De-politicising the CPEC
Attempts to incorporate wider connectivity in the central and eastern routes of the CPEC are being misinterpreted
The writer is a PhD candidate and coordinator of South Asia Study Group at the University of Sydney
We are our own worst enemies, it appears, given the way the discourse on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has unfolded. But then again, for a country in which ‘politics’ denied Dr Abdus Salam from developing a centre for theoretical physics, and hindered Malala’s work for education in some of the most impoverished areas of Pakistan, a ‘fate changing’ project like the CPEC will not come easy unless it is de-politicised first. The controversy surrounding the CPEC is not new, and has come a long way, from being called a hoax project by Imran Khan throughout the dharna, to the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) government asking for its fair share of the project. The foremost controversy was over its alleged change of route. The K-P government and nationalist parties in Balochistan have blamed the PML-N government for making the CPEC a Punjab-centric project by changing the original route of the economic corridor. For one, it has been made clear by the government repeatedly, to the point of being monotonous, that the route has not been changed, that during the process of negotiations the government was able to bargain wider infrastructure development, which included more connectivity in the form of both the central and eastern routes. How can more connectivity throughout Pakistan be a disadvantage?
The second controversy is that the western route that goes through K-P and Balochistan only comprises a single road that lacks the perks of energy projects or industrial zones. Again, this myth has been hovering around without any legs. The reality is that Sindh and Balochistan have the highest share of energy projects, followed by Punjab and K-P. And this is all available on the Planning Commission’s webpage.
The third controversy is that the PML-N is undertaking the CPEC project to fill its pockets. This is a typical political smear campaign. Most projects are being done in the IPP mode, and just to ensure that the money is going in the right place, China is managing the finances and operations directly, as highlighted to me by a senior Chinese official in Australia.
The fourth and only plausible controversy that makes any sense and has escalated the situation is that the PML-N is conducting the project without taking other provinces and political parties on-board in the decision-making process. But the reasons behind the PML-N doing what it is doing may centre less around stripping Balochistan or K-P of their rights, and more about its management style. Its style of governance and development is extremely centralised and steered by a few key individuals who often bypass bureaucratic hurdles and deliver things at a pace unseen before — Lahore being a good example. While the model worked in Punjab, it appears that the PML-N couldn’t transition this model to the federal level. While the CPEC has been the subject of debate in parliament and in APCs, there wasn’t a broader buy-in and inclusivity vis-a-vis the project in its early stages. Perhaps because most of the negotiations were underway during the dharna period, the political parties didn’t see it passing right under their noses. The PTI actually rejected several invitations to be part of the negotiations.
Nevertheless, the sooner the PML-N realises the need for it to change its decision-making and operational strategy, the stronger it will be at the federal level and in a better position to deliver on mega projects like the CPEC. At the same time, it is also apparent that a particular political spin is being played over the CPEC, with fake maps, agreements and details of the project going viral, all sourced back to suspicious Facebook pages that promote provincial tensions and anti-Punjab sentiment. The CPEC can be Pakistan’s platform for economic growth, and given the political maturity in the country, I am optimistic that any controversy could be resolved through negotiations and parliamentary debate. But there is a need across the provinces to reject politicising of the issue or cultivating anti-Punjab sentiment for petty political gain. The project must be carried forward, and with more oversight, accountability and unity. But let’s try not to mutually damage ourselves over an issue that can be easily resolved.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 16th, 2016.
The second controversy is that the western route that goes through K-P and Balochistan only comprises a single road that lacks the perks of energy projects or industrial zones. Again, this myth has been hovering around without any legs. The reality is that Sindh and Balochistan have the highest share of energy projects, followed by Punjab and K-P. And this is all available on the Planning Commission’s webpage.
The third controversy is that the PML-N is undertaking the CPEC project to fill its pockets. This is a typical political smear campaign. Most projects are being done in the IPP mode, and just to ensure that the money is going in the right place, China is managing the finances and operations directly, as highlighted to me by a senior Chinese official in Australia.
The fourth and only plausible controversy that makes any sense and has escalated the situation is that the PML-N is conducting the project without taking other provinces and political parties on-board in the decision-making process. But the reasons behind the PML-N doing what it is doing may centre less around stripping Balochistan or K-P of their rights, and more about its management style. Its style of governance and development is extremely centralised and steered by a few key individuals who often bypass bureaucratic hurdles and deliver things at a pace unseen before — Lahore being a good example. While the model worked in Punjab, it appears that the PML-N couldn’t transition this model to the federal level. While the CPEC has been the subject of debate in parliament and in APCs, there wasn’t a broader buy-in and inclusivity vis-a-vis the project in its early stages. Perhaps because most of the negotiations were underway during the dharna period, the political parties didn’t see it passing right under their noses. The PTI actually rejected several invitations to be part of the negotiations.
Nevertheless, the sooner the PML-N realises the need for it to change its decision-making and operational strategy, the stronger it will be at the federal level and in a better position to deliver on mega projects like the CPEC. At the same time, it is also apparent that a particular political spin is being played over the CPEC, with fake maps, agreements and details of the project going viral, all sourced back to suspicious Facebook pages that promote provincial tensions and anti-Punjab sentiment. The CPEC can be Pakistan’s platform for economic growth, and given the political maturity in the country, I am optimistic that any controversy could be resolved through negotiations and parliamentary debate. But there is a need across the provinces to reject politicising of the issue or cultivating anti-Punjab sentiment for petty political gain. The project must be carried forward, and with more oversight, accountability and unity. But let’s try not to mutually damage ourselves over an issue that can be easily resolved.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 16th, 2016.