Connect with us

East Asia

The two Koreas: Some considerations on the relationship between North and South Korea

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] I [/yt_dropcap]f the two Koreas reunified, as planned in 2000 with the joint declaration of June 15, we would have an unreasonable merging of two radically different political principles. South Korea has chosen to be a periphery of the American empire, which uses the US economy on the basis of its internal cycles and mature technologies that it exports by taking advantage of the low cost of manpower and of some raw materials.

North Korea played the Cold War card, supported only partially by China and Russia, which used North Korea as a block for the West and paid for said North Korea’s commitment with political stability and some economic aid.

The Cold War, however, is really over and this holds true both for North and for South Korea.

We need to think of new worlds and new “super-concept rules”, just to quote Wittgenstein.

Traditionally, unification is conceived as a Confederation, as supported by South Korea, or as a Federation with wide autonomy for both areas, as always supported by North Korea.

The two inter-Korean meetings held in 2000 and in 2007 – with the first one that even made the South Korean President be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his Sunshine Policy – recorded excellent economic results (including the free trade area of Kaesong and the tourist area of Mount Gumgang), but no effective political results.

Indeed, in November 2010, the North Korean Minister for Reunification officially dismissed the Sunshine Policy as a failure.

This always happens when politicians are only interested in conveying a good “image”.

However, let us better analyzing the reunification policies which are currently being proposed, also by authoritative US think tanks.

The excessive psychologism – the flaw Husserl saw in the European philosophy of his time – still characterizes the North American analysis of strategic phenomena in Asia and the Middle East

Hence, both in North and in South Korea, the phenomenology of elites is often quite simplified and devoid of the necessary nuances.

The “states of mind” or the subjective tendencies of the real members of the two countries’ ruling classes are not so relevant as they may appear at first sight.

“Les faits ont la tête dure” (Common sense is not so common) – just to quote Voltaire – and elites do not live on psychology, but enjoy verifiable and significant privileges that someone has to pay anyway.

Meanwhile, the Constitution establishing the North Korean Workers’ Party repeats still today that conquering South Korea militarily is the primary strategic (and economic) goal of the North Korean regime – not to mention the fact that North Korea’s ruling class is selected with military and national criteria, while South Korea’s ruling class is more technocratic and less prone to accept the line of military confrontation.

The difference is not marginal. Pending an inter-Korean conflict, South Korea’s elites would escape to the United States – thinking of being at home – while the North Korean ones would fight their war until final victory.

Furthermore, in this Asian context, our American friends quote the example of “de-Baathification” in Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s fall.

Never was an example more dangerous for the theses it intends to uphold.

The abolition of Baath, namely the Party-State, and the selective and loyalist mechanism of the ruling class in Syria and Iraq was, on the contrary, a real strategic folly which voided Iraq and certainly made it viable – just to use the typical terminology of US strategic analysis – not to the bipartite “democracy” which is so fashionable in the Anglo-Saxon world, but rather to the Iranian regime and later to the Sunni sword jihad of Daesh.

This means also viable to the division of the areas of influence in a country like Iraq, having a Shiite majority and a Sunni area which, through the jihad, has now become mass of geopolitical manoeuvre for the Gulf powers.

Every manipulation of the historical heritage of peoples and Nations is bound to lead to their fragmentation into new areas of influence, which have often not even been foreseen by the crazy “social engineers” who believe – as happened to the first US Governor of Baghdad – they can use the same laws in force in Boston to regulate road traffic in the Iraqi capital city.

Turkey, too, has got its hands on Iraq – obviously with a view to settling the Kurdish issue.

Furthermore it seems to flout any “line” worked out within NATO, of which Turkey is a member.

From the Balkans’ wars – waged to avoid the globalization of Russian oil and gas towards Europe and the Mediterranean region – to the massive use of the Afghan jihad to destabilize and disrupt the post-Yugoslav political system, to the stable destabilization – if I may use this oxymoron – of the Maghreb region with the silly “Arab Springs” to be completed with the end of Syria and its ethnic and religious splitting up, it seems that the current US global strategy is designed to disrupting every geopolitical region.

Nevertheless if all countries become “liquid” and viable, every political contagion will tend to spread and worsen.

Just think of Macedonia’s current situation and the not-so-secret plan to achieve a Great Islamized Albania, capable of standing up to the Slavic and, hence, pro-Russian Serbia.

Reverting to the US line in this Korean region, the idea is that of a reunification creating a favourable interest for the North Korean ruling classes.

How? The North Korean system based on songbun, namely the traditional caste system, is further divided into 51 subgroups.

Obviously, as everywhere, the main criterion is loyalty to the regime – hence I do not see how the North Korean elite can accept a soft reunification, in which North Korea will inevitably lose a share of power to preserve hegemony – although with fewer elitist “privileges” – in a possible peaceful reunification with South Korea.

According to the most reliable calculations, approximately 4.4 million North Koreans can be part of the local “ruling class”, but – as those who are acquainted with Pareto’s and Veblen’s theories know all too well – all elite classes are intrinsically factionist and must have strong symbolic and material incentives to back the regime that supports them.

Psychology and the democratic myth are not enough.

Suffice to recall the phenomenon of Ostalgie, namely the nostalgia felt by many German citizens and voters for aspects of life in East Germany after reunification – Nost-Algie for permanent and regular jobs, for the lack of unemployment, for the authoritarian but effective Welfare of the old Sociality Unity Party of Germany (SED).

Money, however, never pays for the symbol – hence intangible incentives must always be greater than the tangible ones.

There is also talk about a selective amnesty for North Korea’s defectors.

Why?

How could South Korea support this new share of frustrated ruling classes coming from Pyongyang and finally what would be the strategic aim of this operation?

We may assume that the aim would be voiding the North Korean regime from inside – but are we really sure that the South Korean ruling class can safely double its size, possibly incorporating the North Korean songbun classes that are already accustomed to unlawful transactions?

Furthermore, reunification would bring no concrete benefit to South Koreans.

Quite the reverse. It would be necessary to support a population – about 50% of North Korean inhabitants – who is well below the typical economic standards of South Korea’s working class.

According to our estimates, for the five years following reunification, this would create a public debt at least 24% higher than expected – which is already approximately 40% – in a situation of weak growth, due to the crisis and saturation of the US market and the contraction of the domestic market.

Being a client State never pays.

In other words, this kind of reunification would certainly lead to the default of the South Korean government.

Furthermore, currently South Korea is bearing the brunt of political uncertainty, after the impeachment of President Park Geun Hye – not to mention the already described decrease of domestic consumption, resulting from an excessive cyclical link to the US economy and the decline of exports to China.

With a 2.6% planned growth throughout 2017, South Korea certainly has not the potential to absorb or make credible its debt generated by the costs of reunification, regardless of its being an elitist or mass reunification.

Even demography does not help, as the South Korean population is expected to start falling structurally next year.

Certainly we must consider the North Korean manpower, but the labour force has a cost of training, obviously adding to the cost of the means of production which should guarantee jobs precisely to the North Korean workers.

It is worth recalling that it took over twenty years to achieve homogeneous social and economic conditions between West Germany and the old German Democratic Republic (DDR) – a goal that has not been reached yet despite the Euro manipulation and the huge German investment.

Moreover, at the time of Vereinigung, Germany was the third world economy and certainly not the respectable, but much smaller South Korea’s economy.

And what about China? Obviously it is not interested in the Korean reunification.

In fact, if this were to happen, it would be the repetition – in the Third Millennium – of the unification of Northern and Southern Italy and, in this case, the economic and political “line” would be dictated by South Korean and not by North Korea.

As can be easily imagined, China does not like this.

China has every interest in freezing any geopolitical issue in Asia, by operating with peripheral States – as in the Roman legend of the Horatii and Curiatii – by dividing and later linking them with bilateral agreements.

In Asia, China wants to avoid everything may lead to the creation of a new strategic bloc capable of dictating certain conditions to its geoeconomic and military system.

Considering that South Korea is always a US client State, China would regard reunification as an undesirable increase of the North American potential in the safety buffer zone of its Eastern and Southern coasts.

In many ways, however, not even the United States would benefit from the Korean reunification.

While there is no longer such a reason to keep large troops in South Korea, the correlation of US interests is inevitably expected to change, thus leaving the Korean Peninsula uncovered while the United States is supposed to redeploy its Armed Forces in the Pacific, around the South China Sea and in the Japanese safety buffer zone.

Currently neither China nor Japan appreciate this new scenario of the American military power in Asia.

If the United States maintained a large amount of troops in the new reunified Korea, everybody would regard this as only having the aim of opposing China.

Not even Japan would benefit from a German-style reunification between the two Koreas.

Both South Korea and, potentially, even North Korea, are now global competitors of Japan – not to mention the strategic bloc represented for the country by an imperial “co-prosperity area” that a reunited Korea would undermine.

There is no Japanese geopolitics not targeted to the whole Southeast Asia – it is not possible otherwise.

And this holds true both for the Empire – the Dai Nihon about which Haushofer spoke in the 20th century – and for the Japan regionalized by the United States.

Unlike Italy, Japan was defeated in World War II, but it is still able to think big and really understand geopolitical issues without demonizing its past and worshiping its old enemy.

Hence, what can be done? It is simple.

Reopen the Six Party Talks circle, as well as fund specific projects in North Korea and help its people with humanitarian aid, but above all, with a peaceful reindustrialization policy going towards Russia, China, the EU and, possibly, also the United States.

The Asian Bank for European Infrastructure and the European financial institutions should take immediate action – and Italy is present in the Bank of Asia. In a new type of nuclear negotiations, we should also rethink the civilian potential of North Korea’s nuclear system for it to sell energy to its neighbours.

Obviously the resumption of the Six Party Talks should be based on a reconstruction of North Korean free trade areas and on an effective relationship with Russia and China, which should become the new guarantors of the Korean Peninsula’s nuclear and economic balance.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

Taiwan dispute, regional stability in East Asia and US policy towards it

Published

on

In the 1950s, armed confrontation erupted between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) over vital islands in the Taiwan Strait. ROC-controlled islands were bombarded by the PRC on two distinct occasions in the 1950s. The US retaliated by acting actively on favor of the ROC. Tensions in the Taiwan Strait were exacerbated by US policy toward East Asia during the early Cold War. In late 1949 and early 1950, American authorities were prepared to allow PRC forces to cross the Taiwan Strait and defeat Chiang, but when the Korean War broke out in June 1950, the US moved its Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to keep the conflict from expanding south. The advent of the Seventh Fleet enraged the Chinese Communists, who moved soldiers from Taiwan to the Korean front in preparation for an attack. This served to postpone military conflict in the Strait until after the Korean War, when the US withdrew its fleet.

Beijing claims there is only “One China,” of which Taiwan is a part. It considers the People’s Republic of China to be China’s only legitimate government, a position it refers to as the “One-China concept,” and desires Taiwan’s eventual “unification” with the mainland.

China, Mongolia, Taiwan, Tibet, and the South China Sea remain part of the ROC, according to Taiwan’s KMT-drafted constitution. The KMT opposes Taiwan’s independence and has repeatedly advocated for tighter ties with China. However, in light of recent election setbacks, KMT leaders have pondered whether the party’s position on the 1992 Consensus should be changed. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the KMT’s main adversary, has never supported the 1992 Consensus’s understanding. President Tsai, who is also the DPP’s leader, has refused to recognize the consensus in writing. Instead, she has endeavored to find a different formulation that Beijing will accept. Tsai declared she was “Elected President in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of China,” which is a One-China document, and that she would “Safeguard the Sovereignty and Territory of the Republic of China” in her 2016 inaugural address. Tsai also promised to “Handle Cross-Strait Affairs in accordance with the Republic of China Constitution, the Act Governing Relations Between People of Taiwan Area and the People of the Mainland Area, and other applicable legislation.” Beijing, on the other hand, rejected this statement and severed ties with Taiwan.

UN Membership Status for Taiwan

China directly rejects the participation of Taiwan in other international organizations that only allow governments to join. Taiwan complains its absence on a regular basis, while the US advocates for Taiwan’s meaningful involvement in such groups. Taiwan, on the other hand, is a member of over forty organizations, the most of which are regional in nature, such as the Asian Development Bank and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, as well as the World Trade Organization. On several additional bodies, it has observer or other status. Only fourteen countries have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. No government has ever maintained formal diplomatic relations with both China and Taiwan at the same time.

Economic Situation of Taiwan

Taiwan’s economy is still based on trade with China, the island’s most important commercial partner. However, their economic relationship has been strained in recent years, partially as a result of Beijing’s pressure on Taiwan and Taiwanese leaders’ rising concerns about the island’s overdependence on Chinese trade. President Ma, who served from 2008 to 2016, signed over twenty agreements with the PRC, notably the 2010 Cross-Straits Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, in which the two countries agreed to remove trade barriers. Direct sea, air, and mail ties between China and Taiwan were reestablished after decades of prohibition. They also agreed that banks, insurers, and other financial service providers would be permitted to operate in both markets. Tsai’s main program, the New Southbound Policy, has had some success in increasing trade and investment with Southeast Asian and Indo-Pacific countries. Between 2016, when the project was announced, and 2021, trade between Taiwan and the eighteen nations increased by more than $50 billion. Nonetheless, Taiwan’s exports to China reached an all-time high in 2021. Beijing has exerted pressure on other countries to refrain from signing free trade deals with Taiwan. Only a few nations have signed free trade agreements with the island, with New Zealand and Singapore being the only industrialized economies to do so.

US-Taiwan Relations

The United States and the People’s Republic of China established formal diplomatic ties in 1979. At the same time, it cut diplomatic ties with the ROC and terminated their mutual defense treaty. However, the US maintains a strong unofficial relationship with the island, selling defense weapons to its military. Beijing has frequently pushed the US to stop sending weapons to Taiwan and to cut ties with the country. The United States’ strategy is guided by its One-China policy. It is based on a number of documents, including three US-China communiqués issued in 1972, 1978, and 1982; the Taiwan Relations Act, passed by the US Congress in 1979; and President Ronald Reagan’s recently disclosed “Six Assurances”, which he delivered to Taiwan in 1982. According to these documents, the United States:

“Acknowledges the Chinese stance that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of China” and that the PRC is the “only lawful government of China”

Disposes the use of force to resolve the conflict; maintains cultural, commercial, and other ties with Taiwan through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), commits to selling arms to Taiwan for self-defense and maintains the ability to come to Taiwan’s defense while not committing to do so, a policy known as Strategic Ambiguity was created.

The major purpose of the United States is to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and it has urged both Beijing and Taipei to do so. It declares that it opposes Taiwanese independence. For decades, the US has tried to strike a careful balance between backing Taiwan and avoiding a confrontation with China through its policy of strategic ambiguity.

Over Chinese protests, the US strengthened ties with Taiwan under President Donald Trump, selling over $18 billion in armaments to the military and erecting a $250 million facility for its de facto embassy in Taipei. Tsai and Trump spoke by phone before Trump’s inauguration, the greatest degree of engagement between the two since 1979. He also dispatched several top administration officials to Taipei, including a cabinet member, and the State Department lifted long-standing limitations on where and how US officials can meet with their Taiwanese counterparts during his final days in office.

Biden’s Administrative and Military Relations with Taiwan

The Biden administration has taken a similar approach, maintained arms shipments and endorsed Trump’s decision to allow US officials to meet with Taiwanese officials more freely. Biden was the first president of the United States to invite Taiwanese officials to the inauguration. The US regularly sails ships across the Taiwan Strait to demonstrate its military presence in the region, and it has encouraged Taiwan to raise its defense budget. The United States has been more supportive of Taiwan in recent years than it had been before China adopted a rejectionist stance toward the current Taiwanese government. On cross-strait problems, Tsai has been noticeably and consistently moderate. The fact that she would push the limit by declaring full formal independence is not a risk Beijing has to be concerned about. During Tsai’s presidency, Washington has increased its support for Taiwan, primarily in response to Beijing’s increasing pressure on the island. The Biden administration has a variety of grievances about Chinese behavior and its coercion of Taiwan has been towards the top of that list, as seen by congressional legislation and presidential and administration policy comments.

U-S Implications for Strategic Stability over Taiwan Issues

Strategic stability refers to a condition in which both the United States and China can pursue their key national interests without jeopardizing, if not increasing, regional and global stability. Such strategic stability may also help to establish a pattern of bilateral relations that decreases the likelihood of accidental conflict particularly military conflict while simultaneously enhancing the possibilities for future collaboration. However, the reality on all three sides make stability appear like a far-off dream. Beijing has made it obvious that it feels its national might is quickly expanding and that it will soon be enough to exercise diplomatic, economic, and military supremacy, at least in the western Pacific. Furthermore, the realities of Beijing’s expanding power have allowed it to engage in resentment diplomacy, accusing the US and other foreign powers of being responsible for China’s “Century of Humiliation” and demanding retribution. If strategic stability is to be achieved, it must begin here for the US to change its policies toward Taiwan and China, they must opt.

Conclusion

Both militaries have increased their capabilities in order to dissuade and defeat the other. The two countries have moved from rivalry to conflict, and both have made establishing Taiwan’s future the focal point of that clash on numerous occasions. Taiwan, whether you call it a pawn or not, is caught in the crossfire. As a result, lowering tensions over Taiwan might be the first step toward avoiding potentially devastating instability and, possibly, developing a cautious trust on both sides that other lingering problems can be resolved successfully. A reinforced US policy of dual deterrence, coupled with authoritative assurance, can be a first step toward restoring trust in enormous strategic stability between these two superpowers.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Fujian Aircraft Carrier Owes Its Existence to the BRI

Published

on

With China officially launching its aircraft carrier Fujian, questions have arisen concerning such a development. Here, we have answered some questions on different levels according to the timeline, so as to present a clearer picture of the situation, showing the close relations between China’s economy and the country’s national defense.

As things stand, the vessel, referred to as a Type 003 carrier, owes its existence to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the “golden decade” in its economic development.

The emergence of the BRI requires China to defend its maritime routes. In the hypothetical scenario where the BRI does not exist, China’s geopolitical interest would not have expanded to the extent that a blue-water navy is necessary. Ukraine for instance has no navy at all, yet it still can control the Black Sea with shore-based “Harpoon” missiles. Therefore, without global interests, there would be no aircraft carrier today.

It should be remembered that not only the construction, but also the maintenance of aircraft carriers would require financial resources, and such resources were obtained through China’s economic development. In Russia’s case, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Russia’s economy, its aircraft carrier fleet had to be disbanded, and this is a good example of the relations between the national defense with the economy. It is precisely because of the “Golden Decade” of China’s economy that laid the foundation for the country to establish its blue-water navy today.

The next question is, why did China launch the BRI? How did such an initiative come into being?

With China emerging as the major manufacturer for the rest of the world, conflicts follow suit. Furthermore, overcapacity eventually kept the price down, then came the overstocked inventory and debts. In resolving such issues, I had thought of the principle of the Marshall Plan, and this formed the predecessor and foundation of the BRI. Any detailed discussion on this topic would be long and arduous, yet in essence, the focus is on transferring production capacity, increasing investment in the world, transferring capital, and so on. These are all, in fact, related to resolving China’s own problems, that is to maintain its stable development.

This suggestion has attracted the attention of the Chinese leadership, and related policies were eventually introduced. After such a formation process, the policy was finally implemented as the BRI. It is now harder for the public to find books and narratives about the formation process of the BRI. The reason is that most did not go through such a process at all, and many only participated in it later. This, of course, does not mean that the policy formation process did not exist. After all, there is cause and effect for everything. As for the subsequent implementation results of the grand plan of the BRI, how a large number of projects went out of control is a different story, with its own causes and consequences.

The final question is, why did the “golden decade” come into play in China?

The BRI has created numerous demands, as was originally intended. In those years, not only did Chinese enterprises become larger and more prominent, but the annual growth rate of the government’s fiscal year also far exceeded the growth rate of GDP. It was such an accumulation of financial resources that supported the construction and development of aircraft carriers and other grand projects.

It is common knowledge that China’s economy entered a high growth stage after the year 2000. The annual economic growth rate was more than 10%, i.e., at a double-digit growth stage. Even when faced with the Wall Street financial crisis in 2008, China reacted by issuing an RMB 4 trillion economic stimulus package and the crisis did not impact the country much. The downturn in China’s economy was something that happened after 2012, and there are hard data that can prove this.

The so-called “golden decade” refers to an approximate time period where the main growth drivers are as follows: 1. The presence of a large amount of foreign investment and the continuous investment of foreign companies in China, making the country the world’s factory during that time. 2. China’s large number of net exports supported its economic growth. 3. Urbanization drove the development of the real estate sector, which in turn pushed the Chinese consumption and supported the economic growth. 4. China’s currency issuance, as well as investment, had driven its economic development. As it is well-known, the country’s economic growth is investment-driven. These factors worked together to form China’s “golden decade” and promote the rise of its economy into a salient global force.

The financial resources generated enabled the country to undertake various projects, including constructing aircraft carriers. Some of these projects were unimaginable in the past, yet China managed to accomplish them, such as high-speed rail networks, manned spaceflight, and so on. However, all these needed both demand and money. Of course, demand and money do not exist out of thin air, and there are driving factors behind them.

As an independent think tank, ANBOUND has the honor of participating in these great processes to a certain extent at a fundamental level through the construction of public policies, as well as in policy formation. Here, we briefly introduce some of the logical relationships and basic principles.

Looking into the future, China will face continuous challenges. From the point of view of naval projects such as aircraft carriers, as an important military asset in the future, their very existence will require more financial resources. To sustain them, China will either need to continue gaining money or it will need to tighten its belt. These are the only two options left for China.

Continue Reading

East Asia

The Global-south Geopolitical and Geoeconomic Landscape and China’s Growing Influence

Published

on

The importance of China’s CPEC project in the region and the obstacles it faces. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC, is an international economic project for China that China has been pursuing for years and wants to maintain good economic, diplomatic and military relations with Pakistan. In addition, terrorist activities have been going on in Pakistan and the region for years against this project in order to stop this Chinese economic project. This is because the East Asia trade route connects to Central Asia through China’s CPEC project and for China, energy enters China through this alternative trade route, and trade goods from China reach the Gulf countries and Africa. In addition, the Central Asian states benefit greatly and Central Asia is further liberates from the Western political and economic network. The economic and political significance of the CPEC project, the obstacles it faces, the impacts of CPEC.

On the West led- by US, and the elements that create the barriers to CPEC prevention will be scrutinized later, it is worthwhile to briefly discuss the introduction and background of the CPEC project. The China International Economic Project or China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC is a set of basic economic projects, which was first established on May 22, 2013 between the two countries, China and Pakistan, for the purpose of lasting political and economic relations. Under the project, China will invest 62 billion USD in the CPEC project in Pakistan, building economic zones, trade roads, railways, dams and bridges across Pakistan. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project is essentially a one-belt, one-way BRI initiative for China’s next international economic project, The BRI project is once again seeking the restoration of China’s historic Silk Road and the sea “String of pearls.”

What is the significance of the CPEC project for China and why does China want to invest so much in a country that is a puppet of the West?

 The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) serves as an alternative economic transit route for China connecting West China to Central Asia. In this way, China will be able to import raw materials from Central Asia and Africa at low cost and as a result, it shipped its goods from Kashgar in Xinjiang to Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa via the Pakistani port of Gwadar via highways and high-speed trains. In this way, China will expand and strengthen its trade relations with Europe, and China will strengthen its strategic horizons through projects such as CPEC.

Through this project, China can push Pakistan into economic poverty, which will be under the economic domination of China for all ages, and China will gain world-class economic power. China will provide employment to about 80,000 Chinese nationals in Pakistan and the Chinese people will be rich along with the Chinese government through this project. China, as an industrial base in the region, needs huge amount of energy and to meet this need, China wants to first activate China’s economic and industrial zones in Pakistan.

And then using Pakistan’s hot water to get energy from the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa, China’s energy needs are being met by the CPEC project, which is therefore of strategic importance to China. The China’s CPEC project will lead to economic integration with China in the Middle East and Central Asia, both of which have vast oil reserves, And China will be a big market for them, and as a result, China’s influence in both areas will increase. Through China’s CPEC project, China will not only strengthen its economic infrastructures in Pakistan, but Pakistan will repay the Chinese loan to China with interest, In such a case according to the SBP’s May 2022 report, Pakistan’s total of former debt stood at Rs 53.5 trillion.

What is the political significance of CPEC project for China?

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project, which is being implemented in the western Chinese province of Xinjiang, and then will connect the economic corridors to the Pakistani port of Gwadar. Xinjiang province, a strategic region in western China, has been plagued by Uyghur terrorist activity for years. The inhabitants of the area are Uyghur Muslims, who have long been oppressed and persecuted by the Chinese government and trained in forced camps.

Chinese police have imposed various restrictions on Uyghur Muslims, and there are reports that Uyghur Muslims have been banned from buying knives. China’s security services claim that Uighur Muslims are inciting public people to extremism and war in Xinjiang province to stop China’s economic projects in the West. In short, the region can pose a potential future threat to develops China, and China’s future aspirations for an economic empire could be shattered. In short, the region can pose a potential future threat to develops China, and China’s future aspirations for an economic empire can be shattered. However, China’s CPEC project against the West not only thwarts this Western conspiracy, but also promotes development in the Xinjiang region and stabilizes the region and brings lasting peace to the region. In order to hinder China’s economic development, international rivals have been trying to train terrorist groups in the region through Pakistan and destabilize the region in order to block China’s international economic projects.

But that both China and Pakistan have a central role in the CPEC project and both countries want stability in the region, So security barriers against China and the potential threat of China’s secession of the western part of the country or Xinjiang will be eliminate. Under the pretext of protecting the CPEC project, China will build a large military base in the hot water at the port of Gwadar, through which China can bring the countries of the region, especially India under its naval control; And Chinese naval forces will conduct naval patrols near to the India water. Through the CPEC project, not only China can able to  strengthen its foreign policy, but also the strengthening of China’s most important and significant domestic policy in relation to Xinjiang.

For years now, Uighur Muslims in Kashgar, Xinjiang, have been fighting at home and abroad to establish a state called East Turkestan in Kashgar, And the Kashgar region is the center of implementation of the BRI project and one of the most important and strategic areas for China. Uighur Muslims are being trained in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria to liberate Kashgar and are waging an armed struggle against China through the ETIM group. Nevertheless, if China implements the CPEC project, Xinjiang will have great economic value; And Uyghur Muslims living in the area will be offered jobs in modern factories in order to find work. And the people of the region will not only stop fight in Kashgar for love of money and wealth, but will also fight against other foreign groups in Xinjiang to bring stability to Kashgar. In addition to domestic policy, the CPEC project is also a major contributor to China’s foreign policy.

As China expands its economic presence in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa, it will also expand its military and intelligence presence in areas that are a major victory for China against the West.

What is the economic and political significance of CPEC project for Pakistan?

Pakistan has been a Western colony since 1947 and to this day has been used exclusively for the benefit of the West and has reached the last level of debt owed by the West economically. Through the implementation of the CPEC’s project, more areas of Pakistan are gaining economic value, where trade routes reach Gwadar port, such as: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit-Baltistan, Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and occupied Kashmir or PoK. In addition, the project will activate about 37 economic zones in all cities of Pakistan, employ 40,000 Pakistani workers and reduce poverty in the country. From China’s Xinjiang to Pakistan’s Gwadar port, major trade routes and roads for vehicles, railways, electricity import systems and agriculture will be included. With the implementation of the CPEC project, various development projects will be needed in the un-promoted areas of Pakistan, such as Baluchistan and Sindh, and the poor people of these areas will become rich. Residents of Pakistan’s Baluchistan and Sindh are facing severe water shortages, the heat in these areas is much higher than in other parts of Pakistan, and many parts of these provinces are facing power shortages to provide cool air systems. However, through the CPEC project, the import power companies will be activate in these areas and the dams will be activate to prevent water shortage and the residents of these areas will have a comfortable life.

In addition, business professionals will be train in Pakistan and the development of skilled business people will be another objective of the project. Under CPEC project, 21 large and small energy projects are being implemented in Pakistan, which will enrich the country in the field of energy. On March 19, 2021, the Voice of America or VOA released a report stating that (Pakistan had connected its new Chinese-built nuclear power plant with a capacity of 1,100 megawatts to the national network. Islamabad now plans to generate about 8,800 megawatts of nuclear energy by 2030 and 40,000 megawatts by 2050. China has also built at least nine coal-fired power plants in Pakistan over the past six years, with the rest under construction, which helps the South Asian country effectively overcome the years of energy crisis). Based on these reports and political analysis, China plans to activate more nuclear power plants in and around Karachi, which could reduce India’s role in the region. What is the political significance of this CPEC project for Pakistan? Pakistan, which has been a Western colony for many years, and in addition to its political independence, its economic independence is also under US-led Western domination.

Pakistan’s military, religious and political parties, commercial companies and Pakistan’s land operate dependently under the leadership of Britain and the Western community. Through the CPEC project, Pakistan is gaining some leeway in all these areas and is also using China as a powerful trading and military power in Asia as a partner in the PoK dispute against India. Pakistan can rid Pakistan of the presence of pro-Western terrorist groups and militants who have been trained in Pakistan for years to control China and Russia in the region such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, TTP, Baloch separatist group under the umbrella of BLA. And Pakistan will also eliminate terrorist groups that have been trained by the Pakistani military and the ISI network against India and Afghanistan, and have been largely funded by Pakistan’s military budget.

What are the disadvantages of CPEC for Pakistan?

1. China will first activate its military bases near the Economic Corridor in Pakistan to protect CPEC and will deploy its troops at those bases. However, China will secretly increase its military presence and reach out to the Gulf region, Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics, making Pakistan a Chinese military colony in the next few years. 2. The large presence of Chinese troops in Pakistan will accuse Pakistan of being against India as it is clearly besieging India. 3. China will have a naval base at the Pakistani port of Gwadar that will occasionally enter the Arabian Sea, thereby straining relations between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. 4. Under the guise of jihad and the history of extremist militants under the umbrella of Islam, it is clear that they will rise up against the large Chinese presence on Islamic soil and declare jihad against the Chinese troops. In addition, there, Pakistan will bring in Chinese troops in direct combat with Islamist militias.

The Chinese military is ruthless and can destroy groups that not only provoke Middle Eastern sentiment but also worsen the situation inside and outside Pakistan. The importance of CPEC and the support of CPEC for the countries of the region. In the region, Iran, Afghanistan and Russia also support CPEC because the benefits of this project not only reach China and Pakistan but also all the countries in the region. Such as Russia and Russia supports this project. This is because after Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, the CPEC project became important as an alternative trade route for Russia. Because Russia has always wanted to find its way to Pakistan’s hot water through war, but now there is a golden opportunity for Russia to reach Pakistan’s hot water without a fight. The CPEC project is also important for Iran and it wants to play a significant role in the implementation of this project in the region. Iran has been a country under economic sanctions imposed by the West for years, but the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project can ease the pressure on Iran. China and Iran have enjoyed good diplomatic relations for years and on March 27, 2021, a 25-year cooperation agreement called P.R. was signed between the Foreign Ministers of China and Iran in Tehran. It includes political, military and economic cooperation between the two countries for 25 years.

China wants to invest 400 billion in Iran in response to Western economic sanctions on Iran, as well as build a large market for Iranian oil in Xinjiang. The CPEC project is also beneficial for Afghanistan as Afghanistan is important for connectivity between Pakistan and Central Asia. In addition, there is an excellent motor transit route from Kandahar province to Gwadar port through which Pakistani goods can enter Central Asia within a short distance. In this way, more taxes can be collected for the Afghan government and thus Afghanistan can and will be able to transport its goods cheaply through Gwadar port. John Achakzai’s article, published by CPEC Research and Development Foundation on September 20, 2021, states: (Imran Khan, after returning from a visit to Tajikistan, spoke to the Afghan Taliban administration that it should immediately look for a separate route from the Gwadar corridor to connect Islamabad with Dushanbe.

This is how it should look: The handover of trade routes along the Wakhan Strip in return for the Kandahar-Dalbandin Gwadar corridor. With the Wakhan Strip in exchange for corridor between Kandahar and Herat through Balochistan’s Dalbandin–nearer to Ahmadwal/Noshki (for Afghan transit trade) to Gwadar as part of CPEC/BRI, Pakistan and Taliban-led Afghanistan can create a new geo-economic alignment never seen before). The CPEC project is also important for India, but the PoK dispute between India and Pakistan has remained unresolved for years, so India opposes its implementation.

Which countries and elements obstructing against the CPEC Project?

The United States is the first country to oppose the China-Pakistan economic project, which it does not want to implement. Because the implementation of this project not only liberates the Middle East from American control but also reduces the role of the American empire of many years in the African countries, In contrast, the Middle East and Africa will be under Chinese economic and military domination. The United States has been waging an economic war against China for years to give China an economic blow, but the implementation of the CPEC predicts US defeat. The United States will never support activities that empower China, and the United States wants to maintain financial instability in Pakistan so that Pakistan remains a US-led Western ally for time.

 The United Arab Emirates, along with the United States, has secretly opposed China’s CPEC project to protect the importance of its trade ports, because they fear that if the port of Gwadar becomes an economic and clean port, it will affect the ports of the United Arab Emirates. They also fear that if Gwadar becomes a global deep-sea port it will become a hub for global maritime trade and the UAE’s commercial ports will lose their former economic status. India also opposes CPEC because the China-Pakistan International Economic Corridor project is also being implemented in PoK and Pakistan and Indian border forces have been fighting in this area for years. In addition, Pakistan has been supporting terrorist groups for years to maintain the PoK, and it wants to use terrorist groups against Indian forces in addition to its own troops.

India, on the other hand, is the only country in Asia to compete with China in terms of economic and military strength, and with the implementation of the CPEC project, China will become much more economically strong than before. Under the CPEC project, China will activate its military base at the port of Gwadar and occasionally conduct maritime patrols in Pakistan’s warm waters, which is essentially a blockade of India. These are the reasons why India opposes the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and also India does not want to participate in the BRI project. Obstacles to China’s economic project are extremist groups seeking to take action against China from northern Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Baluchistan, moreover, the liberation of Kashgar and the creation of a country called East Turkestan in Kashgar.    

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Americas27 seconds ago

Aligning values into an interest-based Canadian Indo-Pacific Strategy

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an explicit challenge to the post-WW 2 order. This order has brought peace and stability...

Science & Technology5 hours ago

American Big Tech: No Rules

Over the past few years, a long-term trend towards the regulation of technology giants has clearly emerged in many countries...

World News8 hours ago

Rise of disinformation a symptom of ‘global diseases’ undermining public trust

Societies everywhere are beset by “global diseases” including systemic inequality which have helped fuel a rise in disinformation, or the...

Urban Development10 hours ago

Inclusive cities critical to post-pandemic recovery

A UN conference on transforming the world’s urban areas is underway in Poland this week, which will include a dialogue...

Finance12 hours ago

Import Control System 2 (ICS2) Release 2: New requirements for inbound air shipments to the EU

From 1 March 2023, all freight forwarders, air carriers, express couriers, and postal operators transporting goods to or through the...

South Asia14 hours ago

Rohingya repatriation between Myanmar-Bangladesh

Refugees find themselves in a situation of limbo because of the prolonged refugee scenario. They are neither eligible for repatriation...

East Asia17 hours ago

Taiwan dispute, regional stability in East Asia and US policy towards it

In the 1950s, armed confrontation erupted between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) over...

Trending