CPEC
CPEC
Now the two nations are making efforts to expand their bilateral collaboration economically as
well. The construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a milestone that
signifies this shift.
At its core, the CPEC is a large-scale initiative to build energy, highway, and port infrastructure
to deepen economic connections between China and Pakistan. This initiative has been well-
received in both countries, although it is not without its problems.1 Nevertheless, China and
Pakistan regard the CPEC as a new source of potential synergy between their respective national
development strategies, which may help the two countries translate their close political
cooperation into multifaceted economic cooperation, attain mutual benefits, and achieve win-win
outcomes. For the economic corridor to reach its potential, however, there are security and
political challenges in Pakistan that must be addressed.
China first proposed the corridor project in May 2013. Chinese President Xi Jinping then visited
Pakistan in April 2015, and both sides agreed to elevate their relationship to an “all-weather
strategic partnership.”2 During Xi’s visit, the two countries signed fifty-one agreements at an
estimated value of $46 billion.3
The CPEC is now moving into the implementation phase. On May 6, 2016, there was an opening
ceremony held in the city of Sukkur in Pakistan’s Sindh Province, as construction began on a
section of highway between Sukkur and the city of Multan—it will be part of a network of
highways that will connect the cities of Peshawar and Karachi.4 This network is a major
component of the CPEC’s plans for infrastructure expansion, which highlights the progress the
two nations have achieved thus far in the area of transportation. In addition, on November 13,
2016, the first large shipment of Chinese goods went through the port of Gwadar, a flagship
CPEC project in Pakistan’s southwestern province of Balochistan.5
China considers these development initiatives a potential source of stability and prosperity for
both countries. From a Chinese perspective, cooperation in the areas of security and economics
are closely intertwined, and improvements on one side can improve the other. It is almost as
though security and economics are two separate wheels on the same vehicle, and both need to be
spinning to move things forward. China believes economic development can strengthen
Pakistan’s internal stability, thus reinvigorating the latter’s economy through investment in
infrastructure projects as well as the construction of oil and gas pipelines. China hopes this will
create a certain level of stability within Pakistan and in turn stabilize China’s western periphery,
particularly the province of Xinjiang.
More broadly, the CPEC has to be understood in the context of China’s strategic interests in East
Asia and the way the United States has challenged them. Faced with such difficulties, China
hopes it can expand its strategic space by heading west. Pakistan serves as a crucial bridge
between China and Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East. Security and stability in
Pakistan will make it possible for China to exercise greater influence in these regions and to
ensure security at home. This is why China is willing to pour vast amounts of resources into the
economic corridor—based on the logic of improving security through economic development.
Likewise, Pakistan has realized that no other country places such high strategic importance in its
economic relationship with Pakistan as China does. Pakistan also greatly values the economic
corridor and views it as mutually beneficial in terms of politics and economic development.
According to Pakistan 2025—a blueprint for economic development published in 2014 by
Pakistan’s Ministry of Planning, Development, and Reform—Pakistan aims to advance from
being a lower-middle-income nation to an upper-middle-income nation by 2025.6 To achieve this
goal, Pakistan hopes to attract increasing amounts of foreign investment. The country is working
to improve its overall economy by constructing energy projects and other forms of infrastructure,
to create employment opportunities for its populace, and to improve its governance.
The logic behind this strategy is that fundamentally improving Pakistan’s economy will help
alleviate the challenges posed by political extremists, radicals, and jihadists. China and Pakistan
share the belief that economic development can help stabilize Pakistan and improve its domestic
security situation. However, China also recognizes that the security, political, and cultural risks
and uncertainties facing the economic corridor cannot be overlooked.
Islamic Republic of Pakistan has a long and cooperative relationship with
People’s Republic of China. A close attractiveness of perceptions and
common interests remain the sign of two-sided relations. Since the 1962
Sino-Indian War, Pakistan has upheld China on most issues of significance to
the last mentioned; particularly those identified with the topic of China's
sway like Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Tibet and other delicate issues. Islamabad
helped Beijing in reestablishing formal relations with the West. The helped
make possible the 1972 Nixon visit to China. Pakistan has teamed up with
China in comprehensive military and financial ventures, considering China to
be a stabilizer to India and the United States. China additionally has a reliable
record of supporting Pakistan in all issues. Pakistan's military needs hugely
Chinese warfare hardware, and joint tasks of both financial and combat areas.
China has provided hardware to help Pakistan's nuclear program and she has
been also blamed for giving Nuclear Technology to Pakistan.
The bilateral relations began in 1950 when Pakistan was among the
first countries to recognized PRC and break relations with the ROC
(Taiwan).The 1962 Sino-Indian War two countries have put significant
cooperation on the upkeep to a close and compassionate relationship. PRC
has given financial, military, and specified support to Pakistan and both consider a close strategic
partner. Appeasing relations were established in
BRI PROJECT
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), sometimes referred to as the New Silk Road, is one of
the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever conceived. Launched in 2013 by President Xi
Jinping, the vast collection of development and investment initiatives was originally devised to
link East Asia and Europe through physical infrastructure. In the decade since, the project has
expanded to Africa, Oceania, and Latin America, significantly broadening China’s economic and
political influence.
Some analysts see the project as an unsettling extension of China’s rising power, and as the costs
of many of the projects have skyrocketed, opposition has grown in some countries. Meanwhile,
the United States shares the concern of some in Asia that the BRI could be a Trojan horse for
China-led regional development and military expansion. President Joe Biden has maintained his
predecessors’ skeptical stance towards Beijing’s actions, but Washington has struggled to offer
participating governments a more appealing economic vision.
President Xi announced the initiative during official visits to Kazakhstan and Indonesia in 2013.
The plan was two-pronged: the overland Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road.
The two were collectively referred to first as the One Belt, One Road initiative but eventually
became the Belt and Road Initiative.
How the United States Should Respond to the BRI
Xi’s vision included creating a vast network of railways, energy pipelines, highways, and
streamlined border crossings, both westward—through the mountainous former Soviet republics
—and southward, to Pakistan, India, and the rest of Southeast Asia. Such a network would
expand the international use of Chinese currency, the renminbi, and “break the bottleneck in
Asian connectivity,” according to Xi. (In 2018, the Asian Development Bank estimated that the
continent faces a yearly infrastructure financing shortfall of over $900 billion.) In addition to
physical infrastructure, China has funded hundreds of special economic zones, or industrial areas
designed to create jobs, and encouraged countries to embrace its tech offerings, such as the 5G
network powered by telecommunications giant Huawei.
Xi subsequently announced plans for the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road at the 2013 summit of
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Indonesia. To accommodate expanding
maritime trade traffic, China would invest in port development along the Indian Ocean, from
Southeast Asia all the way to East Africa and parts of Europe.
China’s overall ambition for the BRI is staggering. To date, 147 countries—accounting for two-
thirds of the world’s population and 40 percent of global GDP—have signed on to projects or
indicated an interest in doing so.
Analysts estimate the largest so far to be the estimated $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic
Corridor (CPEC), a collection of projects connecting China to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port on the
Arabian Sea. In total, China has already spent an estimated $1 trillion on such efforts. Experts
have predicted that China’s expenses over the life of the BRI could reach as much as $8 trillion,
though estimates vary.
What does China hope to achieve?
China has both geopolitical and economic motivations behind the initiative. Xi has promoted a
vision of a more assertive China, even as the country’s outstanding loans have grown to the
equivalent of over a quarter of its GDP.
To date, 147 countries—accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population and 40 percent of
global GDP—have signed on to projects or indicated an interest in doing so.
Experts see the BRI as one of the main planks of a bolder Chinese statecraft under Xi, alongside
the Made in China 2025 economic development strategy. For Xi, the BRI serves as pushback
against the much-touted U.S. “pivot to Asia,” as well as a way for China to develop new trade
linkages, cultivate export markets, boost Chinese incomes, and export China’s excess productive
capacity. “China has had a fair amount of success in redrawing trade maps around the world, in
ways that put China at the center and not the U.S. or Europe,” says CFR’s David Sacks, an
expert on U.S.-China relations.
At the same time, China is motivated to boost global economic links to its western regions,
which historically have been neglected. Promoting economic development in the western
province of Xinjiang, where separatist violence has been on the upswing, is a major priority, as is
securing long-term energy supplies from Central Asia and the Middle East, especially via routes
the U.S. military cannot disrupt.
More broadly, Chinese leaders are determined to restructure the economy to avoid the so-called
middle-income trap. In this scenario, which has plagued close to 90 percent of middle-income
countries since 1960, wages go up and quality of life improves as low-skilled manufacturing
rises, but countries struggle to then shift to producing higher-value goods and services.
Finally, Beijing could seek geopolitical leverage over BRI countries. A 2021 study analyzed over
one hundred debt financing contracts China signed with foreign governments and found that the
contracts often contain clauses that restrict restructuring with the group of twenty-two major
creditor nations known as the “Paris Club.” China also frequently retains the right to demand
repayment at any time, giving Beijing the ability to use funding as a tool to enforce Chinese hot
button issues such as Taiwan or the treatment of Uyghurs. In January 2022, Nicaragua officially
joined BRI, one month after severing diplomatic ties with Taiwan.
What are the potential roadblocks?
The Belt and Road Initiative has also stoked opposition. For some countries that take on large
amounts of debt to fund infrastructure upgrades, BRI money is seen as a potential poisoned
chalice. China views BRI projects as a commercial endeavor [PDF], with loans close to a market
interest rate that it expects to be fully repaid. Some BRI investments have involved opaque
bidding processes and required the use of Chinese firms. As a result, contractors have inflated
costs, leading to canceled projects and political backlash.
Examples of such criticisms abound. In Malaysia, former prime minister Mahathir bin Mohamad
campaigned against overpriced BRI initiatives and canceled $22 billion worth of BRI projects,
although he later announced his “full support” for the initiative. CFR’s Belt and Road Tracker
shows overall debt to China has soared since 2013, surpassing 20 percent of GDP in some
countries.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine roiled global markets, a
climbing number of low-income BRI countries have struggled to repay loans associated with the
initiative, spurring a wave of debt crises and new criticism for BRI. In Pakistan, for example,
imports required to build CPEC infrastructure contributed to a widening budget deficit,
ultimately resulting in a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). And in Ghana and
Zambia, high debt loads that partly consisted of BRI loans led to sovereign default. However,
many countries that sign on to BRI have few alternatives, Sacks says.
“If loans that you know are charging an exorbitant interest rate are the only way [to get
infrastructure financing], you still have to weigh that trade off and probably proceed with that,”
he says.
Other skeptics connect the BRI with climate change. Though China committed to stop building
coal-fired power plants abroad in 2021, nonrenewable energy investment has made up nearly
half of all BRI spending; ambiguity remains about whether the commitment applies to projects
already in progress or only to new projects, and if it restricts coal-fired power plant financing in
addition to construction.
How has the United States responded to China-led regional integration?
The United States has shared other countries' concerns about China’s intentions. Since the
Obama administration’s Pivot to Asia, the United States has spent billions of dollars and flexed
diplomatic muscle to build infrastructure and foster cooperation between low-income countries.
President Donald Trump passed the BUILD act, which consolidated Overseas Private Investment
Corporation (OPIC), a U.S. government agency for development finance, with components of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) into a separate agency (the
Development Finance Corporation) with a $60 billion investment portfolio.
In 2021, President Joe Biden, in collaboration with the Group of Seven (G7), launched the Build
Back Better World Initiative (“B3W”) an infrastructure investment program conceived to
compete with BRI. Though some supporters say B3W acts as a complement to BRI, many
acknowledge that its lack of financing prevents it from acting as a serious challenger to China’s
initiative. One year after B3W was announced, commitments under the initiative totaled only $6
million, and it had been renamed the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment.
Rather than investing in infrastructure, where China holds an economic advantage (China won
more than eight times as many World Bank-funded infrastructure contracts as the United States
in 2020), critics say Washington should boost its aid-based lending through existing multilateral
institutions, such as the World Bank and IMF.
Others have argued that the United States might find a silver lining in the BRI. Jonathan E.
Hillman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the United States could use
BRI projects as a way to have China pay for infrastructure initiatives in Central Asia that are also
in the U.S. interest.
India. India has tried to convince countries that the BRI is a plan to dominate Asia, warning of
what some analysts have called a “String of Pearls” geoeconomic strategy whereby China creates
unsustainable debt burdens for its Indian Ocean neighbors in order to seize control of regional
choke points. In particular, New Delhi has long been unsettled by China’s decades-long embrace
of its traditional rival, Pakistan. Meanwhile, India has provided its own development assistance
to neighbors, most notably Afghanistan, where it has spent $3 billion on infrastructure projects.
Although India was a founding member of China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB),
Indian and Chinese officials have since diverged on trade policy. Accordingly, the United States
views India as a counterweight to a China-dominated Asia and has sought to knit together its
strategic relationships in the region, most recently via the 2022 Indo-Pacific Economic
Framework.
Japan. Tokyo has a similar strategy to New Delhi’s, balancing its interest in regional
infrastructure development with long-standing suspicions about China’s intentions. Japan has
committed over $300 billion in public and private financing to infrastructure projects throughout
Asia. Together with India, Japan has also agreed to cultivate the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor
(AAGC), a plan to develop and connect ports from Myanmar to East Africa, though little
progress has been made on the initiative since it was announced in 2017.
Europe. Over two-thirds of European Union (EU) member countries have formally signed on to
BRI with large Chinese infrastructure investment responsible for projects such as the renovated
port of Piraeus in Greece and the Budapest-Belgrade railway in Hungary. Beijing has also
funded a number of projects on the continent in non-EU countries. These investments have
“made it harder for the EU to craft a united approach to China,” and Greece and Hungary have
obstructed bloc-wide efforts to criticize China, CFR’s Jennifer Hillman and Alex Tippett write.
Some European countries have been more critical. French President Emmanuel Macron has
urged prudence, suggesting during a 2018 trip to China that the BRI could make partner
countries “vassal states.” In December 2021, the EU announced Global Gateway, a $300 billion
infrastructure investment program explicitly meant to rival BRI, which critics say is a “drop in
the ocean” compared to BRI. Others worry that China is using BRI funds to gain influence in
Balkan countries hoping to become EU members such as Serbia, thereby providing China access
to the heart of the EU’s common market.
Russia. Moscow has become one of the BRI’s most enthusiastic partners, though it responded to
Xi’s announcement at first with reticence, worried that Beijing’s plans would outshine Moscow’s
vision for a “Eurasian Economic Union” and impinge on its traditional sphere of influence.
As Russia’s relationship with the West has deteriorated, however, President Vladimir Putin has
pledged to link his Eurasian vision with the BRI. Some experts are skeptical of such an alliance,
which they argue would be economically asymmetrical. Russia’s economy and its total trade
volume are both roughly one-eighth the size of China’s—a gulf that the BRI could widen in the
coming years. And in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine, some analysts have said that Beijing’s
refusal to condemn Russia has alienated Eastern European countries that are viewed as targets of
BRI.