Walk the talk

Advice from Chinese friends is unequivocally clear, categorical: develop consensus on the proposed CPEC


Imtiaz Gul May 12, 2015
The writer heads the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad

At the recently held third Think Tank Roundtable Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building in Asia (CICA) in Shanghai, issues such as China-US relations, Afghanistan, non-traditional security threats and a new Asian security paradigm topped the discussions. Much of the discussion moved around the One Belt One Road (OBOR) notion that President Xi Jinping has turned into China’s flagship project. Most participants looked at the OBOR as a game-changer for the region, a concept that envisages a win-win situation for all through road, rail and maritime connectivity. They looked at this ambitious project as a consequence of China’s internal stability and economic development that has lent it enormous soft power.

Some looked at this project as Chinese expansion headed westwards. Others were sceptical about China’s capacity. They questioned whether its “over-drive” in getting heavily involved in the realisation of three economic corridors could get out of control. Participants from Central Asian states also wondered whether isolated economic models can guarantee success of grand visions such as the OBOR. Its success, they pointed out, depended on equitable development of all regions that are connected by this concept.

The Roundtables and the CICA conferences involving scholars, experts and officials from all over Asia are held to garner international consensus on how Asian countries should take the management of security and conflicts in their own hands rather than being dependent on Nato. In this context, some delegates also questioned whether the insurgency in Afghanistan and militancy in parts of Pakistan would allow the construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Professor Xing Guangcheng, director of the Institute of Chinese Borderland Studies at the China Academy of Social Sciences, pleaded for an institutional mechanism where Asian countries and major powers outside Asia can communicate with one another. It is, he underlined, a multipurpose idea which should not be seen as Asia-specific. The CICA should be seen as a means for dialogue on security issues both in and outside Asia.

There was an across-the-board unanimity on the need for dealing with threats to societies, including challenges emanating from bad governance, absence of rule of law, trans-border religious radicalism, the nexus between organised crime and ideological rebel groups (al Qaeda, the IS, Taliban), water and food insecurity and mass migration due to social or economic adversity.

The participants also welcomed the Chinese lead in the Afghan reconciliation process. Most scholars argued that cooperation among China, the US and Pakistan on Afghanistan should be expanded to include Iran, India and Russia because such collaborative regional engagement can be key to the economic corridors that aim at connecting western China with Gwadar or other ports on the Arabian Sea, or with Europe through the Euro-Asia corridor.

Chinese scholars were welcoming of what they called “Pakistan’s generous willingness to facilitate the Afghan reconciliation process”. However, scepticism also accompanied such exuberance. The expectations that Afghans have of Pakistan go beyond what is stated in public. For them, President Ashraf Ghani’s overtures to Pakistan mean little.

Some Chinese participants also alluded to the controversy currently raging over the alleged changes in the CPEC. A couple of them had visited Gwadar last month and sounded sceptical about the project’s future.

Though buoyed by the promise of $46 billion worth of investment, the PML-N government bears a huge responsibility in fostering a national consensus on the CPEC route, and also in expediting construction or upgradation of whatever is necessary to kick-start the work on the CPEC, which has indeed become the envy of many countries in the region. The advice from Chinese friends is unequivocally clear and categorical: develop consensus on the proposed CPEC and start walking the talk. You may miss the bus otherwise.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 13th,  2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (4)

ishrat salim | 8 years ago | Reply @BlackHat: Very well said. I also agree with Ch Allah Daad too. Our intellectuals have gone intellectually bankrupt. They are unable to see beyond their nose. While, the plan is good only to benefit the Chinese only, but we are all going overboard with wishful thinking that this project is Pakistan centric, whereas even a fool can understand that it will become a dumping ground for Chinese inferior products making our own products non-competitive. Beside, the roads & infrastructures etc; will employ Chinese low class laborers comprising mostly of jailed criminals, while our laborers will remain un-employed. This aspect, most of our friends have refused to accept. The long term consequence of this project will make us all slaves of the Chinese & they will treat us same like their Muslim population. We may not live that long to see, but our next generation is sure to be the ultimate victim.
BlackHat | 8 years ago | Reply As long as conflict and instability festers in Afghnistan, any kind of regional development is far fetched. Irrespective of whether the Afghan peace process is Chinese led or U.S. led, the KEY to peace IS Pakistan. The Chinese initiative in Afghanistan welcome. The large investment in Pakistan is to be applauded, especially when no one else is willing to risk a dollar. The question is whether something can move backwards and forwards at the same time? Are backward looking, religious-extremist-violent fundamentalism and development compatible or complementary? How will the lack of rule of law and absence of transparency impact on economic growth? Without figuring out these questions, at the most only China is going to benefit from this project at the cost of the people of Pakistan (not counting a few well connected individuals and institutions).
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ