Was skipping OBOR the right move?

LIke India, Australia has also expressed concerns over China’s expansionist aims. Yet it attended the Belt & Road Forum
Was skipping OBOR the right move?

In 1748 French political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu wrote in his The Spirit of the Laws that “peace is the natural effect of trade”. In September 2013 Chinese President Xi Jinping claimed that his One Belt One Road (OBOR) was aimed at “peace and co-operation” and “mutual benefit”. He unveiled OBOR’s two primary components: the overland Silk Road Economic Belt, and the sea-based 21st-century Maritime Silk Road.

India’s decision to skip the OBOR Forum held between May 14 and 16 is still being debated. Critics say India’s absence went against the country’s economic interests as the summit was attended by 29 heads of states and leaders who could identify 270 “deliverable goals”. They say India was “isolated” even in the South Asian region since all neighbouring countries except Bhutan chose to attend despite India’s boycott. In fact these countries had even signed 20 infrastructure deals with China at the Belt and Road Forum.

Was this a wise move? Those criticising the NDA government quote our former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon who said in April that the meeting would provide an “opportunity” for India. But he had also qualified this by saying that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which is part of OBOR passed through Indian territory in PoK.

But some critics say this particular region was never under the Maharaja’s or Indian rule. The question is, could any government overlook the “sovereignty” factor? What will happen if an Indian firm is given a contract to develop a portion of CPEC in this disputed area? Won’t this be considered an anti-national act by our media? Could any government like the NDA which had proclaimed a muscular policy towards security, allow trade to be prioritised over sovereignty?  

The problem is even well-informed sources including foreign think tanks release prejudiced versions on OBOR just as they had tried to create fear a few years ago with the “String of Pearls” theory.
In India, commentators are either supporting the government’s decision citing “nationalist” reasons or opposing it depending upon their political beliefs. Hence I decided to study the reaction in Australia, a comparable country, whose policies towards China had swung from Gillard-Rudd’s closer economic and political ties to Turnbull’s sharp criticism of the Chinese expansionist aims. In between we also saw Abbott’s policy of “balancing” China and the United States.

A paper prepared by Geoff Wade, foreign affairs and security specialist to brief the Australian parliament says that the aim of OBOR is to expand the “Chinese economic and strategic agenda by which the two ends of Eurasia, as well as Africa and Oceania” would be “closely tied along two routes—one overland and one maritime”. He said the supporters welcomed the initiative which would result in new infrastructure and economic aid to the needy economies. Opponents feared it would facilitate Chinese economic and strategic domination of the countries along these routes.

The OBOR is to be achieved through six major economic cooperation corridors and key maritime “pivot points” across Eurasia. While the land corridors would be China-Mongolia-Russia, China-Central Asia-West Asia, China-Indochina peninsula, China-Pakistan and Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar, the sea corridors would build efficient transport systems linking sea ports. The visible result of OBOR will be in building or upgrading railways, roads, ports, energy systems and telecommunications networks.

The paper cautions all these will allow China greater benefit and access across the Indian Ocean. It says: “Purchase and construction of port facilities and associated economic zones in Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, SriLanka, Myanmar,  Pakistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Oman and Djibouti are intended to provide China with maritime access and economic benefit across the Indian Ocean. These will connect to Piraeus, Greece’s major port, which has been bought by Chinese shipping group COSCO and which will allow direct access to the markets of Europe.”

In Wade’s assessment, Renminbi would be the main trading and investment currency in the countries involved. The expansion of Chinese banks into new OBOR markets is to serve the globalisation of the Chinese economy. He also says that the ethnic Chinese settled in Asian countries have generally welcomed the project. Pakistan and Sri Lanka as well as some Central Asian states are comfortable with the plan but Vietnam has expressed “grave doubts”. “India has been stridently suspicious of the overall OBOR initiative and has repeatedly expressed concerns about China’s growing economic and strategic power being pursued through OBOR.”

Wade recommends that the Australian government needs “to maintain a close watch on the progress of the OBOR initiative globally” as “Australia becomes increasingly tied economically with China”. He also suggests that “Australia needs to adopt a more economically and strategically prudent attitude in determining how the Australia-China economic relationship is to further develop”.

Australia, with the largest group of overseas Chinese in Oceania, has reservations on the Chinese attempt to be hegemonistic in the garb of trade. Yet they decided to participate in OBOR by keeping an open mind. If this example is accepted there would have been no justification for India boycotting the summit. This action has also given grist to the rumour that India is isolated in South Asia. The proper course would have been to send a representative to the summit just as Australia did by deputing a minister. Even Vietnam was represented by President Tran Dai Quang despite their strident objections.
(Syndicate: The Billion Press)

Vappala Balachandran

Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat

Email: editor@thebillionpress.org

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com