You are here: Home » International » News » Economy
Business Standard

Is OBOR about Chinese dominance? India wants to convince the world it is

New Delhi has warned that China's OBOR could leave debt-ridden communities and failed projects

Rohan Venkataramakrishnan | Scroll.in 

Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan pose for a group photo at opening ceremony of the Belt and Road Forum the China National Convention Center in Beijing. Photo: PTI
Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan pose for a group photo at opening ceremony of the Belt and Road Forum the China National Convention Center in Beijing. Photo: PTI

More than 29 heads of nations came together in on Sunday to officially launch China’s massive initiative, an effort that some have described as the biggest overseas development push in history. But despite the enormity of the project, which will include investments estimated at $900 billion to develop new land and maritime trade routes between and Europe, Beijing’s most populous neighbour was conspicuous by its absence. Explaining its decision to stay away, the Indian government released a statement saying it is concerned about China’s attitude towards territorial sovereignty and financial responsibility.

“We are of firm belief that connectivity initiatives must be based on universally recognized norms, good governance, rule of law, openness, transparency and equality... Connectivity projects must be pursued in a manner that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity.  

(...)

Guided by our principled position in the matter, we have been urging to engage in a meaningful dialogue on its connectivity initiative, ‘One Belt, One Road’ which was later renamed as ‘Belt and Road Initiative’. We are awaiting a positive response from the Chinese side.” 

— Ministry of External Affairs
The Times of condensed this to a simple phrase that would easily resonate with Indians, saying New Delhi’s strongly worded statement suggested that the Belt and Road project “is little more than a colonial enterprise, leaving debt and broken communities in its wake”.

China-corridor
 
India’s statement is generally being read as a direct response to the China-Economic Corridor, a $62 billion package of infrastructure projects considered one of the flagship parts of the Belt and Road initiative. The connects China’s western Xinjiang province with Gwadar, a port on the Arabian sea, while also giving access to other Central Asian nations. But a significant portion of the corridor runs through what New Delhi calls Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

This has constantly caused heartburn in relations between New Delhi and Prime Minister made a reference to the at the Raisina Dialogue in January, saying “only by respecting the sovereignty of countries involved, can regional connectivity corridors fulfill their promise and avoid differences and discord.”

Saturday’s statement from the Ministry of External Affairs about the Belt and Road Initiative reiterated this.

“Regarding the so-called ‘China-Economic Corridor’, which is being projected as the flagship project of the BRI/OBOR, the community is well aware of India’s position. No country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.”   

Colonial China
 
While the references to and sovereignty are to be expected, Saturday’s statement included objections that go beyond questions of territory.

“Connectivity initiatives must follow principles of financial responsibility to avoid projects that would create unsustainable debt burden for communities; balanced ecological and environmental protection and preservation standards; transparent assessment of project costs; and skill and technology transfer to help long term running and maintenance of the assets created by local communities.” 

has always insisted on referring to as a “unilateral” or “national” project of China’s rather than a regional, multilateral one. Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar said in 2015 that is a “national initiative devised with national interests,” and that if wanted to buy into it, they would “need to have larger discussions and those haven’t happened.”

References to financial responsibility, environmental protection, transparency and technology transfer now expand on this idea with a more specific critique. With the CPEC, wanted to know that it is miffed about the initiative intruding on disputed territory. With the new references, it seems like it is trying to convince countries that are party to that getting close to might be a bad idea.

Debt diplomacy
 
This is not new. Analysts have for some time warned that Beijing’s massive initiative is essentially aimed at helping transition from a manufacturing nation into a consumer economy, get rid of excess capacity, reduce the disparity between its western and eastern provinces and, most importantly, project Chinese geostrategic power throughout the neighbourhood and beyond.

Foreign policy analyst Brahma Chellaney called the China’s “debt-trap diplomacy”, arguing that it intentionally puts partner countries in debt to increase Beijing’s leverage. Ratings agency Fitch warned in a report earlier this year that does not address the most pressing infrastructure needs of partner countries and could easily result in unviable projects and smaller nations saddled with large debts.

There have already been examples of this. In Sri Lanka, helped build a large port and airport near Hambantota but with little economic activity emerging from either project, the loans are mounting and that debt is turning into equity, giving more control over key assets on the island country. Analysts in Cambodia have raised red flags suggesting the same thing might happen there. Seema Sirohi, writing in the Economic Times, goes further, calling “not globalisation 2.0 but dominance 3.0”. New Delhi now appears to be taking this line too.

Too little too late
 
Yet it is important to also note that almost every large country in the world, apart from India, was already at the table in Even the United States of America, which initially planned to snub Beijing, sent representatives after said it would open its market to American beef. The same applied to India’s neighbourhood. Every one of India’s neighbours, barring Bhutan, had a delegation at the Belt and Road Forum.

Never mind questions about what India’s own connectivity efforts have amounted to, whether it is the Spice Route or Project Mausam, the Indian Ocean-focused SAGAR or New Delhi’s inability to keep even Bhutan in a road project connecting the neighbourhood. The last-minute statement from MEA suggests negotiations for to turn up at the Belt and Road Forum failed, as have most other attempts to connect with recently – whether it is keeping out of the Nuclear Suppliers Group or in preventing Masood Azhar from being declared a global terrorist.

might be attempting a face-saver in bringing up questions of finances and transparency with OBOR, but it is unlikely to convince anyone beyond a domestic audience, at least for the moment. But MEA seems to have finally made its position on clear. What will snubbing China, India’s largest trading partner, mean for events in a region that is already tense?

In arrangement with Scroll.in

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Is OBOR about Chinese dominance? India wants to convince the world it is

New Delhi has warned that China's OBOR could leave debt-ridden communities and failed projects

New Delhi has warned that China's OBOR could leave debt-ridden communities and failed projects
More than 29 heads of nations came together in on Sunday to officially launch China’s massive initiative, an effort that some have described as the biggest overseas development push in history. But despite the enormity of the project, which will include investments estimated at $900 billion to develop new land and maritime trade routes between and Europe, Beijing’s most populous neighbour was conspicuous by its absence. Explaining its decision to stay away, the Indian government released a statement saying it is concerned about China’s attitude towards territorial sovereignty and financial responsibility.

“We are of firm belief that connectivity initiatives must be based on universally recognized norms, good governance, rule of law, openness, transparency and equality... Connectivity projects must be pursued in a manner that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity.  

(...)

Guided by our principled position in the matter, we have been urging to engage in a meaningful dialogue on its connectivity initiative, ‘One Belt, One Road’ which was later renamed as ‘Belt and Road Initiative’. We are awaiting a positive response from the Chinese side.” 

— Ministry of External Affairs
The Times of condensed this to a simple phrase that would easily resonate with Indians, saying New Delhi’s strongly worded statement suggested that the Belt and Road project “is little more than a colonial enterprise, leaving debt and broken communities in its wake”.

China-corridor
 
India’s statement is generally being read as a direct response to the China-Economic Corridor, a $62 billion package of infrastructure projects considered one of the flagship parts of the Belt and Road initiative. The connects China’s western Xinjiang province with Gwadar, a port on the Arabian sea, while also giving access to other Central Asian nations. But a significant portion of the corridor runs through what New Delhi calls Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

This has constantly caused heartburn in relations between New Delhi and Prime Minister made a reference to the at the Raisina Dialogue in January, saying “only by respecting the sovereignty of countries involved, can regional connectivity corridors fulfill their promise and avoid differences and discord.”

Saturday’s statement from the Ministry of External Affairs about the Belt and Road Initiative reiterated this.

“Regarding the so-called ‘China-Economic Corridor’, which is being projected as the flagship project of the BRI/OBOR, the community is well aware of India’s position. No country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.”   

Colonial China
 
While the references to and sovereignty are to be expected, Saturday’s statement included objections that go beyond questions of territory.

“Connectivity initiatives must follow principles of financial responsibility to avoid projects that would create unsustainable debt burden for communities; balanced ecological and environmental protection and preservation standards; transparent assessment of project costs; and skill and technology transfer to help long term running and maintenance of the assets created by local communities.” 

has always insisted on referring to as a “unilateral” or “national” project of China’s rather than a regional, multilateral one. Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar said in 2015 that is a “national initiative devised with national interests,” and that if wanted to buy into it, they would “need to have larger discussions and those haven’t happened.”

References to financial responsibility, environmental protection, transparency and technology transfer now expand on this idea with a more specific critique. With the CPEC, wanted to know that it is miffed about the initiative intruding on disputed territory. With the new references, it seems like it is trying to convince countries that are party to that getting close to might be a bad idea.

Debt diplomacy
 
This is not new. Analysts have for some time warned that Beijing’s massive initiative is essentially aimed at helping transition from a manufacturing nation into a consumer economy, get rid of excess capacity, reduce the disparity between its western and eastern provinces and, most importantly, project Chinese geostrategic power throughout the neighbourhood and beyond.

Foreign policy analyst Brahma Chellaney called the China’s “debt-trap diplomacy”, arguing that it intentionally puts partner countries in debt to increase Beijing’s leverage. Ratings agency Fitch warned in a report earlier this year that does not address the most pressing infrastructure needs of partner countries and could easily result in unviable projects and smaller nations saddled with large debts.

There have already been examples of this. In Sri Lanka, helped build a large port and airport near Hambantota but with little economic activity emerging from either project, the loans are mounting and that debt is turning into equity, giving more control over key assets on the island country. Analysts in Cambodia have raised red flags suggesting the same thing might happen there. Seema Sirohi, writing in the Economic Times, goes further, calling “not globalisation 2.0 but dominance 3.0”. New Delhi now appears to be taking this line too.

Too little too late
 
Yet it is important to also note that almost every large country in the world, apart from India, was already at the table in Even the United States of America, which initially planned to snub Beijing, sent representatives after said it would open its market to American beef. The same applied to India’s neighbourhood. Every one of India’s neighbours, barring Bhutan, had a delegation at the Belt and Road Forum.

Never mind questions about what India’s own connectivity efforts have amounted to, whether it is the Spice Route or Project Mausam, the Indian Ocean-focused SAGAR or New Delhi’s inability to keep even Bhutan in a road project connecting the neighbourhood. The last-minute statement from MEA suggests negotiations for to turn up at the Belt and Road Forum failed, as have most other attempts to connect with recently – whether it is keeping out of the Nuclear Suppliers Group or in preventing Masood Azhar from being declared a global terrorist.

might be attempting a face-saver in bringing up questions of finances and transparency with OBOR, but it is unlikely to convince anyone beyond a domestic audience, at least for the moment. But MEA seems to have finally made its position on clear. What will snubbing China, India’s largest trading partner, mean for events in a region that is already tense?

In arrangement with Scroll.in

image
Business Standard
177 22

Is OBOR about Chinese dominance? India wants to convince the world it is

New Delhi has warned that China's OBOR could leave debt-ridden communities and failed projects

More than 29 heads of nations came together in on Sunday to officially launch China’s massive initiative, an effort that some have described as the biggest overseas development push in history. But despite the enormity of the project, which will include investments estimated at $900 billion to develop new land and maritime trade routes between and Europe, Beijing’s most populous neighbour was conspicuous by its absence. Explaining its decision to stay away, the Indian government released a statement saying it is concerned about China’s attitude towards territorial sovereignty and financial responsibility.

“We are of firm belief that connectivity initiatives must be based on universally recognized norms, good governance, rule of law, openness, transparency and equality... Connectivity projects must be pursued in a manner that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity.  

(...)

Guided by our principled position in the matter, we have been urging to engage in a meaningful dialogue on its connectivity initiative, ‘One Belt, One Road’ which was later renamed as ‘Belt and Road Initiative’. We are awaiting a positive response from the Chinese side.” 

— Ministry of External Affairs
The Times of condensed this to a simple phrase that would easily resonate with Indians, saying New Delhi’s strongly worded statement suggested that the Belt and Road project “is little more than a colonial enterprise, leaving debt and broken communities in its wake”.

China-corridor
 
India’s statement is generally being read as a direct response to the China-Economic Corridor, a $62 billion package of infrastructure projects considered one of the flagship parts of the Belt and Road initiative. The connects China’s western Xinjiang province with Gwadar, a port on the Arabian sea, while also giving access to other Central Asian nations. But a significant portion of the corridor runs through what New Delhi calls Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

This has constantly caused heartburn in relations between New Delhi and Prime Minister made a reference to the at the Raisina Dialogue in January, saying “only by respecting the sovereignty of countries involved, can regional connectivity corridors fulfill their promise and avoid differences and discord.”

Saturday’s statement from the Ministry of External Affairs about the Belt and Road Initiative reiterated this.

“Regarding the so-called ‘China-Economic Corridor’, which is being projected as the flagship project of the BRI/OBOR, the community is well aware of India’s position. No country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.”   

Colonial China
 
While the references to and sovereignty are to be expected, Saturday’s statement included objections that go beyond questions of territory.

“Connectivity initiatives must follow principles of financial responsibility to avoid projects that would create unsustainable debt burden for communities; balanced ecological and environmental protection and preservation standards; transparent assessment of project costs; and skill and technology transfer to help long term running and maintenance of the assets created by local communities.” 

has always insisted on referring to as a “unilateral” or “national” project of China’s rather than a regional, multilateral one. Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar said in 2015 that is a “national initiative devised with national interests,” and that if wanted to buy into it, they would “need to have larger discussions and those haven’t happened.”

References to financial responsibility, environmental protection, transparency and technology transfer now expand on this idea with a more specific critique. With the CPEC, wanted to know that it is miffed about the initiative intruding on disputed territory. With the new references, it seems like it is trying to convince countries that are party to that getting close to might be a bad idea.

Debt diplomacy
 
This is not new. Analysts have for some time warned that Beijing’s massive initiative is essentially aimed at helping transition from a manufacturing nation into a consumer economy, get rid of excess capacity, reduce the disparity between its western and eastern provinces and, most importantly, project Chinese geostrategic power throughout the neighbourhood and beyond.

Foreign policy analyst Brahma Chellaney called the China’s “debt-trap diplomacy”, arguing that it intentionally puts partner countries in debt to increase Beijing’s leverage. Ratings agency Fitch warned in a report earlier this year that does not address the most pressing infrastructure needs of partner countries and could easily result in unviable projects and smaller nations saddled with large debts.

There have already been examples of this. In Sri Lanka, helped build a large port and airport near Hambantota but with little economic activity emerging from either project, the loans are mounting and that debt is turning into equity, giving more control over key assets on the island country. Analysts in Cambodia have raised red flags suggesting the same thing might happen there. Seema Sirohi, writing in the Economic Times, goes further, calling “not globalisation 2.0 but dominance 3.0”. New Delhi now appears to be taking this line too.

Too little too late
 
Yet it is important to also note that almost every large country in the world, apart from India, was already at the table in Even the United States of America, which initially planned to snub Beijing, sent representatives after said it would open its market to American beef. The same applied to India’s neighbourhood. Every one of India’s neighbours, barring Bhutan, had a delegation at the Belt and Road Forum.

Never mind questions about what India’s own connectivity efforts have amounted to, whether it is the Spice Route or Project Mausam, the Indian Ocean-focused SAGAR or New Delhi’s inability to keep even Bhutan in a road project connecting the neighbourhood. The last-minute statement from MEA suggests negotiations for to turn up at the Belt and Road Forum failed, as have most other attempts to connect with recently – whether it is keeping out of the Nuclear Suppliers Group or in preventing Masood Azhar from being declared a global terrorist.

might be attempting a face-saver in bringing up questions of finances and transparency with OBOR, but it is unlikely to convince anyone beyond a domestic audience, at least for the moment. But MEA seems to have finally made its position on clear. What will snubbing China, India’s largest trading partner, mean for events in a region that is already tense?

In arrangement with Scroll.in

image
Business Standard
177 22