Authors: Yang Yizhong & Paul Wang
On December 16, China and Russia proposed that the UN Security Council lift a ban on North Korea’s exporting statues, especially seafood and textile items. Tension has been rising between the United States and North Korea over the past weeks after a series of weapon tests conducted by Pyongyang and hostile rhetoric traded between the two sides. As usual, Beijing has reiterated that it hopes the two sides could meet each other halfway to push for denuclearization, indicating U.S. lifting sanctions in exchange for Pyongyang abandoning its nuclear and missile programs. Echoing China’s calling, Russia said the draft, whose measures also included the lifting of a ban on the North Koreans working abroad, was aimed at encouraging talks between Washington and Pyongyang. Yet, the White House said that the president insisted on keeping sanctions in place. And they need to see full and verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It is clear that the U.S. position regarding sanctions has not changed. Meanwhile, Pyongyang has vowed to take an unspecified “new path” if Washington fails to soften its stance before the end of the year.
In effect, the U.S. special envoy Stephen Biegun has started his week-long trip to East Asia, first touring to Japan and then to South Korea, two key allies of the United States in the region. Not surprisingly, Washington also declared that Biegun will visit Beijing on Thursday and Friday after China and Russia proposed lifting some UN sanctions on North Korea while he called on Pyongyang to return its offer of talks, saying Washington remains committed to the nuclear talks with Pyongyang. It is held that during his stay in Beijing, Biegun will hold talks with Chinese officials to “discuss the need to maintain international unity” on the Korean Peninsula issue.
Henry Kissinger once said that in foreign affairs, the acceptance of the framework of the international order by all states involved, at least to the extent that no one party feels so dissatisfied that it expresses its anger in a provocative manner. Thus a legitimate order is by no means making conflicts impossible, but it limits their scope. Conflicts may occur, but they will be fought in the name of the existing structure and the peace which follows will be justified as a better expression of the “legitimate”, general consensus. In the classical sense, diplomacy implies the adjustment of differences through negotiation, and is possible only in “legitimate” international orders. Trump did express that he would be disappointed if North Korea continues to try to obtain what it needs by a provocative way, referring to two weapon tests on December 7 and 13. Yet, when his envoy Biegun ended a three-day visit to Seoul on Tuesday, he also said the U.S. doesn’t have a deadline and is willing to discuss all issues of interest if Pyongyang is sincere to return to the negotiation table. The signal from Washington is clear that “it is time for all parties concerned to do the jobs as Stephen Biegun and his team are here. It is well-known how to reach us. Let’s get this done.”
Diplomacy essentially speaks soft by insisting on negotiations. It is the positions of China and its strategic partner Russia, alongside South Korea which, though an ally of the United States, has proposed that the nuclear talks between Pyongyang and Washington remain possible when the two sides hold off any words and deeds rattling each other. During the 35-minute session at the Blue House in Seoul, President Moon requested Biegun’s continued efforts to move forward the Korean peace process. It is widely held that the latest moves by Pyongyang are not intended to deteriorate its relations with the United States. Instead, it is trying to “coerce” Washington to go back to the negotiation table and reopen talks. If there is at least one thing that Washington and Pyongyang are on the same page, it is that both of them would not like to see peace talks broken down and work towards a possible denuclearization deal. For many reasons, little progress has been made on this issue despite three meetings between Kim and his U.S. counterpart since last year. Yet, the critical difference between two parties lies in the approach of the negotiation. The leader in Pyongyang has made it clear many times that the U.S. should propose a new plan of a possible denuclearization deal before the dialogue. However, the U.S., already holding a draft in hand, is reluctant to show its initiative before the game even begins. Otherwise, Pyongyang would win the game as it would show the U.S. is coerced to accept Pyongyang’s terms, which would be absolutely objected by the hawks in the White House.
Accordingly, there comes the dilemma. Although both sides are willing to get the job done, the United States wants to propose the new plan during the talks rather than prior to it. With the year-end deadline set by Pyongyang approaching and Washington not making any concessions, it seems that Kim Jungunis tired of waiting. Trump has established good personal relations with Kim, so at least there is no hostility at the highest level. Yet, with the 2020 elections approaching, a possible new leader would bring new uncertainties. In addition, the location for the important test is the Sohae satellite launch site, which Kim has promised to dismantle at the Singapore summit. All these might be seen as Kim’s tact to issue an “unhappy” warning to Trump. But, despite all uncertainties, as a Chinese scholar observed, the impetus is always there as long as North Korea wants to lift sanctions to develop the economy, and if Trump wants to end the 70-year-long conflicts and leave the significant diplomacy legacy.
The good token should be noted, what used to drive the two side apart is the approach towards denuclearization: that the U.S. insisted on total denuclearization first while North Korea demanded that it would only accept a step-by-step and reciprocal deal. Now with the most hawkish character John Bolton leaving the White House, Washington is also softening its tone. U.S. special envoy Stephen Biegunhas been a supporter of a step-by-step deal; last week, U.S. envoy to the U.N. Kelly Craft has also stated that Washington was prepared to be flexible in how they approached the issue. True, there have been no details to reveal just how “flexible” the U.S. is prepared to be, yet the commitment to push the dialogue between the two sides is still there.
From the very beginning, China has played a unique role in safeguarding the peace of the peninsula and the whole region. More than four formal meetings in one year between Chinese leader Xi and his Korean counterpart have sufficiently revealed the pivotal and irreplaceable role of China in leading the way for denuclearization. If people are serious to read through the “Four-point” proposal by Xi during his two meetings with Kim, it is self-evident that China along with Russia has played the role in driving towards a peaceful settlement on the Korean Peninsula issue. First, China has insisted on denuclearization which needs to protect both sides’ core security interests, and Kim himself has agreed to give up the nuclear program if the US and South Korea respond to his proposal with good will. Second, since China and North Korea have resumed their friendship, Xi and Kim have highlighted the party-to-party strategic coordination as part of their shared political heritage. Considering the uncertainties in American politics, China has reiterated that the Korean Peninsula issue can be resolved only through peaceful means. Third, China and North Korea have stressed that their ties have common destinies when it comes to geopolitical issues, economic development and ideological affinities. Especially, China has vowed to stand ready to work with all the parties involved in order to adopt the dual-track approach. Thus, China has taken on great geopolitical significance in the Asia-Pacific, and it is vital that tensions on the Korean Peninsula be kept from escalating in the whole region.
In light of this, China would be able to play a constructive and fruitful role in the upcoming meetings with Stephen Biegun. Considering that among all the parties involved with the Korean nuke issues, China is the only power that has forged and continues to enhance the comprehensive strategic partnership with Russia and has maintained mutual cooperation with the Republic of Korea (ROK), let alone China’s long-time friendship and strategic alliance with North Korea. In addition, China has resumed good working relations with Japan, whose PM Shinzo Abe spoke highly of China’s role in solving the Korean Peninsula issue through peaceful means. Perhaps, the most important is that Xi and Trump have forged good personal relations as it was quoted that President Trump paid great attention to China’s stance on the Korean Peninsula issue, and is willing to strengthen communication and coordination with China to resolve the issue through negotiations and consultations. Due to this reality, it is possible that China will be able to promote the consensus between the U.S. and North Korea and all parties involved. This is the foundation of the peaceful settlement of the denuclearization on the Korean peninsula.
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 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.
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.
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.
Fujian Aircraft Carrier Owes Its Existence to the BRI
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.
The Global-south Geopolitical and Geoeconomic Landscape and China’s Growing Influence
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.
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
Why the implementation of the CHT peace agreement is still elusive?
When the “Top boxer” of Bangladesh, for the past eight years, Sura Krishna Chakma raised the national flag of Bangladesh...
South Asia3 days ago
Towards Dual-Tripolarity: An Indian Grand Strategy for the Age of Complexity
Economy3 days ago
G7 & National Mobilization of SME Entrepreneurialism
Green Planet4 days ago
The Human Price of Tea
Middle East4 days ago
Saudi religious soft power diplomacy eyes Washington and Jerusalem first and foremost
Economy4 days ago
Indonesia’s Opportunities and Challenges in Facing the World Food Crisis
Economy3 days ago
Decoding Sri-Lankan economic crisis at the midst of the Russia-Ukraine War
Americas4 days ago
Is It Time for Helsinki Two?
Economy3 days ago
Change in the Paradigm of War from Physical Warfare’s to Economic Front War-Zones in 21st Century