CPEC — invasion or investment?

Why are doomsday prophets drawing wrong parallels?

‘Invest … not Invade’ is the motto adopted by Beijing when it comes to comparative weaker nations and states. The 6,000-old history of China reveals that it has been a country pursuing a policy of mutual coexistence and harmony irrespective of its strong economic, human and military might

While the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is making rounds in international corridors, back at home analogies are being drawn between the $57 billion Chinese investment in Pakistan and East India Company’s invasion of the Indian subcontinent.

The project, launched in 2013, has made has also brought back hope, development and a resurge of infrastructure activities attracting the attention of local and foreign investors.

While over US$35 billion have already been pumped by China into the ailing economy of the country till date, things have changed drastically in Pakistan. From image perception to industrial growth, everything has turned for the better. However, there are some pessimistic prophets of doom who always curse Pakistan’s achievements.

Pakistan, which saw an industrial, technological and media boom from year 2002 to 2007 — suddenly slipped into chaos and slumber following the departure of the Musharraf regime. While the chaotic rule of the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) pushed the country more into an economic logjam, the gradual influx of sectarian and religious terrorism and resurgence of energy scarcity added to the woes.

The muddled situation led to the country’s major investors to move their textiles and other businesses to neighbouring countries with relatively better conditions including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and even India. This was the time when China decided to move in to help stabilise its all weather friend — Pakistan.

However, CPEC has provided a healing touch to the country’s ailing economy. Today, not only the countries in the region and beyond see Pakistan as a new emerging economy set to challenge the new and old.

CPEC has brought about a win-win situation for both China and Pakistan. While it has helped jump-start Pakistan’s economy, it has also provided an equally promising alternative to China to directly ship its trade through Gwadar Port bypassing the new challenges emerging in the South China Sea, especially the Malacca Strait.

The land route through Pakistan is much safer, much shorter and much economical. It would largely help China to go ahead with its ambitious One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative for which CPEC acts as its flagship project.

China was in a fix after India had sabotaged its previous initiative of Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) which had previously been designated as the flagship project of the OBOR. However, soon after realising that India would never agree to take the project ahead, Chinese strategists switched to an alternative plan by launching CPEC which equally suited both Beijing and Islamabad.

Tempting to many, threat to a few

While CPEC has attracted widespread international attention, two prominent trends are visible: temptations and threats. There are countries that are tempted towards joining CPEC but there are also powers that have jumped into the fray to sabotage the initiative.

India has emerged as the biggest threat for CPEC with its prime minister, Narendra Modi, publicly hurling threats towards the project. One may understand that the intelligence agencies are always involved in subversive acts against the friends and foes equally, it was surprising to note that New Delhi had taken a 180-degree turn from launching secretive plans to sabotage Pakistani interests to hurling public threats to Pakistan. More interesting was the fact that it was not a low-grade official threatening CPEC, it was the chief executive of India publicly claiming to sabotage CPEC.

In June 2015, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj told media that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “very strongly” raised the issue regarding China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) during his recent visit to Beijing, and termed the project “unacceptable”.

“Prime Minister during his visit took up the issue very firmly and spoke very strongly that the CPEC is unacceptable,” Swaraj said at a press conference.

India has adopted a multi-pronged strategy to sabotage the CPEC. It has launched its political jokeys to develop noise on CPEC. Those in the forefront include some politicians linked to Mutahidda Qaumi Movement (MQM) and Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP).

On 18 October 2016 MQM Senator Tahir Mashhadi, chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Planning and Development, said that another East India Company is in the offing and national interests are not being protected.

The same words echoed the same day by Achakzai who is known for his Afghan links. Mahmood Khan Achakzai remarked during a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee said, “Another East India Company is in the offing”.

Now the same phrase, used by two leaders of different political parties on the same day, reflects both had been fed by some same channel. The East India Company was the British trading mission sent to India, which became the precursor to the British colonial presence in the subcontinent, eventually gaining power and overthrowing the Mughals who ruled India at the time.

MQM’s India links appeared back in year 2015 when one of its senior leader, Tariq Mir, who happened to be the chief accountant for the party, told British investigators during probe of money laundering scam that his party had been funded by RAW since 1994. A BBC report later confirm his account.

Can a parallel be drawn between East India Company and CPEC?

Now, the East India Company remark needs to be reviewed in its true perspective. The East India Company evolved from a small enterprise run by a group of London city merchants, which in 1600 had been granted a royal charter conferring the monopoly of English trade in the whole of Asia and the Pacific.

The East India Company however developed beyond a purely commercial enterprise when war between Britain and France spread to India in the mid-1740s. The Company established military supremacy over rival European trading companies and local rulers, culminating in 1757 in the seizure of control of the province of Bengal.

In 1765, the Mughal Emperor granted the Company the diwani (the right to harvest the revenues of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa), which provided funds to bolster the Company’s military presence in the sub-continent. Further territorial acquisitions in India during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries cemented the change in the Company’s role from mere trader to a hybrid sovereign power.

The British then subjugated the subcontinent, looted its resources and shipped them back to London. The worst human rights abuses were committed during the British rule.

Did China ever invade any country?

Looking back at the 6,000-year history of China, one thing is crystal clear: It never invaded any nation or a country despite having requisite military might. Why then would it do now?

It is heartening to note that despite India’s opposition to the CPEC, India’s top most scholars Dr BR Deepak and Rajen Singh Laishram fully back the initiative.

Dr BR Deepak, who has done his PhD in Chinese history, says China never encroached upon territories even if it was in a position to do so.

In an exclusive chat with this scribe, Deepak said China, from the very beginning, remained an inward continental power, engrossed in conflicts with peripheral tribes.

“It (China) rose to glory during Tang dynasty when the capital city Chang’an, present Xi’an, as well as various port cities such as Quanzhou, Yangzhou, Guangzhou, etc, bustled with merchandise activities with traders from all over the world visiting. Even though the sea route was known to the Chinese during Han dynasty, but China rose to glory during Ming dynasty,” he added.

Deepak puts Admiral Zhenghe’s Seven Voyages into the Indian Ocean to testifythis fact.

“Though there were a few regime changes in say Palembang and Ceylon owing to the tributary system prevalent at that time, however, China never encroached upon territories even if it was in a position to do so, for the ships of Zhenghe carried as many as 26,000 soldiers on board. Therefore, yes during its long history it didn’t launch wars of aggression or expansionism like the western powers did during the 18th and 19th century,” concluded Dr Deepak.

Rajen Singh Laishram, an Indian scholar with Manipur University who has a specific focus on regional connectivity, says that tradition of other countries as barbarians appears to be rooted in Chinese narratives, with cosmology centred around the Middle Kingdom and Imperial traditions.

“Contextualised in that tradition, China would rarely occupy another country, except as a ‘punitive’ act. China in my understanding rarely ventured out to conquer another country. China, India 1962 War and 1979 China, Vietnam War where China unilaterally withdrew in contemporary times testify to this logic,” he added.

‘Invest… not invade’, Beijing’s motto

Research reflects that rather than invading any country, China adopts a policy of investing in neighbouring countries.

‘Invest … not Invade’ is the motto adopted by Beijing when it comes to comparative weaker nations and states. The 6,000-old history of China reveals that it has been a country pursuing a policy of mutual coexistence and harmony irrespective of its strong economic, human and military might.

Moreover, China has been a country on the defensive. The Great Wall was built to save China from the Mongol warriors and other invaders coming from the North. Speculation that after 6,000 years of peaceful coexistence, China would all of a sudden get involved with expansionist agenda to invade friendly neighbours like Pakistan looks ridiculous, and has no legs to stand on.

If one can study the China’s rise, it’s easy to conclude that the Chinese model is to invest and build in the developing markets and share the commercial rewards with the host nations and markets.

Another important aspect of China is to build new clusters of middle class by investing in new markets. This is how China develops new customers for its manufacturers and service providers. Another good aspect of Chinese investors is that they deliver the goods in most difficult and arduous conditions where others fail.

Confusion on China’s long term plan

Of late, the anti-CPEC chorus has intensified with mainstream media outlets raising fingers at China’s Long Term Plan. The matter of fact is that the document dubbed as China’s Long Term Plan was an initial assessment report developed by China Development Bank (CDB). The article developed to portray CPEC as boogeyman was actually the best example of cherry-picking as the author, with vicious intent, took some points and clubbed those with a very negative commentary.

The article suggested as if Pakistan would become a fringe of China who would call all the shots and that Pakistanis would become slaves. This article was an example how media is used as a tool for sabotage.

Some critics are also skeptic and raise the argument that the trade deficit in China and Pakistan would further harm Pakistan.

However, it is a fact that the Chinese trade through CPEC is not and never was aimed at capturing Pakistani market which is already rife with Chinese commodities. Rather, China seeks to expand its outreach direct into the Middle East, African and European markets through CPEC.