Key Points
- Pakistan’s enthusiastic involvement in BRI stands out globally, prompting scrutiny and a need for comprehensive analysis of its implications.
- Dissatisfaction from around 40 countries with BRI arises due to concerns about unequal benefits and burdens, stimulating a broader discussion on equitable participation.
- Despite its global significance, BRI faces criticism, particularly from the US, and alternative project proposals, fueling a competitive landscape in global infrastructure development.
- BRI projects, exemplified by CPEC, raise economic concerns and debt questions in participating countries, raising discussions about China’s role and debt management strategies.
- Scepticism surrounds CPEC’s sustainability, especially given imbalanced trade dynamics, necessitating careful evaluation of long-term benefits and risks.
In a recent interview with Barrister Hamid Bishani, Dr Qamar Cheema asked him about the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and inquired about the recent visit of the Chinese Vice Premier to Pakistan for the 10-year celebrations of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project’s progress. Additionally, Dr Cheema questioned how Hamid Bishani views CPEC for Pakistan – whether it is perceived as an opportunity or otherwise.
Hamid Bishani responded by highlighting that Pakistan is the first and only country celebrating such an engagement or deal with China. He emphasized the importance of looking at this matter from an international and analytical perspective, taking into consideration how the international media and analysts perceive BRI projects. He pointed out that around 45 countries have expressed dissatisfaction with projects and investments linked to the BRI, sharing a common concern that these projects primarily benefit China. Bishani stressed that the burden of these projects lies on the facilitating countries, even though some benefits are gained, as seen in the case of Pakistan.
He acknowledged that BRI is a significant initiative by China that has caught the attention of the US and other major economies. However, he noted that the US openly criticized the project, warning countries about falling into a “BRI trap” and offering alternative projects.
Bishani highlighted the discontent of 45 countries regarding the lack of positive economic impacts and tangible results from the BRI projects. He cited Pakistan as a classic example, where internal opposition questioned the one-sided nature of the engagement with China, potentially leading to economic losses. He raised concerns about the significant debt of $28 billion, much of which was extended by Chinese private banks. He questioned China’s ability to assist Pakistan when these loans come due.
He cautioned against the potential negative effects of high-interest rates (ranging from 6% to 15%) on the economic viability of the projects and countries involved. Bishani cited the example of hydroelectric dams in Azad Kashmir, funded by Chinese investment, which could become liabilities in the future, just as the US is facing challenges with dismantling ageing hydroelectric dams.
Bishani expressed scepticism about the celebratory aspects of CPEC, highlighting that while jobs were created, the focus should shift to assessing the long-term benefits. He questioned the sustainability of infrastructure investments, particularly when considering the imbalanced trade dynamics between regions connected by the corridor.
Regarding India’s criticism, Bishani noted that India’s objections were not unique, as Gilgit Baltistan is a disputed territory according to Pakistan’s constitution. He pointed out that India’s claim over the region naturally leads to criticism when China is granted access there. He argued that such arrangements might not be viable in the end.
Dr Qamar Cheema further inquired about Rajnath Singh’s recent statement on Kashmir and its implications for CPEC. Bishani dismissed the statement as a political move aimed at gaining votes, rather than a serious threat. He believed that India’s progress indicators showed positive momentum, suggesting that the statement was symbolic rather than substantial.