In the context of the New Great Game in Eurasia, the New Silk Roads, known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), integrates all of China’s instruments of national power – political, economic, diplomatic, financial, intellectual and cultural – to shape the 21st century geopolitical/geoeconomic order. BRI is the organizing concept of China’s foreign policy for the foreseeable future; the heart of what was conceptualized, even before President Xi Jinping, as China’s “peaceful rise.”
The Trump administration’s reaction to the breath and scope of BRI has been somewhat minimalistic. For the moment, it amounts to a terminological switch from what was previously known as Asia-Pacific to “Indo-Pacific.” The Obama administration, up to the former president’s last visit to Asia in September 2016, always referred to Asia-Pacific.
Indo-Pacific includes South Asia and the Indian Ocean. So, from an American point of view, that does imply elevating India to the status of a rising global superpower able to “contain” China.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson could not have stated it more bluntly: “The world’s center of gravity is shifting to the heart of the Indo-Pacific. The United States and India – with our shared goals of peace, security, freedom of navigation, and a free and open architecture – must serve as the eastern and western beacons of the Indo-Pacific. As the port and starboard lights between which the region can reach its greatest and best potential.”
Attempts to portray it as a “holistic approach” may mask a clear geopolitical swerve where Indo-Pacific sounds like a remix of the Obama era “pivot to Asia” extended to India.
Indo-Pacific directly refers to the Indian Ocean stretch of the Maritime Silk Road, which as one of China’s top connectivity routes, features prominently in “globalization with Chinese characteristics.” As much as Washington, Beijing is all for free markets and open access to commons. But that must not necessarily imply, from a Chinese point of view, a single, vast institutional web overseen by the US.
‘Eurasifrica’?
As far as New Delhi is concerned, embracing the Indo-Pacific concept entailed quite a tightrope act.
Last year, both India and Pakistan became formal members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which is a key element of the Russia-China strategic partnership.
India, China and Russia are BRICS members; the president of the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB), headquartered in Shanghai, is Indian. India is a member of the China-led Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). And until recently India was also participating in BRI.
But then things started to unravel last May, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi refused to attend the BRI summit in Beijing because of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a key BRI node that happens to traverse Gilgit-Baltistan and the sensitive region Pakistan defines as Azad Kashmir and India as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
And right on cue, at an African Development Bank meeting in Gujarat, New Delhi unveiled what might be construed as a rival BRI project: the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC) – in partnership with Japan. AAGC could not be more “Indo-Pacific,” actually delineating an Indo-Pacific Freedom Corridor, funded by Japan and using India’s know-how of Africa, capable of rivaling – what else – BRI.
For the moment, this is no more than an avowed “vision document” shared by Modi and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe to do some very BRI-like things, such as developing quality infrastructure and digital connectivity.
And adding to AAGC comes the Quadrilateral, which the Japanese Foreign Ministry spins as projecting “a free and open international order based on the rule of law in the Indo-Pacific.” That once again pits the “stability of Indo-Pacific region” against Tokyo’s perception of “China’s aggressive foreign policy” and “belligerence in the South China Sea” which imperils what the US Navy always describes as “freedom of navigation”.
As much as Xi and Abe may have recently lauded a new start of Sino-Japanese relations, reality says otherwise. Japan, invoking the DPRK threat but actually fearing China’s fast military modernization, will buy more US weapons. At the same time, New Delhi and Canberra are also quite worried about China’s economic/military onslaught.
Essentially, AAGC and the Quadrilateral link India’s Act East Policy with Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy. Reading these documents in tandem, it’s not far-fetched to qualify the Indo-Japanese strategy as aiming for a “Eurasifrica.”
In practice, apart from the expansion in Africa, Tokyo is also driven to expand infrastructure projects across Southeast Asia in cooperation with India – some in competition or overlapping with BRI. The Asian Development Bank (ADB), meanwhile, is mulling alternative financing models for infrastructure projects away from BRI.
As it stands, the Quadrilateral is still a work in progress, with its “stability of Indo-Pacific region” pitted against Beijing’s avowed desire to create a “community with a shared future” in the Asia-Pacific. There are reasons to worry that this new configuration might actually evolve into a stark economic/military polarization of Asia.
A split at the heart of BRICS
Asia needs a whopping $1.7 trillion in infrastructure projects a year, according to the ADB. In theory, Asia as a whole would benefit from an array of BRI projects coupled with some others that are ADB-financed and AAGC-linked.
Considering the extremely ambitious breath and scope of the whole strategy, BRI enjoys a substantial head start. Beijing’s vast reserves are already geared towards investing in Asia-wide infrastructure in tandem with exporting excess construction capacity and improving connectivity all around.
In contrast, New Delhi barely has enough industrial capacity for India’s own needs. In fact India badly needs infrastructure investment; according to an extensive report, India’s needs amount to at least $1.5 trillion over the next decade. And on top of it India holds a persistent trade deficit with China.
A tangible would-be success is the Indian investment in Chabahar port in Iran as part of an Afghan trade strategy (see part two of this report). But that’s about it.
Apart from energy/connectivity projects such as the national digital ID Aadhaar system (1.18 billion users) and investing in an array of solar power plants, India has a long way to go. According to the recently published Global Hunger Index (GHI), India ranks at 100 out of 119 countries surveyed on child hunger, based on four components: undernourishment, child mortality, child wasting, and child stunting. That’s an extremely worrying seven notches below the DPRK. And only seven notches above Afghanistan, at the bottom of the list.
New Delhi would hardly lose if there were a conscious bet on building up on India-China cooperation under the BRICS framework. And that includes accepting that BRI investment is useful and even essential for India’s infrastructure development. The doors remain open. All eyes are on December 10-11, when India will host a trilateral Russia-India-China – all BRICS members – at the ministerial level.
Next: China and India slug it out, from the Gulf of Oman to the Arabian Sea
India has lots o talented people that blossom in veversity! I wish they are bold enough to face challenge on national issues, and work togather in community in nation building as opposed to ego centric personalities that con the voters to get themself rich billionnaries!
With the whole of Indian access to the Central Asian Republics in the West sealed off by Pakistan, a weak sea route via the new Chahbahar port also vulnerable to Pak/China interdiction from Pakistan’s rapidly rapidly rising Gwadar Port (at the tip of the China Pak Economic Corridor – CPEC) is only a consolation for the Indian ego and no answer to a viable westerly trade route.
Time for India to build bridges with Pakistan, link in with the CPEC, create strong land trade routes with Iran and Afghanistan thenceforth to the Central Asian Republics.
Pepe Escobar keeps political prespectives in focus of the bigger picture. He needs to be listened to and followed for our struggle against the oppressiors of society.
The money is also to build a gas pipeline from Iran, and an LNG plant.
I imagine there will also be a power station or 2.
I’m sure that if Pakistan could get a better deal it would, but with the US against development in Pakistan, China is the only option.
Ajit Pandey I don’t think anybody is jealous of the USA anymore.
I’m staggered by the speed at which the US has headed for the gutter.
"The New Great Game moves from Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific
Is the world’s center of gravity shifting to the heart of the Indo-Pacific – a new pivot to Asia?"
Hell, Pal, your guess is as good as mine.
Porki loves terrorism…
China jealous of america and india jealous of china.
China can ask Pakistan to dismantle terrorist support base. How can China expect India to take it easy when it is supporting India’s enemy.
Jo Snow It is incorrect to say "You are preety much knows nothing" ; you should say "You pretty much know nothing"! It is also incorrect to say "If Pakistan is in such bad ship…."; you should have written "If Pakistan is in such bad shape…"!! But perhaps you should still be commeneded for making only FOUR mistakes in the TWO sentences that you wrote. Even more commendable is your (so utterly) deep-rooted, dyed-in-the-wool kind of conviction of your own gravitas. Truly Awesome. As for celebration, shouldn’t actually you be doing that, this project being such a profound Game Changer…..for China.
Why are you surprized?
Pakistan was created so that a few could squeez the masses and live in comfort.
Every thing is on track except Mr. Jinnah did not get to see a dime for his well being.
For the good of rest of Asia and beyond, please let them be.:-)
Braham Bhushan You are preety much knows nothing. If Pakistan is in such bad ship then you should celerbrate, shouldn’t you?
It is perfect OK for it to stay away.
Take for example power plants. These plants are being set up by Chinese investors using Chinese EPC contractors (who in turn buy Chinese equipment and services), and using Chinese loans. Debt to equity 80:20. No competitive bidding for the EPCs; cost of design, manufacturing, installation and commissioning much lower than corresponding international cost (all designs totally standardized meaning customer has to adapt its requirement to what supplier is offering rather than supplier customizing its offering as well as over 100 GW per year of manufacturing capacity that is probably enough to meet the entire worlds demand in the prevailing environment but currently well under-utilized) but the EPC prices comparable to International price levels; no need to even guess the profit margins of the EPCs which prices itself would have gotten neatly inflated in the absence of competitive bidding. As for the Chinese loans, no matter whosoever’s headache it is, 13% interest rate is well embedded in the agreed tariff that is high to say the least. Now throw in the best sugar coating namely 17-20% guaranteed rate of return on equity (in dollar terms) and it is easier than easy to figure out how quickly the Chinese investors will recover their investments while bleeding the other party for 30 years per the PPA. Indeed guaranteeing a rate of return on equity (and that too at 17-20%!) is just ludicrous- it only serves as another serious driver to further inflate the EPC prices so as to further accelerate recovery of equity which period is already extremely short. So yes China is taking some calculated risks but Reward to Risk is disproportionally in its favour to say the least – even taking into account only the direct benefits… So yes indeed China is putting China first. Like everyone else should do.
Totalitarian fascist China is an infinitely greater enemy of India than the Western imperialists of the past.
Totalitarian fascist China is an infinitely greater enemy of India than the Western imperialists of the past.
Gwader port was ready since 2007 and was under rmanagement of Singapore Port Authority under same terms and conditions as of now with China. No change there. Only problem was, there was no connectivity with rest of Pakistan. Coastal highway from Karachi was built but last 20 miles were not completed then there was change of Musharaf government and projects got stuck. Under PPP regime nothing much happened due to internal instability, raise of militancy and terrorist attacks as well as tribal belth unrest had gotten focus away. With CPEC come roads and highways as well as power plants as it become the flagship project of BRI and with central focus.
This is the first time I read that India is ranked 100 out of 119 in the child hunger index. This is atrocious especially when we know that India is trying to be the Big Brother in South Asia (forget about Asia let alone the world). What India needs to to is to get rid of the caste system where one section of the people looks down and trample on another section of people who are classified as from a different caste. The other issue that I am puzzled especially when Indians talk of nationalism and being great is how is it that they were ruled and subjucated by the British for a few hundred years and the only thing they can show the whole world is the Indian Mutiny. As for China, since the first Opium War, the Chinese have fought and fought and millions died in battles, famines and natural disasters until Mao took over. So do not continue to bow to the Sahibs. They always have their own interests in mind when they deal with you. Its about time to wake up and do some great things for India and for the Indians and not worry that China is ahead of you.
India is in danger of being left standing up in this political musical chair.