Commentary
The EU lacks leadership and strategic planning in the South Caucasus, while the United States is leading the charge. To secure its geopolitical interests, Brussels must invest in new connectivity for the region.
Zaur Shiriyev
{
"authors": [
"James Schwemlein"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"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.
Published on Dec 16, 2019
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.
This report was originally published by the United States Institute of Peace.
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 Falls Behind in the South Caucasus Connectivity Race
- Taking the Pulse: Is It Time for Europe to Reengage With Belarus?Commentary
In return for a trade deal and the release of political prisoners, the United States has lifted sanctions on Belarus, breaking the previous Western policy consensus. Should Europeans follow suit, using their leverage to extract concessions from Lukashenko, or continue to isolate a key Kremlin ally?
Thomas de Waal, ed.
- The EU and India in TandemCommentary
As European leadership prepares for the sixteenth EU-India Summit, both sides must reckon with trade-offs in order to secure a mutually beneficial Free Trade Agreement.
Dinakar Peri
- Unpacking Trump’s National Security StrategyCommentary
Carnegie scholars examine the crucial elements of a document that’s radically different than its predecessors.
- +18
James M. Acton, Saskia Brechenmacher, Cecily Brewer, …
- Europe Faces the Gone-Rogue DoctrineCommentary
The hyper-personalized new version of global sphere-of-influence politics that Donald Trump wants will fail, as it did for Russia. In the meantime, Europe must still deal with a disruptive former ally determined to break the rules.
Thomas de Waal
