Beijing needs to realise that repression in Xinjiang, through which several ancient trade routes passed, can take a heavy toll on Xi’s pet Belt & Road Initiative.
Possibility of Chinese neo-colonialism, excessive military intervention, and incoherent agendas of political parties are major challenges confronting voters.
The PLA would be smarting at how they were forced to backtrack from their strident public posture during Doklam and may now step up their provocative actions along the LAC.
Mini deal will likely see no cut in 10% baseline tariff on Indian exports announced by Trump on 2 April, it is learnt, but additional 26% tariffs are set to be reduced.
The Chinese are said to have hired ex-fighter pilots & air force operators from NATO countries over the past several years to help them fine-tune their operational & flying capabilities.
Public, loud, upfront, filled with impropriety and high praise sometimes laced with insults. This is what we call Trumplomacy. But the larger objective is the same: American supremacy.
Some of the Chinese apologists in the commentariat (Jha, Bhadrakumar et al) seem to be advocating the position that India “fall in line” and queue up for this.
However, if anyone has ANY doubts, he should read the book “The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins. The similarities are uncanny, only that it’s the Chinese Empire this time around, and maybe, unlike the US, hit men have so far not been employed to assassinate leaders and those asking inconvenient questions (who knows, however) . But make no mistake: This Belt and Road initiative is nothing but an exercise in advancing the interests of the Chinese military industrial complex. Any benefits that emerge may be incidental and unintentional. It’s much more likely that the weaker countries that fall for this stratagem will find themselves in a debt trap, ravaged environment and economic enslavement of millions.
India should be strong and do exactly what is required for its own interests. Which is, the greatest good of the greatest number.
Very good article. India should not compete with China because they have much ahead of India. They have global leadership role rather than engaging in neibouring countries.
India had first mover advantage for development of hydel power in Nepal, even more so in Bhutan. Could not deliver. Bhutan faces its own version of a debt trap. More than competing with someone else, it makes more sense to develop our economic potential more fully. As for China, its ( including Hong Kong ) annual foreign trade is close to $ 5 trillion. The connectivity projects it is undertaking are organically linked to its being the world’s largest trading nation. Legitimate concerns have been raised about the economic viability of some BRI projects, the cost of finance, exclusivity for Chinese firms in getting construction contracts. It would be in the interests of both China and its partners to ensure that all of this remains in the win win zone.
Some of the Chinese apologists in the commentariat (Jha, Bhadrakumar et al) seem to be advocating the position that India “fall in line” and queue up for this.
However, if anyone has ANY doubts, he should read the book “The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins. The similarities are uncanny, only that it’s the Chinese Empire this time around, and maybe, unlike the US, hit men have so far not been employed to assassinate leaders and those asking inconvenient questions (who knows, however) . But make no mistake: This Belt and Road initiative is nothing but an exercise in advancing the interests of the Chinese military industrial complex. Any benefits that emerge may be incidental and unintentional. It’s much more likely that the weaker countries that fall for this stratagem will find themselves in a debt trap, ravaged environment and economic enslavement of millions.
India should be strong and do exactly what is required for its own interests. Which is, the greatest good of the greatest number.
Very good article. India should not compete with China because they have much ahead of India. They have global leadership role rather than engaging in neibouring countries.
India had first mover advantage for development of hydel power in Nepal, even more so in Bhutan. Could not deliver. Bhutan faces its own version of a debt trap. More than competing with someone else, it makes more sense to develop our economic potential more fully. As for China, its ( including Hong Kong ) annual foreign trade is close to $ 5 trillion. The connectivity projects it is undertaking are organically linked to its being the world’s largest trading nation. Legitimate concerns have been raised about the economic viability of some BRI projects, the cost of finance, exclusivity for Chinese firms in getting construction contracts. It would be in the interests of both China and its partners to ensure that all of this remains in the win win zone.