting up a wastewater treatment plant for Al-Mutla’s sewage station. Kuwaiti Public Works administration said that the reason behind the disqualification of BEWG’s bid was based on the ground that it was earlier involved in bribing the officials to secure the Umm Al Hayman project.

After this revelation, Kuwait’s crown prince Sheikh Al-Ahmed has directed investigative agencies to nab those involved in maladministration and misdeeds, reported Financial Post.

Financial Post reported citing the ministry of Public Works’ report that the Chinese companies are indulging in malpractices for gaining an advantage to win contracts in Kuwait.

China-sponsored companies participating in Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects are another manifestation of Beijing’s malafide intentions. There are widespread instances of bribery with a reported 60-85 percent of Chinese firms paying bribes to secure projects under BRI. Chinese firms are known offenders of peddling influence.

Apart from payments to lower-level bureaucrats, there have also been several notable scandals involving senior political figures receiving illegal gratification from Chinese companies, reported Financial Post.

Chinese companies are the least transparent as per Financial Post citing Transparency International’s study in 2019 based on 100 firms in 15 emerging markets. Poor business practices including delays in the completion of projects are endemic to BRI projects. Numerous Chinese firms have been debarred from World Bank and multilateral development banks for fraud and corruption including inflating costs to give bribes.

Kuwait is not the line example. In Malaysia and Kenya also the Chinese government used its Guanxi trap to gain advantages in the contracts.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s ouster in May 2018 was linked to Chinese projects under BRI. China poured out the money into Malaysia’s state development fund 1 Malaysia Berhad, known as 1MDB, by inflating the cost of infrastructure projects, Financial Post reported citing Wall Street Journal.

In exchange, China received the freedom of access to major national rail and port projects in Malaysia. Whereas in Kenya, the prosecution of Chinese officials on corruption charges showed that to bypass the systemic procedure, China employed illegitimate tactics. Kenya is facing unimaginable debt resulting from a railway project that has exceeded its budget and yielded unexpectedly low results.

These case studies corroborate the widely held beliefs that China exploits countries to provide impetus to its BRI projects. To build infrastructure projects in other countries, the interested party naturally needs to go through sets of official procedures of the recipient country. However, to bypass these procedures, China indulges in corrupt practices and executes projects abroad through unsavory means, according to Financial Post. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

China’s Forays Into Ports Have Deep Currents

By Asad Mirza

Recent reports by the Wall Street Journal have revealed that the US Intelligence agencies found evidence of construction work on what they believed was a secret Chinese military facility in the United Arab Emirates, and which was stopped after Washington’s intervention.

It says that satellite imagery of the Port Khalifa revealed suspicious construction work inside a container terminal built and operated by a Chinese shipping corporation, Cosco. It included huge excavations covered in an apparent attempt to evade scrutiny and apparently for a multi-storey building.

The Biden administration initiated urgent contact with the UAE authorities, which appeared to be unaware of the military activities, according to the WSJ. It said the discussions included two direct conversations between Joe Biden and Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in May and August.

The US officials visited the UAE in late September and presented the Intelligence details to the Emirati authorities. The construction work was suspended after the US officials recently inspected the Port Khalifa site.

Chinese forays in the Gulf

Basically, China, the world’s largest trading nation, has thrown its weight behind Abu Dhabi as the Middle East hub for its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its biggest project is the Khalifa Port. Moreover, it is trying to expand its presence globally by constructing ports, railways and roads in partner countries albeit at terms which tilt hugely in its favour, besides challenging the US interests.

Cosco, the Shanghai-based, state-owned group that ranks among the biggest shipping companies in the world, has invested an initial $300 million in the CSP Abu Dhabi Terminal, the first step in an investment programme that could help make it one of the biggest ports in the Arabian Gulf over the next five years. The deal with Cosco is aimed at attracting foreign investment into the UAE via the Khalifa Industrial Zone of Abu Dhabi (KIZAD), the huge logistics and manufacturing zone that borders the port. By 2023, the Port Khalifa is expected to overtake Jebel Ali, just 50 km away in Dubai, in capacity terms the most important emirate in the UAE.

Trade ties have been growing between China and the UAE since a visit by Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed Al-Nahyan to Beijing three years ago. Chinese President Xi Jinping visited the UAE last summer.

In alignment with their goal of augmenting UAE-China trade, DP World, a UAE owned company in partnership with Zhejiang China Commodity City Group (CCC) has also launched the Yiwu Market as part of the first phase of Dubai Traders Market, located in the heart of Jafza. Dubai Traders Market will span approximately 800,000 square metres, with Yiwu Market covering about 200,000 square metres. The market will give traders and businesses from across the globe access to wholesale discounts with minimised supply chain costs and turnaround times.

Regional Geopolitics

China’s BRI is a state-sponsored strategy to enhance land and sea trading infrastructure in Asia, the Middle East and Africa via multibillion-dollar investment in trading hubs across the eastern hemisphere, though it has been criticised by some observers for leaving the partners of Chinese companies in debt, as happened in Sri Lanka and Venezuela.

In recent times, Persian Gulf powers like the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been engaged in expanding their influence in the Horn of Africa and are busy opening commercial and military facilities in the Red Sea region. Major global powers like the United States (US), Japan, China and France have established military bases in Djibouti. Reportedly, India had also demonstrated interest in opening the base at Djibouti and Russia has recently announced that it will establish a military base in Sudan.

China is engaged in developing major infrastructure projects such as ports and railways in Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya. As a result of these activities, the littoral and continental space from Sudan in the north to Kenya in the south has become a focal point of strategic rivalries between regional as well as global powers.

Chinese ventures in Somaliland

The port of Berbera and Somaliland’s geopolitical location at the crossroads of West Asia, Horn of Africa and Indian Ocean is likely to assume increasing strategic importance as the Indo-Pacific rivalries sharpen. Historically, the strategic location of the port near the straits of the Bab-el-Mandeb, which is a key maritime choke point for international trade and global energy security, has attracted foreign powers. In the last few years, UAE has established a firm foothold at Berbera. Meanwhile the UAE, Ethiopia and Somaliland have reached an alliance for developing Berbera Economic Zone.

The Chinese navy established a facility in Djibouti, its first overseas base, about four years ago, which was placed within a Chinese-run commercial port, at Doraleh. In addition in June this year, a new container terminal was inaugurated at the port of Berbera in the self-governing territory of Somaliland. Somaliland is a breakaway region of Somalia and is not recognised by any other state. The port of Berbera is located along the southern coast of the Gulf of Aden.

For UAE, developing the port of Berbera and building strategic partnership with Somaliland serves two inter-related objectives: challenge the pre-eminence of the port facilities at Djibouti for the shipping enroute to the Suez Canal and expand its influence in the Horn of Africa. Through its entrenched presence in Somaliland and in Southern Yemen, UAE is in an enviable geopolitical position: it can monitor the strategically important Gulf of Aden closely and shape the strategic affairs of the region.

India’s Interests

Gulf of Aden is an integral part of India’s maritime neighbourhood and the sharpening rivalries between major powers underscore the need for increasing India’s strategic presence in the region. India has recently opened its embassy in Djibouti and has been steadily expanding its engagement with the Horn of Africa.

Officially, there is no contact between India and Somaliland. A foothold in Somaliland would expand India’s presence and prove useful in monitoring Chinese activities in the region.

India could use its ties with the UAE to forge newer ties with Somaliland. Compared with the unstable politics and prevailing insecurity in Somalia, democratic Somaliland is stable and secure. This will also serve its purpose of keeping an eye on the Chinese activities in the region and be a force to reckon with in the Gulf of Aden. 

Chinese Projects In South Asia Facing Hurdles: Report

By LokMarg

After the initial fanfare about Chinese projects in South-Asian countries, the much-touted infrastructure deals in nations like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal are reportedly stuck in limbo by delays, complications and increased costs.

China’s highly-touted Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) seems to be losing its sheen everywhere, as various issues including work at slow pace and terror attacks slow down the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) progress. Beijing is much concerned about the CPEC, which is the centrepiece of the BRI. The sluggish pace of work, frequent terror attacks, and incidences of corruption have slowed it down.

Last month, a Pakistan Senate panel had expressed concern over the slow pace of development on the CPEC and dissatisfaction being expressed by Chinese companies, Dawn reported. Besides Pakistan, Bangladesh authorities too have expressed concern over the slow progress of Chinese assisted infrastructure projects agreed under the bilateral MoUs in 2016.

A report by The Singapore Post stated that over two dozen MoUs/agreements which were signed during the October 2016 visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Dhaka, has not materialised.

The report said that China has been very slow in completing the financial modalities and pursuing the implementation of these projects despite Bangladesh’s repeated requests. “In Nepal too, Chinese involvement in hydro-power projects is reportedly mired in controversies,” the report added.

BRI promises to create opportunities for South Asia to facilitate a sustainable growth model but it also implies significant environmental risks, apart from economic, legal and sovereignty issues.

South Asia is amongst the main regions likely to be hit severely by the negative environmental impact of climate change. BRI announced by Beijing in 2013, will exacerbate these trends, reported European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS).

Furthermore, a research report has revealed that BRI has left scores of lower- and middle-income countries (LMIC) saddled with “hidden debts” totalling USD 385 billion.

The findings are part of a report published by AidData, an international development research lab based at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. According to this report, China has used debt rather than an aid to establish a dominant position in the international development finance market.

The report has analysed more than 13,000 aid and debt-financed projects worth more than USD 843 billion across 165 countries. According to AidData, over 40 LMIC now have levels of debt exposure to China higher than 10 per cent of their national gross domestic product.

The number of “mega-projects”–financed with loans worth USD 500 million or more–approved each year tripled during the first five years of BRI implementation. Despite larger loans and expanded loan portfolios, BRI has not led to any major changes in the sectoral or geographical composition of China’s overseas development finance program, the report said. (ANI)

Indian Sports And Chinese Games

By Mahendra Ved

The Indian athletes at the forthcoming Tokyo Olympics will be seen wearing ‘unbranded’ sports apparel. No more Chinese designs, logos and sponsorship. With this symbolic, globally visible (since it will be visuals-only games) parting of ways with the hostile neighbour, India has also joined the global China-versus-the United States game, on the latter’s side.

The change has come after last year’s military skirmishes on the disputed border. The Indian Olympic Association has suspended its collaboration with Chinese giant Li Ning that kitted the Indian athletes and sponsored their travel. This was being done, the IOA said, to respect “sentiments of the people of the country.”

Prior to the border incidents, then sports minister Kiren Rijiju, incidentally a Member of Parliament from Arunachal Pradesh that China claims as its territory, had said: “Li Ning designed the official sports kit inspired by India’s national colours and integrated unique graphics to emote the energy and pride of the Indian Olympic Team.”

The deal was reported to be worth INR 50 million. Li Ning was the Indian team’s apparel sponsor at the Rio Olympics five years ago and had also provided uniforms for the 2018 Commonwealth and Asian Games.

Tokyo Games big medal hopeful, shuttler PV Sindhu, was also sponsored by Li Ning. All that is over, at least for now. Last year, till the border incidents, Vivo, the telecom giant had sponsored India Premier League, the multi-million cricketing tournament. It returned briefly this year, apparently due to some contract obligations.

India relies heavily on products and raw materials from China in nearly every sport. According to the Department of Commerce’s data for 2018-2019, over half of India’s sports equipment was imported from China. This includes ­footballs to table tennis balls and shuttlecocks, tennis and badminton racquets and their stringing machines, mountain climbing and adventure sports gear, gym apparatus and athletics gear including javelins and high jump bars.

ALSO READ: India-China Faceoff – Shatranj Vs Weiqi

Forget the no-politics-in-sports idea. Popular sentiments over the ‘betrayal’ on the border should have triggered a “boycott Chinese goods” campaign. But Prime Minister Modi’s government, keen on taking political credit, does not wish to stir the economic and trade cauldron.

This is not child’s play. The global toy market is about $100 billion, but as Modi lamented at the recent “Toycathon”, urging Indian toymakers to be ‘atmanirbhar’ (self-reliant) in making toys for children, that India’s share is only around $1.5 billion. Worse, “we import about 80 percent of our toys,” and worse still (which he didn’t say), 70 percent of this 80 percent come from China.

India is ‘critically dependent’ on China in imports across 86 tariff lines, a Group of Ministers (GoM) reported last December. Line items include consumer electronics, computer hardware, telephone equipment, electronic items, and air conditioners and refrigerators. Also, China has the largest share in India’s imports — more than 18 per cent in April-September 2020. This share has risen since, despite the border incidents and despite the pandemic, as China, unlike India, has managed to curb the spread of Covid-19 and kept its factories running.

The Indian authorities have banned a hundred Chinese apps and more are in the pipeline.  Only, the Chinese presence in India’s market – name any product – remains heavy, a fact of everyday life. Two-way trade in 2020 reached $87.6 billion, down by 5.6 percent, the trade deficit declined to a five year-low of $45.8 billion. “The trade deficit is not in dollars, it is in overdependence,” Sanjay Chadha, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry said in January.

Cell-phone has fully integrated into an Indian’s life. Visit any home or market place and see how Chinese brands dominate. They commanded 75 percent of India’s smartphone market in 2020, up from 71 percent in 2019. Given their spread, pushing Germans, French, South Koreans among others to the margins of a growing market, it is doubtful if India’s online education of millions of students, compelled by Covid-19, would have been possible.

Cell-phone is just one example. Computers and other communications gadgets and apps are hugely Chinese. Fear of a possible suspension of Chinese tech-support for their maintenance persists. Keen to avoid any such problem in future, this writer purchased a Taiwanese brand laptop last year, only to find that it was “Made in China” under Taiwanese licence.

It is no consolation that the US itself is having to urge its own basketball stars to shun Li Ning sports products because the Chinese giant is said to be using cotton sourced from its Xinjiang region where the authorities are accused of suppressing minority Muslims. Incidentally, in a tit-for-tat, Li Ning had itself suspended cooperation with the Americans earlier, “in national interests”, after American producers backed the anti-Beijing protests in Hong Kong.

ALSO READ: Apps Are Only Tip Of China’s Presence In India

The Indian story is similar to many countries. Only, not everyone has a disputed border with China. Neither is there nudging from a strategic partner like the United States to ‘balance’ the Asian scene. In a sense, India pays double price when it cannot deal with erstwhile ally Russia, Iran or anyone the US dislikes.

India’s case remains unique for several reasons. Besides a border that gets ‘live’ from time to time, and talks have made little headway in the last six decades, it has reasons to feel ‘surrounded.’ The Himalayan ranges became pregnable in the last century.  For long years, one debated on the “string of Pearls”, of China developing military bases on islands all around the Indian Ocean. The region was for long ‘Indian’ — its backyard, in broad maritime terms – no longer so.

This is old story. The Chinese deep pockets have won over just all of India’s neighbours after China formally launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). All South Asians have joined in, with varying outcome, but with bright hope of the Chinese money and technology being available — for a price. India is the sole ‘outsider’. Its pockets are not deep, nor has it established a good record of completing projects in its neighbourhood, yielding space to China.

For long years, there was a quiet pride that India and China managed well their economic and trade ties, despite an unsolved border dispute. It was called pragmatism and was contrasted with India-Pakistan, wherein the trade was restricted due to mistrust. India would show the Chinese example and accuse Pakistan of being cussed. While that remains, the China story has taken a beating. This is unlikely to normalise for long.  

The conflict-from-cradle rivalry with Pakistan has taken India miles ahead of the recalcitrant neighbour. But even that is now becoming thin. China has taken resolute striders in Pakistan in the shape of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), investing billions in building infrastructure that Pakistan could never dream of despite its decades of alliance with the West – the US in particular. Now, China, the “iron brother”, is helping out, in return for entry to the Indian Ocean. Now, the two are about to extend their collaboration, howsoever unequal and weighed in China’s favour, to a land-locked Afghanistan. Whether or not Pakistan gains “strategic depth” against India in future, a government in Kabul that may not be hospitable to India, with this extension of CPEC bears the potential of giving it “economic depth.”

Call it “Chinese East India Company”, or talk of the inevitable debt trap – who cares? In the next decade, China will have laid infrastructure that is as good, or even better than, India, across South Asia. And its CPEC will have created a significant class or rich politicians and civil and military officials in Pakistan who can, supported by military and economic heft from China, can afford to stare down at India.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Growing Chinese Footprint In Myanmar: Should India Be Worried?

By Seema Guha

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s two-day visit to Myanmar (January 17-18) was closely watched by India. Xi reinforced his pet Belt and Road Initiative which had slagged, though Myanmar had signed in by 2018. President Xi’s personal push will give the much needed political impetus to bring fresh energy to the BRI projects in Myanmar.

Myanmar is in the doghouse at the moment with few Western corporates willing to invest in the country, since the 2017 military crackdown on Rohingya minorities, many of whom had to flee the assault of local Buddhists as well as the army. The UN had termed it a genocide against the country’s Muslim minorities. All through this period and even earlier when the military junta got no truck from the Western democracies for the house arrest of pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, China had steadfastly stood with Myanmar.\

Once again when the government as well as democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi have been heavily criticised for not protecting the Rohingyas, China sided with the government in power. China’s stand was on expected lines as the Communist Party of China had never bothered much about human rights, leaving it to individual nations to deal with their problems. The one exception is Kashmir, where it has consistently supported ally Pakistan and raised the matter twice at the United Nations Security Council. Even that did not pay off as no resolution was passed against India, thanks mainly to other members of the UNSC.

ALSO READ: Nepal Joins The Chinese Checkers Game

With Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the saddle, Rohingyas who would in normal circumstances thronged to India, were not welcome. So they fled to Bangladesh and few have the confidence to return home. New Delhi went out of its way to stand by Aung San Suu Kyi and her government. So while the rest of the international community, led by the US and Europe had turned against Myanmar, Asian giants India and China have continued their steadfast support to the government in Naypyitaw, Myanmar now has excellent political relations with both countries.

Despite the common approach to Myanmar, India is uneasy at China rapidly spreading its wings in a country on its backyard, bordering its sensitive north eastern states. For any country, its immediate neighbourhood is vital for its security and having China on its very door step is a matter of grave concern to strategic planners. Every neighbour of India and China like to play out the rivalry of the two Asian powers to their own advantage. It has happened in Nepal and in Sri Lanka under Mahinda Rajapakse. It can also happen in Myanmar.

ALSO READ: India-Sri Lanka: Off To A Fresh Start

For now China is way ahead of India in Myanmar. As the world’s second largest economy, China has the economic clout to finance infrastructure projects across the world. Developing nations are desperate for money and one that comes with no strings attached on democracy and human rights is what these nations want. This is why Myanmar is so happy with President Xi Jinping’s visit. For Myanmar, largely isolated from the international community since the 2017 massacre of Rohingyas, China’s support is a boon. And it is reinforced by generous financial gains for Myanmar.

At the end of the visit the joint statement released by the two sides is an indication of the growing trust between leaders of both countries.  The statement read that China “firmly supports Myanmar’s efforts to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests and national dignity in the international arena”, an obvious reference to Western criticism of the country. China was also keen to advance “peace, stability and development in Rakhine State”. China is today Myanmar’s largest investor. Significantly, Xi and Suu Kyi talks yielded thirty three agreement, though as always these remain opaque.

One of the earlier schemes, was the Kyaukphyu deep sea port in Myanmar restive Rakhine state. This was signed by Xi when he visited Myanmar as vice president in 2009. The project is of vital geostrategic significance as it gives China access to the Indian Ocean. Chinese submarines and warships have in recent years extended its presence in the Indian Ocean, through which much of its oil is transported from the Gulf. India has been worried about China’s growing presence in the Indian Ocean.

Kyaukphye is emerging as a vital cog in the BRI scheme. Kyaukphyu is the terminus of Chinese oil and gas pipelines. This area has oil and since May 2017, it has carried 22 million tons of crude oil from Kyaukphyu to Yunnan province of China The Kyaukphyu deep-sea port and economic zone calls for an investment of nearly $1.3 billion. The China-Myanmar Economic Corridor was added when Aung San Suu Kyi visited China in 2017. The economic zone envisages a railway line between Kyaukphyu to Kunming the capital of Yunnan province, through Mandalay. Aung San Suu Kyi once a great friend of India, has played her cards right and hopes to benefit from friendship with both Asian rivals, now that the US and Western democracies have turned against her.

During a banquet for Xi, Aung San Suu Kyi assured China that her country always stand by its giant neighbour. “It goes without saying that a neighbouring country has no other choice, but to stand together till the end of the world,” reports quoted her as reassuring the visitor. Myanmar’s military are also on board. While on a visit to Beijing last April, commander-in-chief of Myanmar’s army, senior General Min Aung Hlaing had assured his hosts that the armed forces backed China’s BRI and wanted it to be a success in Myanmar.

ALSO READ: India’s Soft Power Drives Hard Bargains

Considering the current bonhomie between China and Myanmar, where does India stand? As pointed out earlier, political relations are excellent, with India going out of its way to extend support to Myanmar over the Rohingya issue. Concern about China’s growing footprints in Myanmar in 1992, when it was under military rule and Aung San Suu Kyi was backlisted by the junta, made Narasimha Rao change track. India had, like the Western world, refused to deal with the military rulers. But seeing Beijing fill in the vacuum, Rao decided to engage with Myanmar’s ruling regime. Now Myanmar is seen as a bridge between India and the ASEAN nations.

During the first NDA government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, talk of connectivity projects took shape. The Kaladan Multi Modal Transport was conceived and begun around 2010. Yet even now the project is not complete, though India has completed the deep sea Sittwe project, again in Rakhine state and handed it over to the Myanmar government. The problem with Indian projects is that the time taken to complete a project takes too long. The government realises this and steps are now being taken to co ordinate work between different departments of the state and central governments and Myanmar authorities better.

To compete with China in the neighbourhood, India needs to be much more efficient in executing projects. Delhi needs to consider why it has done so well in Afghanistan and replicate that model. India is lagging far behind China and needs to be more focussed unless it wants to lose Myanmar to the Chinese dragon. Efficient execution of projects and abundant cash flow has made China a potent force in the region.

India has lost much valuable time but can catch up if it gets its act together. Instead of concentrating on massive projects, India’s strength is in institution building and working in fields of agriculture and small water projects which touch lives of ordinary people. Delhi has to play to its strengths and not imitate China. Perhaps that it the key to success against the rising Asian super power.