Report
- +3
James M. Acton, Alexey Arbatov, Vladimir Dvorkin, …
{
"authors": [
"Petr Topychkanov"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [
"Eurasia in Transition"
],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India",
"Pakistan",
"Central Asia",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade",
"Climate Change",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
Doing Business in Pakistan
Pakistan is not an important Russian trading partner in South Asia. However, with Eurasian integration involving Central Asia and traditional Russian-Indian economic ties revived, there is no sense for Pakistan to remain in a limbo.
Published on Jan 24, 2014
Discussions about the prospects of the relations between Russia and Pakistan are focused usually on several projects, which still exist on paper only, like the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline (TAPI), and Central Asia—South Asia regional energy project (CASA-1000). The Karachi Steel Mill is another field of possible cooperation between the two countries, often mentioned in bilateral discussions. These and other similar projects must be welcomed, because they will stimulate regional integration and development.
But why is it that Russia and Pakistan cannot achieve even a small amount of progress in all these projects? Some people would say: “India is the reason.” According to them, Moscow doesn’t want to move forward in the relations with Islamabad, because it doesn’t want to evoke anger in New Delhi. This answer isn’t correct. In every mentioned case the main reasons are economic and political. Without political stability in Afghanistan there are no prospects for the energy projects between Central Asia and South Asia.
Without the right economic conditions in Pakistan Russian projects there will never materialize. The annulment of the privatization of the Karachi Steel Mill by the Supreme Court of Pakistan has sent a very bad signal not only to a leading Russian metal company, which won the tender with its partners from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but also to all probable investors from Russia. It was only a short time before that Moscow and Islamabad had signed the intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Modernization, Reconstruction and Expansion of Production Capacity of the Karachi Steel Mill.
The economic situation in Russia is better than in Pakistan, but Russian companies’ resources are still limited, that is why they prefer either short-term investment with high financial returns or long-term projects with high level of stability and predictability. Neither option is currently available in Pakistan due to its domestic political and economic problems. The latter has some chance in the state sector of economy. In this context, Multan-2 and Guddu thermal power stations look like possible areas of cooperation between the two countries.
It doesn’t mean that Russia should wait for a better time in Pakistan. There are ways to improve bilateral trade, including but not limited to energizing the work of the Russian-Pakistani Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation. Regular economic conferences with participants from governments and businesses will help Russia and Pakistan to better understand the economic opportunities and risks in their bilateral trade.
Skeptics may say all this is not such an urgent issue. However, long-term trends point to various parts of South and Central Asia, long cut off from one another, becoming more closely intertwined again. With Eurasian integration involving Central Asia, and traditional Russian-Indian economic ties revived, there is no sense for Pakistan to remain in a limbo.
About the Author
Petr Topychkanov
Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center
Topychkanov was a fellow in the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Nonproliferation Program.
- Entanglement: Chinese and Russian Perspectives on Non-nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Risks
- Iranian and Russian Perspectives on the Global SystemIn The Media
Petr Topychkanov
Recent Work
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 Europe
- Europe Needs its own Sanctions-Enforcement MuscleCommentary
The EU can impose sanctions but struggles to enforce them without the United States. With Washington increasingly disinterested in backing European interests, the bloc must now fend for itself.
Nicu Popescu, Tiago Antunes
- Containing Escalation in the Black SeaCommentary
Russia is testing the waters of NATO’s mutual defense clause. What do strikes in Romanian territorial waters mean for the alliance’s posture toward Moscow?
Dimitar Bechev
- Taking the Pulse: Does the EU Have a France Problem?Commentary
With its public finances in shambles, the far right polling at 35 percent ahead of the 2027 presidential election, and a growing protest movement, is France’s crisis a threat to the EU’s geopolitical awakening?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Trump Blindsides Ukraine But Gives Europe an OpportunityCommentary
Ahead of a tough winter for Ukraine, Donald Trump’s swing back toward Russia bodes ill. But instead of panicking, Kyiv’s European allies are focusing on action.
Rym Momtaz
- Turning Russian Assets into Financing for Ukraine NowCommentary
Funding Ukraine remains a priority for European leaders. As Russia’s war of aggression heads into another winter, two feasible options to mobilize support for Kyiv should be fast-tracked.
Vladyslav Rashkovan, Gregory P. Wilson
