THE CONFLUENCE OF TWO SEAS

Source – Indian Express

Date - October 26, 2017

Author – C Raja Mohan - The writer is director, Carnegie India, Delhi and contributing editor on foreign affairs for ‘The Indian Express’.

Sub Questions:

What is India’s credible alternative to China’s Belt and Road initiative?

The endeavour of India, Japan and US to connect the Pacific and Indian Oceans could be an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative and enhance the bargaining power of small countries vis-a-vis Beijing.

What was India’s response to Chinese pressure on the Belt and Road Initiative?

  1. India refused to participate at any level despite much diplomatic pressure from China.
  2. India offered a stinging public rebuke, arguing that projects under China’s BRI have not met international norms for infrastructural development.
  3. India insisted that connectivity initiative must follow principles of financial responsibility to avoid projects that would create unsustainable debt burden for communities; balanced ecological and environmental protection and preservation standards; transparent assessment of project costs; skill and technology transfer to help long term running and maintenance of the assets created by local communities.
  4. India also affirmed that connectivity projects must be pursued in a manner that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Why docritics of the government fret that Delhi might be isolating itself on the BRI?

  1. Critics pointed out that even Japan and the United States, which were wary of China’s BRI, had sent representatives to the Beijing conference.
  2. However, US and Japan have supported Delhi’s criticism on BRI and they have begun a serious conversation on working together on India-Pacific infrastructural development.

What are the three recent developments that underline the growing political momentum behind the BRI and the prospects for finding an alternative?

  1. In the 19th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party an agreement has been made to write the BRI into the CCP’s constitution. The Belt and Road Initiative that seeks to connect Europe and Asia as well as the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
  2. The Japanese diet reinforced Tokyo’s own programme to promote connectivity in Asia. Japan had announced the partnership for quality infrastructure (PQI) with a fund of nearly $110 billion. There has been an enhanced commitment in Japan’s plans to spend around $200 billion in the next 5 years on infrastructure projects across the world. Japan unlike China has greater experience in executing development projects in the third world countries and is offering much better terms for its assistance.
  3. Japan had unveiled a new vision of regional connectivity. The idea of confluence of seas was implanted by Diet in 2007. The concept was focussed more recently with “Free and Open Indo - Pacific”. This now calls for connecting the two continents of Asia and Africa and the two oceans – the Indian and Pacific through trans-border connectivity corridors.
  4. US made a strong critique of China’s BRI and described its development as “Predatory Economics” thus undermining the sovereignty of its neighbours in Asia. Chinese projects were further criticised on the grounds that their projects burden host countries with large debt and conditions that force a swap of debt for equity and strategic control of assets.

India has every reason to be pleased that its views on the BRI are finding resonance, but it is not enough to win the argument against the BRI. Comment.

  1. India has to provide a real alternative than merely critiquing BRI initiative of China. Delhi has observed countries like Sri Lanka and Burma express political reservations against some of the Chinese infrastructure projects, suspend some of them, but eventually renew the engagement with Beijing.
  2. Several Indo-Pacific nations have limited alternatives when it comes to infrastructure investment programmes and financing schemes, which often fail to promote jobs or prosperity for the people they claim to help.
  3. There is a need for transparent, high standard regional lending mechanisms – tools that will actually help nations instead of saddle them with mounting debt. India and the United States must lead the way in growing these multilateral efforts.

What has been the efforts of US wrt infrastructure development in the region?

  1. $500-million agreement between Washington and Kathmandu that will “invest in infrastructure to meet growing electricity and transportation needs in Nepal and promote trade linkages with partners in the region like India”.
  2. US has begun consultations with other countries in the region about providing alternative financial mechanisms to China’s BRI.

What should be India’s emphasis on the issue in the coming days?

India’s emphasis in the coming days must be three-fold:

  1. Press ahead vigorously with the large number of infrastructure projects that it has undertaken with its own resources in the Subcontinent and the Indian Ocean.
  2. Intensify the current discussions with the US, Japan, Europe and other partner countries to coordinate their regional infrastructure initiatives as well as take up joint projects in the Indo-Pacific.
  3. Delhi must quickly find ways to overcome its many institutional limitations in implementing projects in other countries.

How can India turn the BRI into a genuinely cooperative venture?

  1. Offering an alternative to China’s BRI is not about a zero-sum rivalry with Beijing.
  2. By demonstrating the possibility for sustainable infrastructure development, Delhi and its partners can improve the bargaining capacity of smaller countries vis-a-vis China and might eventually encourage Beijing to discard its predatory geo-economics and turn the BRI into a genuinely cooperative venture.

Main Question:

Critically examine India’s role to rebalance the power shift in the region wrt China’s Belt and Road initiative.

The endeavour of India, US and Japan to connect the Pacific and Indian Ocean could be an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative and enhance the bargaining power of smaller countries. India’s pressure on BRI initiative has not been very forthcoming due the following lopsided policies in favour of China:

  1. Projects under China’s BRI have not met international norms for infrastructural development.
  2. India insisted that connectivity initiative must follow principles of financial responsibility to avoid projects that would create unsustainable debt burden for communities; balanced ecological and environmental protection and preservation standards; transparent assessment of project costs; skill and technology transfer to help long term running and maintenance of the assets created by local communities.
  3. India also affirmed that connectivity projects must be pursued in a manner that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Critics of the Indian Government fret that Delhi might be isolating itself on BRI. Even Japan and the United States, which were wary of China’s BRI, had sent representatives to the Beijing conference.However, U.S and Japan have supported Delhi’s criticism on BRI and they have begun a serious conversation on working together on India-Pacific infrastructural development.

Nevertheless, there has been growing political momentum behind the BRI and the prospects for finding an alternative.

  1. In the 19th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party an agreement has been made to write the BRI into the CCP’s constitution.The Belt and Road Initiative that seeks to connect Europe and Asia as well as the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
  2. The Japanese diet reinforced Tokyo’s own programme to promote connectivity in Asia.Japan unlike China has greater experience in executing development projects in the third world countries and is offering much better terms for its assistance.
  3. Japan had unveiled a new vision of regional connectivity. The “Confluence of Seas” implanted by the Diet in 2007 with greater focus on “Free and Open Indo – Pacific”. This now calls for connecting the two continents of Asia and Africa and the two oceans – the Indian and Pacific through trans-border connectivity corridors.
  4. US made a strong critique of China’s BRI and described its development as “Predatory Economics” thus undermining the sovereignty of its neighbours in Asia. Chinese projects were further criticised on the grounds that their projects burden host countries with large debt and conditions that force a swap of debt for equity and strategic control of assets.

India has every reason to be pleased that its views on BRI are finding resonance globally however more needs to be done to with the argument against BRI. India has to provide a real alternative than merely critiquing BRI initiative of China. Delhi has observed countries like Sri Lanka and Burma express political reservations against some of the Chinese infrastructure projects, suspend some of them, but eventually renew the engagement with Beijing.Several Indo-Pacific nations have limited alternatives when it comes to infrastructure investment programmes and financing schemes, which often fail to promote jobs or prosperity for the people they claim to help.There is a need for transparent, high standard regional lending mechanisms – tools that will actually help nations instead of saddle them with mounting debt. India and the United States must lead the way in growing these multilateral efforts.

US has also been keen to express to invest in infrastructure to meet growing electricity and transportation needs in Nepal and promote trade linkages with partners in the region like India, thus making its presence felt in the region.

India can counter the BRI by adopting the following threefold strategy:

  1. Press ahead vigorously with the large number of infrastructure projects that it has undertaken with its own resources in the Subcontinent and the Indian Ocean.
  2. Intensify the current discussions with the US, Japan, Europe and other partner countries to coordinate their regional infrastructure initiatives as well as take up joint projects in the Indo-Pacific.
  3. Delhi must quickly find ways to overcome its many institutional limitations in implementing projects in other countries.

By demonstrating possibility of sustainable infrastructure, New Delhi and its partners can improve the bargaining capacity of smaller countries vis-a-vis China and might eventually encourage Beijing to discard its predatory geo-economics and turn the BRI into a genuinely cooperative venture.

Reference: