AMID the ongoing global power competition between the US and China, the world seems to undergo a series of multiple trade and economic agreements—characterizing an interplay of geopolitical forces–those underpin the economic interests of the global powers. Apparently because of the global powers’ tussle, the world is divided into two economic poles: one glaringly known as China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and two, the newly formed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). These two economic trajectories—being indoctrinated by the urge of economic and trade connectivity— do have conflict of interest. A profound analysis suggests that the western proposed IMEC (a premature brainchild of neoliberalism) cannot be a pragmatic alternative to the BRI- China’s project of the century.
BRI—a project of economic development and prosperity was launched in 2013. In 2017, President Xi enlightened the philosophy of the BRI project: “China will actively promote international co-operation through the Belt and Road Initiative. In doing so, we hope to achieve policy, infrastructure, trade, financial and people-to-people connectivity and thus build a new platform for international co-operation to create new drivers of shared development”. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) development strategy aims to build connectivity and co-operation across six main economic corridors: China-Mongolia-Russia, China-Central Asia-West Asia, China-Indochina Peninsula, China-Pakistan, Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar and the new Eurasian land bridge (connecting Lianyungang, in Jiangsu Province, with Rotterdam in Netherlands).
It is believed that the world has a large infrastructure gap–containing trade, openness and future prosperity. The Belt and Road Initiative addresses an “infrastructure gap’’. China has commenced a major global effort to bolster this trend via its launch of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China and economies that have signed co-operation agreements with China on the BRI (henceforth BRI-participating economies have been rising as a share of the world economy. As of August 2023, the number of countries that have joined the Belt and Road Initiative by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with China is 155. Moreover, the BRI has been associated with a very large programme of investments in infrastructure development for ports, roads, railways and airports, as well as power plants and telecommunications networks. The BRI now places increasing emphasis on “high quality investment”, including through greater use of project finance, risk mitigation tools and green finance. The BRI defines five major priorities: policy coordination; infrastructure connectivity; unimpeded trade; financial integration; and connecting people.
Nonetheless, the western critics of the BRI project argue, ‘’Still, there remains a gap between such declarations and how BRI is being implemented on the ground. Now, as China is contending with its own economic issues, BRI is likely to move forward as a less ambitious undertaking…’’ But the Chinese policy mangers are optimistic of the view that ‘’China has reasons to be confident. International reception of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) gradually moved from suspicion to acceptance. The ‘big three’ credit rating agencies Moody’s, Fitch and Standard & Poor’s (S&P) all gave the AIIB the highest rating.’’ True, for the developing economies, the BRI has become a pivot of their respective GDP and trade growth. Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing is going to hold the BRI summit in October.
The myth about the IMEC project: In a new emerging development, New Delhi-Brussels-Washington-Riyadh signed a deal on 9 September to begin the formation of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) on the sidelines of the recently concluded G20 summit. Leaders from India, Italy, France, Germany, the United States, the European Union and Saudi Arabia have all signed the memorandum of understanding.
As fancifully conceived, IMEC seems to counter the BRI trajectory launched on the eve of G20 summit in New Delhi in September 2023 by India, USA, Saudi Arabia, UAE, European Union, Italy, France and Germany. The IMEC aims to bolster economic development by fostering connectivity and economic integration between Asia, the Arabian Gulf and Europe. According to the media reports, apparently, the IMEC project will comprise two distinct corridors. The east corridor is slated to serve as a vital connection between India and the Gulf countries, while the northern corridor will link the Arabian Gulf with Europe. Both corridors will encompass a ship-to-rail transit network designed to create cost-effective transportation routes for the participating countries.
Arguably, the IMEC skeptics argue that the underlying potential for development of the long maritime coast– of the region lies in question as such the new proposed corridor with the support of major economic partners, would not brew with such developmental trajectory as being euphorically perceived by its partners– and many in the shipping world discount dire consequences.
In their perpetual quest to counter China, the partners of the IMEC project seem to be profoundly involved in a situation of quandary–raising some logical questions: one, how much of India’s exports to Europe and vice versa go through the Suez Canal-Indian Ocean corridor and how would this be affected? Two, what are the expectations of growth in this trade? Three, what would be the role of West Asian or the Middle Eastern states in the project? And above all, since West Asian countries are enjoying privilege of a direct access to Europe, Africa, Asia and even to India, why would they be feeling comfortable with the IMEC investment?
Most importantly, Turkish President Tayyib Erdogan has expressed strong reservations over the IMEC plan. “Countries are striving to expand their commercial routes and broaden their regional influence. We say there can be no corridor without Turkey. The most suitable route for traffic from east to west must pass through Turkey,” he said. And yet, while examining the IMEC impact on the growing trade and economic policy in global sphere, we must take into account the fact that the western obsession of countering Beijing’s expanding intercontinental influence is not a new development as manifested by the fact that the EU-US had also launched a project known as the Three Seas Initiative in 2015.
—The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on IR, Critical Peace & Conflict Studies, also a member of Washington Foreign Law Society and European Society of International Law. He deals with the strategic and nuclear issues.
Email: rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com
