One Belt One Road OBOR Summit

In 2018, China convened a significant two-day summit to champion its One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative, also known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This ambitious undertaking seeks to establish a vast network of trade routes spanning Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. The Beijing forum drew the participation of 29 heads of state or government, along with official delegations from approximately 100 nations. Notably, all of India's neighboring countries, with the exception of Bhutan, dispatched high-level delegations to the summit.

The 2018 Belt and Road Forum in Beijing served as a powerful demonstration of China's ambition to reshape global trade and infrastructure development. While the event drew considerable international participation, the conspicuous absence of India underscored the deep-seated concerns New Delhi harbors regarding the initiative, particularly its implications for sovereignty, regional security, and economic stability. This divergence in perspectives highlights the complex and often fraught relationship between China and India, two of the world's largest and most influential nations. To fully understand India's position and the broader significance of this diplomatic event, it is essential to delve into the historical context of Sino-Indian relations, the specifics of the Belt and Road Initiative, and the geopolitical dynamics shaping the Asian continent.

The Genesis and Scope of the Belt and Road Initiative

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), initially known as One Belt, One Road (OBOR), is a massive infrastructure development and investment program proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013. It is essentially a 21st-century reimagining of the ancient Silk Road, aiming to connect China with the rest of Asia, Africa, and Europe through a network of railways, roads, ports, energy pipelines, and telecommunications infrastructure. The "Belt" refers to the Silk Road Economic Belt, which focuses on land routes, while the "Road" refers to the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, emphasizing sea routes.

The BRI's stated goals are multifaceted: to promote economic growth and development in participating countries, to foster regional connectivity and integration, to facilitate trade and investment flows, and to enhance cultural exchanges. China positions the BRI as a mutually beneficial initiative that can help address infrastructure gaps in developing countries, stimulate economic activity, and create new opportunities for trade and investment.

However, the BRI's scope and ambition have also raised concerns and criticisms. Some observers view it as a tool for China to expand its geopolitical influence, secure access to resources, and promote its own development model. Concerns have also been raised about the sustainability of BRI projects, the potential for debt traps, and the environmental and social impacts of large-scale infrastructure development.

India's Concerns and Objections

India has consistently opposed the Belt and Road Initiative, articulating a number of key concerns:

• Sovereignty: India's primary objection revolves around the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of the BRI that passes through Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India claims this territory as its own and views CPEC as a violation of its sovereignty. India argues that any infrastructure project built on disputed territory without its consent is unacceptable.

• Debt Sustainability: India has expressed concerns about the potential for BRI projects to create unsustainable debt burdens for participating countries. New Delhi worries that some countries may become overly reliant on Chinese loans and investments, making them vulnerable to economic and political pressure from Beijing. The term "debt-trap diplomacy" is often used to describe this concern.

• Lack of Transparency and Inclusivity: India has criticized the BRI for its lack of transparency in project selection, financing, and implementation. New Delhi argues that BRI projects are often driven by Chinese interests and that there is limited consultation with local communities and civil society organizations. India advocates for a more inclusive and participatory approach to infrastructure development.

• Geopolitical Implications: India views the BRI as part of China's broader strategy to expand its influence in the region and beyond. New Delhi is concerned that the BRI could be used to encircle India and undermine its strategic interests. India also worries that the BRI could lead to increased Chinese military presence in the Indian Ocean region.

• Environmental and Social Concerns: India has raised concerns about the potential environmental and social impacts of BRI projects, such as deforestation, displacement of communities, and pollution. New Delhi argues that BRI projects should adhere to high environmental and social standards and that adequate safeguards should be put in place to mitigate negative impacts.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): A Major Point of Contention

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a collection of infrastructure projects that are currently under construction throughout Pakistan. Originally valued at $47 billion, the value of CPEC projects is now worth $62 billion. CPEC is intended to rapidly modernize Pakistani infrastructure and strengthen its economy by the construction of modern transportation networks, numerous energy projects, and special economic zones.

The corridor stretches from Kashgar in Xinjiang, China, to the port of Gwadar in Balochistan, Pakistan. Gwadar is strategically located near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane for oil and gas.

CPEC is a flagship project of the BRI, and it is seen as a crucial component of China's strategy to connect with the Indian Ocean region. However, CPEC has also become a major point of contention between India and China due to its passage through Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

India argues that CPEC legitimizes Pakistan's control over the disputed territory and undermines India's claim to the region. New Delhi also worries that CPEC could be used to facilitate Chinese military presence in the area.

India's Alternative Connectivity Initiatives

In response to the BRI, India has been promoting its own connectivity initiatives, such as:

• The International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC): The INSTC is a 7,200-kilometer multi-modal transportation network connecting India, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, and Central Asia. It aims to reduce transit times and costs for trade between these regions. India sees the INSTC as an alternative to the BRI that does not involve Chinese participation.
• The Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC): The AAGC is a joint initiative between India and Japan to promote infrastructure development and connectivity in Africa. It focuses on projects that are aligned with African priorities and that promote sustainable development. India views the AAGC as a way to counter China's growing influence in Africa.
• The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC): BIMSTEC is a regional organization comprising Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. It aims to promote economic cooperation and connectivity among these countries. India is actively involved in BIMSTEC and sees it as a platform to promote its regional interests.
• Act East Policy: India's Act East Policy, launched in 2014, is a strategic initiative to promote economic, strategic and cultural relations with the broader Indo-Pacific region, including countries in Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Oceania. This policy involves enhanced engagement with ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries through trade agreements, infrastructure projects, and security cooperation. It is seen as a way to counterbalance China's influence in the region.

These initiatives reflect India's desire to promote regional connectivity on its own terms, without being dependent on China's BRI. India is seeking to build partnerships with like-minded countries to create alternative routes and networks that can promote economic growth and integration in the region.

Historical Context: Sino-Indian Relations

The relationship between India and China has been complex and often fraught with tension. The two countries share a long and contested border, and they have a history of territorial disputes and military conflict.

• The Sino-Indian War of 1962: The Sino-Indian War of 1962 was a brief but bloody border war fought between India and China. The war was triggered by disputes over the border in the Himalayas. China won the war decisively, capturing large swathes of territory. The war had a lasting impact on Sino-Indian relations, creating deep mistrust and suspicion.

• Border Disputes: India and China continue to have unresolved border disputes. The two countries share a 3,488-kilometer-long Line of Actual Control (LAC), which is the de facto border. There have been numerous incidents of border incursions and standoffs along the LAC. The border disputes remain a major source of tension between the two countries.

• The Dalai Lama: India has provided refuge to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile since 1959. China views the Dalai Lama as a separatist and accuses India of interfering in its internal affairs by supporting him. The Dalai Lama issue remains a sensitive one in Sino-Indian relations.

• Nuclear Weapons: Both India and China possess nuclear weapons. This adds a layer of complexity to their relationship, as any conflict between the two countries could have catastrophic consequences.

• Economic Competition: India and China are both major economic powers, and they compete for markets, resources, and influence. China is India's largest trading partner, but there is also a significant trade deficit in China's favor. India is concerned about China's growing economic dominance in the region.

  Advertisement

The historical context of Sino-Indian relations is crucial to understanding India's concerns about the BRI. India's distrust of China is rooted in its historical experiences and its ongoing disputes with its neighbor.

Stakeholder Positions: A Closer Look

Understanding the perspectives of key stakeholders is crucial for a comprehensive analysis of the BRI and its implications for India.

• China: As the initiator and primary driver of the BRI, China views the initiative as a win-win proposition that can benefit both China and participating countries. China argues that the BRI can help address infrastructure gaps in developing countries, stimulate economic growth, and promote regional connectivity. China also sees the BRI as a way to expand its economic and political influence and to promote its own development model. China emphasizes the principles of mutual benefit, consultation, and shared responsibility in the BRI framework. However, China's critics argue that the BRI is primarily driven by Chinese interests and that it could lead to debt traps and other negative consequences for participating countries.

• India: India's official position is one of skepticism and opposition to the BRI, particularly due to concerns about sovereignty, debt sustainability, and geopolitical implications. India argues that the BRI lacks transparency and inclusivity and that it could be used to encircle India and undermine its strategic interests. India is promoting alternative connectivity initiatives that are aligned with its own priorities and that do not involve Chinese participation. India's underlying interests are to protect its territorial integrity, maintain its regional influence, and avoid being dependent on China's BRI.

• Pakistan: Pakistan is a strong supporter of the BRI and CPEC. Pakistan views CPEC as a game-changer that can transform its economy and improve its infrastructure. Pakistan believes that CPEC will create new opportunities for trade and investment and that it will help to address its energy shortages. Pakistan also sees CPEC as a way to strengthen its strategic partnership with China.

• Other Neighboring Countries of India: The attitudes of India's other neighboring countries towards the BRI are varied. Some countries, such as Nepal and Sri Lanka, have embraced the BRI and have signed agreements with China to participate in the initiative. These countries see the BRI as a way to attract investment and to improve their infrastructure. However, other countries, such as Bangladesh and Myanmar, have been more cautious about the BRI and have expressed concerns about debt sustainability and other issues.

  Advertisement

• The United States: The United States has been critical of the BRI, viewing it as a tool for China to expand its geopolitical influence and to undermine the international rules-based order. The United States has warned countries about the potential risks of participating in the BRI, such as debt traps and lack of transparency. The United States is promoting alternative infrastructure initiatives that are aligned with its own values and interests.

Broader Implications of India's BRI Stance

India's decision to abstain from the 2018 Belt and Road Forum, and its broader opposition to the BRI, have a number of significant implications:

• Political: India's stance highlights the geopolitical competition between China and India in the region. The BRI is seen as a key component of China's strategy to expand its influence, while India is seeking to maintain its own regional power and to counter China's growing dominance. India's opposition to the BRI is a reflection of its broader concerns about China's rise and its potential impact on the regional balance of power.

• Diplomatic: India's opposition to the BRI has strained its relations with China. While the two countries have maintained diplomatic channels and have sought to manage their differences, the BRI remains a major source of friction. India's decision to boycott the Belt and Road Forum was seen as a snub to China and as a sign of its deep reservations about the initiative. This divergence affects regional cooperation efforts, making it difficult for India and China to work together on common challenges such as climate change and terrorism.

• Security: India's concerns about the BRI are also linked to its security interests. India worries that the BRI could be used to facilitate Chinese military presence in the region and to encircle India. India is particularly concerned about the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which passes through Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India sees CPEC as a threat to its territorial integrity and its regional security. The "String of Pearls" strategy, often attributed to China, also fuels India's security concerns. This strategy allegedly involves China establishing a network of ports and military facilities in the Indian Ocean region, potentially encircling India.

• Economic: The BRI has the potential to bring both economic benefits and risks for participating countries. On the one hand, the BRI could help to improve infrastructure, stimulate economic growth, and create new opportunities for trade and investment. On the other hand, the BRI could lead to debt traps, environmental damage, and social disruption. India's decision to abstain from the BRI means that it will miss out on some of the potential economic benefits, but it also avoids some of the potential risks.

  Advertisement

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): A Related Issue

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a multilateral development bank proposed by China and launched in 2016. The AIIB aims to provide financing for infrastructure projects in Asia. While India is a founding member of the AIIB, it has also expressed concerns about the bank's governance and transparency. India wants to ensure that the AIIB adheres to high environmental and social standards and that its projects are aligned with India's own development priorities.

India's participation in the AIIB, despite its concerns about the BRI, reflects a nuanced approach to China's initiatives. India recognizes the need for infrastructure development in Asia and sees the AIIB as a potential source of financing. However, India also wants to ensure that the AIIB is not used to promote China's geopolitical interests at the expense of other countries.

Future Outlook: A Continued Standoff?

Looking ahead, India is likely to continue opposing the BRI in its current form. India will continue to voice its concerns about sovereignty, debt sustainability, and geopolitical implications. India will also continue to promote alternative connectivity initiatives that are aligned with its own priorities.

The BRI is likely to remain a source of tension in India-China relations. However, the two countries will also seek to manage their differences and to avoid escalation. India and China have a shared interest in maintaining regional stability and in promoting economic growth. They will likely continue to engage in dialogue and to explore areas of cooperation, even as they disagree on the BRI.

The future of the BRI will depend on a number of factors, including China's willingness to address India's concerns, the success of alternative connectivity initiatives, and the evolving geopolitical landscape in Asia. The BRI represents a significant challenge for India, but it also presents an opportunity for India to assert its own vision for regional connectivity and development.

India's "Act East Policy" will likely play a more prominent role in the future. This policy focuses on strengthening ties with Southeast Asian nations and promoting economic integration in the region. By deepening its engagement with ASEAN countries, India aims to counterbalance China's influence and create alternative trade and investment opportunities. This could involve developing infrastructure projects that connect India with Southeast Asia, such as highways, railways, and ports.

Furthermore, India is expected to continue strengthening its partnerships with other countries that share its concerns about the BRI, such as Japan and the United States. These partnerships could involve joint infrastructure projects, security cooperation, and diplomatic coordination. By working with like-minded countries, India can enhance its ability to counter China's influence and promote a more balanced regional order.

The situation is further complicated by the evolving global landscape. The rise of protectionism and trade disputes, particularly between the United States and China, could impact the BRI's future. A slowdown in global trade could reduce the demand for infrastructure projects and make it more difficult for participating countries to repay their debts.

Ultimately, the success of the BRI will depend on its ability to deliver tangible benefits to participating countries while addressing concerns about sustainability, transparency, and geopolitical implications. If the BRI is perceived as being primarily driven by Chinese interests, it is likely to face increasing resistance from India and other countries.

Conversely, if the BRI can be reformed to be more inclusive, transparent, and aligned with the development priorities of participating countries, it could potentially contribute to regional economic growth and integration. However, given the deep-seated concerns and historical baggage, a fundamental shift in India's stance towards the BRI appears unlikely in the near future. India is likely to continue pursuing its own path, promoting alternative connectivity initiatives and strengthening its partnerships with like-minded countries, as it navigates the complex geopolitical landscape of Asia.