India, Japan plan counter to China’s OBOR

Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
25,794
Likes
26,895
Country flag
http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/9494-india-japan-plan-counter-china-s-obor

With sweeping fanfare, China highlighted its One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative, now renamed as Belt and Road Forum (BRF). It claims to spend about $150 billion per year on the 68 countries that have joined. At the Forum held on 14-16 May, 29 heads of state and government attended, but India did not, citing the trampling of sovereignty in BRF’s flagship project, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which passes through Indian territories occupied by the duo. Now, India and Japan are planning a counter-strategy to build key infrastructure to further boost trade and investment, especially in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Aversion of the plan will likely be presented at the Annual Meeting of the African Development Bank (AfDB) being held 22-26 May in Ahmedabad.
INDIA’S RICH GEOPOLITICAL HISTORY: There were resident Hindu, Muslim, Syrian Christian, and Jewish traders in Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, trading spices with Asia and Africa, and even the Roman Empire. Remnants of the army of Alexander the Great are said to have settled in Coorg, Karnataka. Gujarat’s Kachchi traders in the 18th and 19th centuries developed sea routes to Oman and its colony, Zanzibar. When the naval blockade during the American Civil War prevented cotton exports from the Confederate States, it was Indian cotton that saved the day for European looms.

TRILLIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE: Chinese President Xi Jinping has proposed the BRF/OBOR project reportedly at $1 trillion. But the Japan-India Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, for a fraction of the area covered by the BRF is itself pegged at $90 billion. Do these numbers really mean anything more than one-upmanship? Do commitments and proforma projections actually become investments? And if the investments are into failing projects, who will manage the resulting debt-trap? Reportedly, the Chinese-financed ports of Gwadar (Pakistan) and Hambantota (Sri Lanka) are largely idle, thereby creating an odious debt problem for the borrowing host nations.

ANDAMAN ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT: Port Blair, the capital of Andaman and Nicobar, was infamous during British India for its prison, where Indian freedom fighters were subjected to solitary confinement and other torture. Following the defeat of British forces in Rangoon in World War II, the Japanese Imperial Navy and Army took control of the islands, utilising a fleet of destroyers and cruisers, including the Kumano. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, who led the Indian National Army’s fight against British colonialism, visited Port Blair on 29 December 1943. Japan had offered to transfer the islands to Netaji’s Provisional Government-in-exile of Free India. That offer was never fully effectuated in the chaos of the War. Now, India and Japan plan to revive the ethos of that collaboration through infra development. Further, Shin Maywa amphibious search and rescue seaplanes are likely to be stationed on the islands to strengthen India’s surveillance and disaster management capability as well as the prevention of piracy. The Andaman islands are right in the middle of the Chinese submarine route through the Strait of Malacca.

RACE FOR INDUSTRIAL BELTS, ROADS AND CORRIDORS: Perhaps akin to the race for influence over rapidly decolonising regions in the post-War era between the erstwhile USSR and the US, the competition between large economies is creating unease among the rest as to what the ultimate goals might be. The movement of suboptimal goods through newly built infra that damages local manufacturing potential is already attracting criticisms, along with an alleged debt-trap that small economies are getting into in their dealings with OBOR/BRF. India, by contrast, has been selectively building infra abroad, for example, Iran’s Chabahar port to be potentially joined by Japan, and highways for Northeast states’ connectivity with the Far East, with co-financing from Japan.

The Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), an arm of Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, has reportedly been tasked with preparing a roadmap for the Japan-India partnership. However, JETRO is primarily skilled at project development, hardly at geopolitical strategy, especially when it encompasses national security. In the US, such developments are immediately followed up by a range of think tanks and universities, laying out multiple strategic options. In the case of Japan and India, that continues to be an unfilled lacuna. Chinese growth of infrastructure has often trailed Japan’s. Overseas development assistance from Japan since the 1950s has been targeted at utilising its surplus capital for Asian and African growth, as outlined by pioneers like the late Foreign Minister, Dr Saburo Okita. Today, Japan’s Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (PQI) is a $110 billion initiative, active especially in Asia. Now, with economies picking up in Asia, Africa and the Middle-East, the probability has never been brighter for Japan’s growth strategy to achieve further progress in close partnership with a fast-growing India that has been a natural ally of the global South.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
4,812
Likes
4,244
Country flag
We need to build more infrastructure in Nha Trang in Vietnam and simultaneously build tank-capable roads in Arunachal Pradesh.
 

AMCA

Senior Member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
1,291
Likes
5,061
Country flag
China Faces Pushback in the UN on Belt-Road Initiative, Retreats Quietly
BY SEEMA SIROHI ON 17/12/2017LEAVE A COMMENT
SHARE THIS:


Diplomatic sources say China didn’t want to answer questions on transparency and environmental standards.
China’s Ambassador to the United Nations Liu Jieyi speaks at a news conference at UN headquarters in New York City. Credit: Reuters/Carlo Allegri

" data-medium-file="https://i1.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/China-UN_Reuters.jpeg?fit=300,200&ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i1.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/China-UN_Reuters.jpeg?fit=800,533&ssl=1" class="size-full wp-image-205845" src="https://i1.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-con...a-UN_Reuters.jpeg?zoom=2&resize=310,207&ssl=1" alt="China's Ambassador to the United Nations Liu Jieyi speaks at a news conference at UN headquarters in New York City. Credit: Reuters/Carlo Allegri" width="310" height="207" srcset="https://i1.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-con...a-UN_Reuters.jpeg?zoom=2&resize=310,207&ssl=1" src-orig="https://i1.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/China-UN_Reuters.jpeg?resize=800,533&ssl=1" scale="2" style="-x-ignore: 1">
China’s Ambassador to the United Nations Liu Jieyi speaks at a news conference at UN headquarters in New York City. Credit: Reuters/Carlo Allegri/Files

Washington: China’s efforts to project its ‘One Belt One Road’ as the panacea for the world faced a serious setback this week at the United Nations, when a coalition led by India and the US pushed back and forced Beijing to retreat.

The laudatory language about OBOR inserted last year by hyperactive Chinese diplomats was dropped as more and more countries asked for details on China’s financing mechanisms and environmental standards in pushing the gargantuan scheme.

The hard work of coalition building over the last two months was done by a team of young Indian diplomats from India’s permanent mission. Japan and several members of the EU joined in to raise questions and counter China’s narrative.

The results were there for all to see when on December 11, the UN General Assembly adopted the two resolutions minus the language used in 2016 that had essentially equated world peace with promoting OBOR.

What it proved – in however small a measure – is that China is not invincible, especially if others can present a united front. “It is possible to fight the dragon,” a UN observer commented. “Success comes to those who dare.”

India took the lead in questioning the language, the US joined in, and the others slowly followed, including many EU members. Some in the EU are more aware or are less beholden to the Chinese than some others, making the internal debates rancorous and time-consuming. But the clear US position is important in influencing the more recent EU members who are more prone to falling under Chinese influence.

Beijing chose not to go to battle to force the issue at the UN, diplomatic sources said. It didn’t want to answer the many questions on transparency and environmental standards, or have to explain the intricacies of OBOR’s dicey finance mechanisms to well-informed UN representatives who keep up with the news.

The Chinese would have been quizzed about the 99-year lease with Sri Lanka on the Hambantota port, a development that opened many eyes around the world because it is seen as a threat to the island nation’s sovereignty. India and the US were more than ready for a full-fledged debate on the merits and demerits of OBOR.

China clearly wasn’t. It chose to quietly back away from a fight and let the pro-OBOR language be deleted from the two resolutions. “They got scared and ran. We know how to play the system too,” a coalition member said.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top