What China wants in South Asia?

 Tashkent is the capital of Uzbekistan in Central Asia. A large conference was held in Tashkent on July 15-16. Behind the conference was the European Union and in front of it was Tashkent; Those who wanted a regional conference on the transformation of Afghanistan in Asia. 

The two-day international conference titled 'Central and South Asia: Regional Communication, Challenges and Prospects' started last Thursday. Among the notables were representatives of about 40 countries, including Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and the foreign ministers of Bangladesh, India and China.

There was another reason behind the sideline talk. For example, another news item became very popular in the country for a few days. Such as a report in Voice on America - 'China keen to form an alternative SAARC' or the Times of India's eye-popping and regrettable news: Following the Sino-South Asian vaccination policy alliance, China now wants to bring in a 'development center' for poverty alleviation. ” 

In the above two reports, they have hinted that this alliance is going to be with Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Afghanistan, excluding India under the leadership of China, which some are calling the formation of China's 'Development Center'.

Thus, we see the formation of various regional alliances at different times. Among them, only a few initiatives are seen to be very active in reality; Especially where certain structure-conditions are complied with. Such an alliance is a country with a large economy, with the ability to invest in at least one country.

 And it must be accepted that the member countries will join this alliance only when it is arranged keeping in view the commercial benefits of everyone, big or small. And the common formula for doing so is to say that China, a country with a large economy, has its own large market (population 1.43 billions) and the ability to invest heavily in others; Infrastructure and 'foreign direct investment' - both.

 As a result, small economies will have the opportunity to export to China for a certain period of time, as well as Chinese investment. This could lead to the introduction of a very active bilateral trade between the alliance on the basis of the gradual import of high-end or high-tech products from China and the export of low-end or low-tech products to China.

As planned, the bottom line is that everyone should have some benefit, something to look forward to; This means that if they get a chance, they will not become greedy; they will have to think far-reaching thoughts. Only then they could be a regional version of global trade. As a result, just as others have to leave the market, the opportunity to enter another's market can also be taken.

 In a word, everyone should be ready to share their market with others. So there needs to be a lot of regular talk, there needs to be a committee of independent management powers and there have to be qualified professional people, whose member-countries have to be qualified to find a way to solve each other's advantages and disadvantages.

 Such an alliance will not stand if one thinks of unilateral gain somewhere. Needless to say, no country with a racist conservative economy can be a member. This means that it is forbidden to keep racist thoughts like 'I will produce all my consumer goods myself' or 'foreign products are forbidden' in secret. Rather, I will give the market and take the market - this will be its policy.

Nowadays many considered India as a fanatical racist country with an unnecessarily conservative market. In fact, this racist thinking says, ‘I do not believe in any trade alliance.’ But India’s internal market is also large (Rs 1.30 billion), so India wants to enter the alliance by showing the greed of permission to enering its large market. 

And it goes in and tries to take advantage of the market. For this reason, the alliance that India has will gradually become inactive. In contrast, today's China is more developed and has more advantages and capabilities. It would be wrong to think of it as China's generosity, but rather the strength and capability of its economy. 

China can easily give market discounts and investments to a third world country . In addition, China is able to introduce value-added share products - a shared value or labor-intensive product that will provide some labor to all members. And if everyone wants to enter the market with the benefit of that offer from China, everyone, including China, is interested in giving it as a benefit.

The Times of India, in its report, counter-memorized the formation of this alliance or 'development center' of China by inserting 'India is all good or we are the best or we are something big'. As it wrote ‘Indian domination in the region’. 

China has come to  to destroy India's domination. It also said that India has already become a "top development partner" with all six countries. As a result, India gives them 'huge grants' as well as infrastructure 'soft loans'. They are the people who are always day dreaming, what is the problem if they keep dreaming! But in reality, India has neither the ability to discount its own market, nor the ability to lend infrastructure or invest. 

On the contrary, the experience of Bangladesh says that India has entered Bangladesh on the lap of America in the wake of the "War on Terror" and above all, it has entered Bangladesh on the pretext of stopping China. With this opportunity, the country has started enjoying all the corridors free of cost.

 Here, ‘all corridors’ means, India is enjoying benefits under the ground, by the road, in the sky and in waterways and ports, in everything and for free of cost. This is the reality. The extent of India's incompetence and recklessness has been revealed in the second wave of COVID-19. 

Those who do not have the capacity to produce vaccines for their own people, or do not have the financial resources to do so, have been demanding the ability to be a vaccination diplomat in all of South Asia. And now it is begging vaccines from America. From there, they received 1 billion worth of free vaccines and health supplies as a donation.

It is unclear what China wants to do

In April, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi first outlined the idea of ​​forming the alliance at a meeting of foreign ministers of five South Asian countries, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Afghanistan, as well as China.

 China came up with the idea of ​​this alliance especially when India stopped vaccinating Bangladesh even with money and with great difficulty the Hasina government was able to persuade China to be the source of vaccination. China wants to set up a common vaccine storage facility in South Asia, from where everyone in the region can collect vaccines. 

Further, last April, it was given the idea of ​​an alliance. Now the idea has been further expanded to say, they want to build ‘China-South Asian Countries Poverty Alleviation and Co-operative Development Center’ (China-South Asian Countries Poverty Alleviation and Co-operative Development Center).

Here are three words- Poverty Alleviation, Co-operative, Development Center; These three words express the characteristics of the organization; It is not a trade alliance, so to speak. However, a feature has been written in the Voice of America that, “It will be not exactly SAARC.

 However, China is going to form an 'alternative SAARC' in this manner. Apart from India, there will be other countries in South Asia. ” There is no similarity between these words and those of China.

Because the co-operative of those three words- it is the word of the primitive communists though; But China brought it in, probably to mean "not all members" or China's sole interest group. 

But it is very unnecessary. That is exactly why the term co-operative has not been used anywhere in the world in the name of trade alliances of some states. Co-operative is a very inappropriate and unnecessary word here because different states mean where everyone has equal status.

On the other hand, the other two words in Progressive Alive and Development Center clearly say that it is developmental. But what does ‘development’ mean?

Development - These are almost patented American words. This concept was born in the hands of America and its use has started and is still going on. For example, before World War II or the beginning of the world of American leadership, there was no word or concept called development. That means it was used in another sense.

Actual Development - The real meaning of this whole term is - Infrastructure Development. Now it is too big to be called 'development'. In that case, the word of real importance is infrastructure, resulting in the improvement of infrastructure. What does ‘infrastructure’ mean?

On the other hand, 'investment' means investment of capital which is as old as capitalism. It takes investment to start a factory or business. But in 1944, the term investment was split in two. One is pre-investment and the other is general (as I said earlier) investment. Pre-investment means that it is an investment even before the investment.

 That means making an investment to create an ‘investment environment’ before starting a core investment in a factory or business. For example, the country-place-city area where the factory-investment will come and sit starts from the wetland; If there is no land development, gas, electricity, water supply, roads, airports, ports, efficient administration, etc., there will be no investment.

 The capital will go from there. Whose Prime Minister / Mayor is an intelligent ruler so he has already made these arrangements. And the people of the country will die without eating. Now what I call investment before investment is called infrastructure investment for this. In essence, interest rates on infrastructure investments should be kept to a minimum, almost non-existent, so that the impact on factory investment is minimal.

This low interest rate infrastructure - investment capital - this is the lending organization of the World Bank. Born in 1944, the World Bank abbreviated the name. Original name Oizu; The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which aims to provide low-interest or "no-interest" pre-investment or infrastructure loans to facilitate commercialization (factories) Investment comes and appears.

Infrastructure investments can be of two types. Physical infrastructure, which means gas, electricity, water, road facilities, etc. The other is the human or labor infrastructure. Usually when a factory is opened, good educated skills or non-educated healthy workers are available. 

So usually this infrastructure is spent on education and minimum health and social sectors. There was no such thing as 'infrastructure development' in the world before 1944; In other words, there is no such thing as infrastructure during the colony period. The global leader America is responsible for everything that has happened in the world, including the good and bad of infrastructure.

Will China just copy America in this time of global turmoil? Or is there something worse than development, of course, that will bring some better concepts? ’That’s what we want to be sure of. Has China given enough thought to the use of the words Poverty Alleviation or Development Center?

Bigger question

In that case, China's new 'development center' - we are now sure, as VOA imagined ... 'not exactly SAARC, but alternative SAARC in its form' - is baseless. Because our real SAARC type organization is not the state alliance, any infrastructure-donor organization like the World Bank. The World Bank is not an alliance. If so, where exactly is the problem? Most likely the problem is in the minds of Chinese policymakers.

Do the Chinese want something like a Quad in Asia? Alternative or competitor? First of all, if that is the case, then why is using these words like "Poverty Alleviation" , "Co-operative", "Development Center" ? This is completely wrong and meaningless. But above all, if you want something or an alternative to the Quad, all the countries will fall apart immediately. 

Because such an alliance means it will take a turn towards military character. And at the moment no one, including the US-China, is interested in war; Unless Biden does something foolish, knowingly or unknowingly.

Again, if China really wants an alternative SAARC type alliance, then the words Poverty Alleviation, Co-operative, Development Center should be dropped. But the most important India or such a state cannot be taken - it cannot be said.

 Even invitations have to be sent to India. And we have to be confident that India will not come. Even if India comes again, it will not cause any loss to China. So there is no need to say who will not be able to come in advance.

But China must be able to think and say clearly what it wants. And in this meeting, China has put countries like Bangladesh in a big level of confidence, it is significant.

Follow us on-

Post a Comment