• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "James Schwemlein"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Strategic Implications of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, December, 16, 2019

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has strategic implications for China-Pakistan, China-India, India-U.S., and U.S.-China relations. U.S. targeted support to Pakistan could prevent Pakistan’s dependence on China, mitigating some of the most negative effects.

Link Copied
By James Schwemlein
Published on Dec 16, 2019
Program mobile hero image

Program

South Asia

The South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific to India’s internal dynamics and U.S. engagement with the region, the program offers in-depth, rigorous research and analysis on South Asia’s most critical challenges.

Learn More

Source: United States Institute of Peace

Great power politics is resurgent in South Asia today. China’s growing military ambition in the region is matched in financial terms by its Belt and Road Initiative, the largest and most advanced component of which is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. What remains unclear is how the United States should navigate the new dynamic. This report, which is based on research and consultations with experts worldwide, addresses the question of how the India-Pakistan rivalry will play into the emerging great power competition.

.

Summary

  • China’s changing role in Pakistan offers an opportunity to examine China in a learning mode, in a challenging environment, and as an actor in the decades-long rivalry between Pakistan and India.
  • China’s long-term investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) can be explained in at least three ways: to demonstrate China’s attractiveness as a partner; to prove that China’s development model can be exported; and to use Pakistan as an element of its strategic competition with the United States and India.
  • Pakistan’s hopes for CPEC are mitigated by China’s apparent lack of interest in establishing an overland transit corridor and counterterrorism concerns, which are likely to be a persistent liability in the years ahead.
  • There is a growing potential that China’s surge into Pakistan could increase the threat that Pakistan poses to India, particularly if China expands its military position there and if Pakistan does not curtail its use of militant proxies. The resulting dynamic could prove a further impetus toward deepening the U.S.-India partnership in the face of a common threat from China and Pakistan.
  • The ultimate success of China’s investments will continue to be threatened by political and economic instability in Pakistan and the country’s ongoing support for terrorism.
  • The United States could offer targeted support to help Pakistan determine how best to use Chinese infrastructure to grow its economy, which could contribute to improving and stabilizing Pakistan.

About the Report

This report examines how China’s financial underwriting of infrastructure projects along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is altering the political landscape for the United States, India, China, and Pakistan. Supported by the Asia Center at the U.S. Institute of Peace, this study is based on research and discussions worldwide, and specifically by Asia Center–led consultations with Chinese experts in December 2017 and with Pakistani experts in May 2019.

Read Full Text

This report was originally published by the United States Institute of Peace.

About the Author

James Schwemlein

Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program

James Schwemlein was a nonresident scholar in the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    The Military Disrupts Pakistan’s Democracy Once Again

      James Schwemlein

  • Q&A
    Why Imran Khan Isn’t Going Away

      James Schwemlein

James Schwemlein
Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program
James Schwemlein
Foreign PolicySouth AsiaPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Parliamentary Elections in Occupied Ukraine Risk Backfiring for the Kremlin

    Despite unhappiness on the ground, Moscow is determined to use both carrot and stick to ensure there is record support for United Russia in occupied Ukraine.

      Konstantin Skorkin

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    Nolan’s "The Odyssey" Has a Colonialism Problem

    Despite Morocco’s hopes that its film industry would reap rewards, the blockbuster’s success will be tainted by controversy surrounding filming in occupied Western Sahara.

      • Sarah Yerkes

      Sarah Yerkes

  • Paper
    Securing America’s Near Abroad: Recalibrating U.S. Policy Toward Haiti

    Helping to stabilize Haiti is in the United States’ national interest and can be done by making wise use of various foreign policy tools in addition to supporting international security forces.

      Christopher Shell

  • Aerial view of Washington DC
    Paper
    Network and Structural Power: The Four Trend Lines Weakening U.S. Leverage

    Networks—from international payments platforms to key economic sectors—underlie many aspects of U.S. power. But they are suffering under an extractive approach to foreign policy.

      Daniel W. Drezner

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Why Europe Cannot Negotiate a New Yalta with Russia

    While Russia is not ready to sue for peace on Europe’s terms, it could still either seek a ceasefire in Ukraine or try escalation. Brussels needs to prepare for both and prioritize that preparation over normative discussions.

      Kadri Liik

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.