News by Professionals 4 Professionals


Unless China changes tack, India won’t be the only country opposing One Belt, One Road

China s Belt and Road Forum, hosted with great fanfare, signals the priority of this flagship connectivity initiative while also underlining its credentials as the new shaper of global trends and norms. Exhorting all countries to participate, Chinese president Xi Jinping suggested that what we hope to create is a big family of harmonious co-existence. But India, an emerging economy that shares a contested border with China, worries about containment and new pathways for aggression from Pakistan. Other nations wonder if hegemonistic designs are hidden behind the rationality of connectivity and trade. The policy initiative aims to enhance China s centrality in the global economic unilateral approach. But how the project is conceived and implemented so far belies the rhetoric of multilateralism emanating from Beijing.

Taking inspiration from the ancient Silk Road trading route, China s One Belt One Road initiative, or OBOR, hopes to link more than 65 countries, encompassing up to 40% of global GDP. Xi s signature foreign paradigm linking China to Asia, Europe, and Africa via an ambitious network of ports, roads, rail, and other infrastructure projects. Beginning in China s Fujian province, the projected Maritime Silk Route passes through the Malacca Strait to the Indian Ocean, moving along the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, ending in Venice. The scale and scope of OBOR is huge, with at least $1 trillion in investments. At the Shanghai summit, Xi announced an additional $124 billion in funding for OBOR, including $8.7 billion in assistance to developing countries. China, desperate to deflect criticism that OBOR is primarily an instrument for Chinese expansionism, managed to convince heads of 29 states and governments to participate in the summit, including Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdo an, Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni, Russian president Vladimir Putin, and United Nations chief Antonio Guterres. Most western leaders sent representatives.

The West views this as a Chinese bilateral project.

The West views this as a Chinese bilateral project being touted as a multilateral venture. The outgoing president of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China[1] complains that the OBOR has been hijacked by Chinese companies, which have used it as an excuse to evade capital controls, smuggling money out of the country by disguising it as international investments and partnerships. The rest of the world is more receptive. Lavishing praise on China for the OBOR initiative, while targeting the US, Putin[2] warned at the summit that protectionism is becoming the new normal, adding that the ideas of openness and free trade are increasingly often being rejected (even) by those who until very recently expounded them.

South Asia also welcomes OBOR, and most of India s neighbours attended. India refused to participate, maintaining opposition to China s investment in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC, which passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. India, announced in an official statement[3]: No country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity. Indian foreign secretary S Jaishankar articulated this position at the 2017 Raisina Dialogue: China is very sensitive about its sovereignty. The economic corridor passes through an illegal territory, an area that we call Pak-occupied Kashmir. You can imagine India s reaction at the fact that such a project has been initiated without consulting us. Prime minister Narendra Modi reinforced this point, asserting that connectivity in itself cannot override or undermine the sovereignty of other nations. The advantages for India of joining China s multi-billion dollar OBOR initiative are apparent, and the economic logic is compelling. With bilateral trade of $70.08 billion in 2016, China remains India s largest trading partner. Last year also saw record Chinese investments into India, reaching close to $1 billion. Compared to this, China s economic ties with Pakistan remain underwhelming, with bilateral trade volume reaching $13.77 billion last year. Yet, against the backdrop of deteriorating Sino-Indian ties, India cannot feasibly join the OBOR project without challenging the very foundations of its foreign policy. The $55-billion CPEC would link China s Muslim-dominated Xinjiang Province to the Gwadar deep-sea port in Pakistan. Despite the rhetoric, Beijing s priority in pumping huge sums into a highly volatile Pakistani territory is not to provide economic relief for Pakistan s struggling economy or to promote regional economic cooperation.

The development may not subdue restive Muslims in either country. The challenges are huge as underscored by the related militarisation. Pakistan has deployed more than 15,000 troops to protect the CPEC, and is raising a naval contingent for protection of the Gwadar; China will also station part of its growing naval forces at Gwadar. Concerns are already being expressed that Pakistan could become a Chinese colony once the corridor is operationalised. For the Chinese, security in the province of Balochistan is the biggest concern. Economic conditions in Balochistan remain dire with over two-thirds of its inhabitants living in poverty, and local opposition to the project is mounting by the day. Baloch separatists, especially those from the Baloch Liberation Army, are reported to have abducted and killed foreigners, particularly the Chinese. Such turmoil could have regional consequences. The long-term strategic consequences of OBOR for India could also allow China to consolidate its presence in the Indian Ocean at India s expense. Indian critics contend that China may use its economic power to increase its geopolitical leverage and, in doing so, intensify security concerns for India. CPEC gives China a foothold in the western Indian Ocean with the Gwadar port, located near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, where Chinese warships and a submarine have surfaced. Access here allows China greater potential to control maritime trade in that part of the world a vulnerable point for India, which sources more than 60% of its oil supplies from the Middle East. What s more, if CPEC does resolve China s Malacca dilemma its over-reliance on the Malacca Straits for the transport of its energy resources this gives Asia s largest economy greater operational space to pursue unilateral interests in maritime matters to the detriment of the freedom of navigation and trade-energy security of several states in the Indian Ocean region, including India.

The Maritime Silk Road reinforces New Delhi s concerns about encirclement.

More generally, the Maritime Silk Road reinforces New Delhi s concerns about encirclement. Beijing s port development projects in the Indian Ocean open the possibility of dual-use facilities, complicating India s security calculus. India has its own set of connectivity initiatives such as Myanmar s Kaladan project, the Chabahar port project with Iran, as well as the north-south corridor with Russia, which could be potentially leveraged. The proposed 7,200-kilometre International North South Transportation Corridor is a ship, rail, and road transportation system connecting the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea via Iran to Russia and north Europe. The Indian and Japanese governments are working on a vision document for developing an Asia-Africa Growth Corridor, largely meant to propel growth and investment in Africa, in part a response to China s ever-growing presence on the continent.

The Belt and Road Initiative is a highly ambitious undertaking in line with China s aspirations to emerge as the central economic power at a time when the United States makes plans to step back from global affairs. Its success depends on China s ability to move beyond the bilateral framework and allow a truly multilateral vision for the project to evolve. Otherwise, China can expect to contend with opposition from more countries than India.

This post originally appeared on YaleGlobal Online.[4] We welcome your comments at

Most Popular

Unless China Changes Tack, India Won't Be The Only Country Opposing One Belt, One Road

You re doing your weekend wrong[6]

Read full story


  1. ^ The outgoing president of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China (
  2. ^ Putin (
  3. ^ official statement (
  4. ^ YaleGlobal Online. (
  5. ^

Reports: Wisconsin Sheriff Withdraws from Homeland Job

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, an African-American who became a staunch critic of the Black Lives Matter movement and a supporter of Donald Trump s presidential campaign, has withdrawn his acceptance for a job as assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. newspapers reported Saturday. Clarke notified Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly on Friday of his decision, Craig Peterson, an adviser to Clarke, said in a statement, according to the Washington Post and other newspapers.

Sheriff Clarke is 100 percent committed to the success of President Trump and believes his skills could be better utilized to promote the president s agenda in a more aggressive role, the newspapers quoted Peterson as saying.

Join DHS in June

Neither the agency nor Clarke s office immediately responded to requests for comment. Clarke s decision comes a month after he told radio station WISN in Milwaukee that he would leave his post as sheriff in June to join the Department of Homeland Security.

At the time, a spokeswoman for the agency said no announcement on Clarke had been made. Trump and Clarke met in Wisconsin on Tuesday and discussed other roles in which Clarke could help advance Trump s agenda, the Washington Post reported, citing Peterson. The Department of Homeland Security, created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, includes agencies that handle customs, border protection and immigration, the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration and the Secret Service.

Controversial comments

Clarke has come under fire for comments he has made about the Black Lives Matter movement, which grew out of protests over a number of police killings of unarmed black men in various parts of the United States. Clarke has labeled members of the movement subhuman creeps and called for its eradication. Clarke spoke in support of Trump at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last July.

Critics have faulted Clarke for his management of a Milwaukee County jail where a mentally ill man died in 2016 of dehydration. An inquest jury recommended that seven employees of the jail be criminally charged.

Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California called Clarke s appointment a disgrace.

An Uptick in Somali Piracy Caused by a Wave of Poor Maritime Decision-Making

Cheryl Strauss Einhorn is the creator of the AREA Method, a decision making system for individuals and companies to solve complex problems. Cheryl is the founder of CSE Consulting[1] and the author of the book Problem Solved, a Powerful System for Making Complex Decisions with Confidence & Conviction[2]. Cheryl teaches as an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School and has won several journalism awards for her investigative stories about international political, business and economic topics.

Piracy is on the rise off the coast of Somalia again and there s evidence that perhaps the maritime industry may have itself to blame. Indeed, the recent Somali hijacking of the Aris 13, a Comoros-flagged fuel tanker belonging to a Greek company, should be a wake-up call to the shipping industry that complacency is dangerous. How so? It seems that the maritime industry is a lot like many of us individually, prone to assumption, judgment, and common cognitive biases including confirmation bias, where we over value information that confirms our existing beliefs and salience bias, where we overweight evidence that is recent and vivid. Back in 2011, piracy was front page news as pirates held crews hostage only to ransom them back for as much as $13 million. The result was that maritime security costs shot up to $7 billion a year as the industry installed extensive security systems including lobbying for and receiving pricey navy patrols, as well as instituting protocols to re-route ships to take longer routes, or, at times increasing ship speed and fuel costs, while at the same time incurring hefty increases in ransom insurance rates. The coordinated vigilance worked. Piracy dropped from a peak of 488 incidents in 2011 to stabilize near 36 incidents each in 2015 and 2016, according to data from Oceans Beyond Piracy (OBP), a nonprofit that studies maritime security.

But perhaps the industry misunderstood why piracy rates dropped. Looking at the hard data doesn t tell the whole story; the industry knows that the numbers are notoriously incomplete. Yes, along with increased security protocols, reporting has improved somewhat, but not much since investigations take time, costing shipping companies up to $1000 per day of lost income, rates of prosecution are low and of course reporting impacts insurance rates, which can jump by 30 percent. Still, industry security costs fell to $1.7 billion in 2016 as the coordinated maritime efforts relaxed. Yes better threat assessments for different kinds of vessels lowered some insurance rates, but even more, the industry s memory has faded and collective attention to piracy has waned. As incidents dropped, international naval patrols have stopped, partly replaced by intelligence gathering and communication protocols. But security on the seas has now fallen to independent nations like China and Japan. Moreover, private security forces are on the decline in the Indian Ocean. In 2011 private security cost nearly $60,000 per transit. Today rates are lower yet only 34 percent of ships still use armed guards, and even those no longer carry the recommended four-men teams even though the cost of the guards have come way down, says Jon Huggins, OBP s director.

In addition to fewer grey vessel patrols and on-board security, shipping companies are taking riskier actions again with regard to speed and proximity to the dangerous Somali coast, even as that country continues to suffer from weak government, warring territories, and ineffective or corrupt policing. The Aris hijacking took place reportedly while the vessel was traveling well below the recommended speed for its location. It was travelling the Socotra Gap, a route between Ethiopia and the island of Socotra in Yemen often used by vessels traveling along the east coast of Africa as a shortcut to save time and money. The pirates have taken note. Gangs are coming back, says Huggins, who says that the Aris s crew was let go allegedly after the pirates emptied a safe on board holding about $70,000. Maybe it s time for the maritime industry to stop traversing its well-worn mental pathways and to pry open some cognitive space to allow for new information and insight to take hold. Then it might see that it s mixing up causation and correlation. Piracy didn t drop because it s waning. It s been thwarted by costly and effective international coordination. Vigilance pays and as William Faulkner wrote, The past is never dead. It s not even past.


  1. ^ CSE Consulting (
  2. ^ Problem Solved, a Powerful System for Making Complex Decisions with Confidence & Conviction (
1 2 3 144