Current Projects
CRSS China Watch – February 1 2016
The Parliamentary Committee for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) led by Senator Mushahid Hussain, looked over the CPEC projects in their three days visit to the Sindh province. Talking about the Thar coal power project, the senator specifically emphasized that no element of political or provincial preferences has been found in the project. The overt visit of MPs from all federating units makes their support to the project certain. The delegates from working committee of Thar coal project agreed that Thar is the energy future of Pakistan.[1] With the idea of fixing around 12 billion rupees against development budget, the Chief Minister of Gilgit Baltistan (GB) - while stressing the importance of CPEC- underlined that the project will bring economic and social development in the region.[2] In order to evaluate the level of advancement of developmental projects in the power and petroleum sectors initiated under the CPEC, the Federal Finance Minister called upon a meeting. It was a detailed meeting about the finance, timeline and development of the power and petroleum projects.[3] The Ukrainian ambassador claimed that the Multinational Companies (MNC’s) of Ukraine are aiming to build power plants, pipelines, bridges and railways in Pakistan. He claimed that making investments in the CPEC project would exploit the economic opportunities at regional level.[4] The Chairman Board of Investment declared that the CPEC has been a game changer for regional progress and development since it has uplifted the economy of Pakistan in the last two years.[5] [1] http://tribune.com.pk/story/1037850/mps-see-thar-as-energy-future-of-pakistan/ [2] http://www.radio.gov.pk/newsdetail/82347/1 [3] http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/12125/ [4] http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/30-Jan-2016/ukrainian-companies-keen-to-invest-in-cpec-project-says-envoy [5]...
China: Iran’s New Best Friend
As Iran celebrates the lifting of sanctions and cranks up its oil production, the biggest winner may be China, Iran’s new best friend. Chinese President Xi Jinping paid a visit to Tehran in January, meeting Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and signing a 25-year economic, political and military cooperation pact. The two leaders announced the signing of 17 deals—including agreements on oil drilling, nuclear energy and a vast infrastructure project linking China to the Mediterranean, known as One Belt, One Road. Rouhani predicted the deals would boost bilateral trade tenfold to an annual $600 billion in the next decade. “The end of the sanctions will serve first and foremost to help Chinese energy firms—that is why President Xi Jinping is paying a sudden official visit to Tehran,” says Jean-Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, a French senior adviser to the Chinese government. (He convened a series of back-channel meetings among top Iranian, Chinese and Israeli officials in the run-up to July’s grand deal in Vienna, where Iran agreed to suspend its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.) “The [nuclear] deal would not have been possible without the active involvement of Iran’s sole trusted foreign friend—China,” von Pfetten says. Iran has been close to China for years—it has been Iran’s largest trading partner since 2009. During the last (and most draconian) sanctions period, China helped keep Tehran afloat by buying its oil, using Iranian banks in a way that did not technically violate sanctions. China also invested heavily in Iranian roads, factories and infrastructure at the time. High-profile Chinese projects include the 5-kilometer Niayesh tunnel in Tehran, one of the longest in the world, and the city’s Chinese-designed metro system. The two countries have also found common ground in their opposition to U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was China that helped Iran kick-start its nuclear weapons program back in the 1980s,...
China: Iran's New Best Friend
As Iran celebrates the lifting of sanctions and cranks up its oil production, the biggest winner may be China, Iran’s new best friend. Chinese President Xi Jinping paid a visit to Tehran in January, meeting Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and signing a 25-year economic, political and military cooperation pact. The two leaders announced the signing of 17 deals—including agreements on oil drilling, nuclear energy and a vast infrastructure project linking China to the Mediterranean, known as One Belt, One Road. Rouhani predicted the deals would boost bilateral trade tenfold to an annual $600 billion in the next decade. “The end of the sanctions will serve first and foremost to help Chinese energy firms—that is why President Xi Jinping is paying a sudden official visit to Tehran,” says Jean-Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, a French senior adviser to the Chinese government. (He convened a series of back-channel meetings among top Iranian, Chinese and Israeli officials in the run-up to July’s grand deal in Vienna, where Iran agreed to suspend its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.) “The [nuclear] deal would not have been possible without the active involvement of Iran’s sole trusted foreign friend—China,” von Pfetten says. Iran has been close to China for years—it has been Iran’s largest trading partner since 2009. During the last (and most draconian) sanctions period, China helped keep Tehran afloat by buying its oil, using Iranian banks in a way that did not technically violate sanctions. China also invested heavily in Iranian roads, factories and infrastructure at the time. High-profile Chinese projects include the 5-kilometer Niayesh tunnel in Tehran, one of the longest in the world, and the city’s Chinese-designed metro system. The two countries have also found common ground in their opposition to U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was China that helped Iran kick-start its nuclear weapons program back in the 1980s,...
Drones, Pakistan and Future Wars
by Scott Nicholas Romaniuk For over a decade, United States’ Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly referred to as drones, have been the primary instruments for secret strikes against suspected terrorists in Pakistan. Over the past decade, the number of strikes have risen significantly, resulting in roughly 2,500-4,000 deaths in some 422 strikes. Pressure has been building continuously on the US and the Obama administration for their increasing reliance on the drone strikes as part of their counter-terrorism policy in Pakistan and a handful of other countries as well, against the backdrop of Obama’s speech in May 2013 in which he stated that, “Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured.” The casualty component is the basis for intensive debate about drone usage and what detractors of the application of drone technology in this manner refer to as inhumane warfare. Drones are almost never spoken of in terms of the intricate yet critical role that they have played (not just in the past 15 years) in symbolizing the operating state’s (government and people) cultural principles and desire to improve the conditions of warfare. The US, along with the principle drone powers, like the United Kingdom (UK), and Israel, as well as some newcomers such as Pakistan and China (which is thought to fly armed drones but has yet to demonstrate their military application) have done much to fulfill this position. When Pakistan was added to this list of militarized drone states, a relatively muted response was observed. Indeed, Pakistan continues to garner little attention for allegedly using militarized drones to attack terror activists within its borders. These countries operate in what Robert Farley refers to as the “Golden Age of Drones,” the leading pack of drone technology countries and users will continue to grow. Drones were primarily tasked with intelligence gathering duties, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)...
Making Sense of The CPEC Controversy — II
By Rafiuallah Kakar In my last article, I deconstructed the government’s claims about having prioritised the western route of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). In this piece, I critically examine the various justifications advanced by those defending the prioritisation of the eastern route. The federal government claims that China is investing $35 billion in different energy projects with Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) having the highest share, followed by Balochistan and Punjab. This is foreign direct investment (FDI), meaning that the Pakistan government has no say in deciding the location of the projects. Moreover, it has also been claimed that China prefers the eastern route and that there is no Chinese investment for constructing new roads. While Chinese investment preferences should be respected, the federal government should not be oblivious to its negative distributional impact. Empirical evidence shows that FDI increases regional inequality in low and middle-income countries since the many different regions of a country usually do not receive it in equal measure. Nevertheless, the government through various policy instruments can mitigate the negative distributional impact of FDI on the state of regional equality. In this regard, China’s example is very relevant. In China, FDI has been concentrated on strongly urbanised coastal regions and has been a major driving force behind the strong increase in regional inequalities in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the Chinese government has implemented special development programmes for the lagging western part of the country, which seemed to have been quite successful. As a matter of fact, the CPEC is a part of the efforts aimed at bringing the underdeveloped western parts of China on a par with the rest of the country. Rather than following the Chinese way, the Pakistan government has ostensibly let the market shape and determine public policy choices. Out of the $21 billion worth of “priority...
CRSS China Watch – January 29 2016
In a meeting with Aabraj group on January 28, 2016 for the CPEC project, Mr. Ahsan Iqbal, minister for planning, development and reform underlined that Pakistan has become an attractive destination for foreign direct investment. The improved security condition and contemporary accelerated economic growth envisage Pakistan to be in the top 25 economies of the world by 2025, he added.[1] The CPEC project has enabled Pakistan to attract foreign aid and financial assistance from China for further power and energy projects. According to the sources at Alternate Energy Development Board, upto two billion dollars have been invested in alternate energy projects, so far. China plans to offer 500 million dollars for the development of solar and air power projects.[2] Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) Chairman Nisar Muhammad Khan told the Senate Standing Committee on Finance on 28 January, 2016 that to ensure the verification of Certificates of Origin, value and description of imported goods under Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Pakistan and China, an electronic data exchange system has been established. This would help reducing scams in the submission of manual certificates by importers.[3] [1] http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/94436-CPEC-makes-Pakistan-investment-destination [2] http://www.thenewstribe.com/2016/01/29/china-to-provide-pakistan-with-500-million-usd-for-power-projects/ [3] http://www.brecorder.com/taxation/181/11166/
Road to Progress
by Zeeshan Salahuddin The Government of Pakistan uses some very specific terminology when referring to the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a 3,000 kilometer long route connecting China to the Arabian Sea and drastically reducing Beijing’s import time and costs. CPEC is a game-changer, an economic take-off, a golden opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and all of it is true at the macro level. However, Pakistan has historically suffered from the blight of oversimplification of very complex, intricately interconnected problems. This is no different. The CPEC has the potential to save Pakistan from economic and ideological meltdown. The sheer amount of investment in the project helps build Gawadar Port, highways and other infrastructure, power plants and coal mining projects, upgraded railways and road and Special Economic Zones (SEZ) is very important. The SEZs are especially pertinent because they offer a boon to local economies, both in the form of job creation and infrastructure development under a laissez-faire approach. Towns and locales along the CPEC will benefit from these zones immensely. Trade will improve, the economy will be reinvigorated, the energy sector will flourish, and China will take the very first step towards a Pan-Asia where the transport of goods, people, and currency is streamlined, effortless and free from the restrictions of international boundaries. In this, the government is absolutely correct. However, the problem lies with the approach. The CPEC had three initially proposed routes – western, central and eastern. The Western Route is the shortest, cutting across the bulk of Balochistan and Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, while the Eastern Route banks sharply to the East, moving along much of Sindh and Punjab. At present, the Eastern Route is being constructed, which has caused politicians from the Western provinces to call foul. It is important to fundamentally understand the various issues that work against the Western Route....
Why The World Does Not Believe Us
by Imtiaz Gul The public outrage over yet another “security lapse” makes complete sense. It marked the fourth consecutive terror strike within a week leaving almost 50 innocents people dead. These incidents of violence shocked everyone because of the considerable decline in the acts of terror in 2015. Much of the fury from politicians and intellectuals was directed against the 20-point National Action Plan (NAP). Most equated the attack to a sheer failure of the NAP. Frankly, the NAP essentially is a reiteration to strictly enforce existing laws, to work on improving security conditions, and to address major drivers of religious extremism. At no point did this framework promise total elimination of terrorism per se. Nor did it rule out future terror strikes. Why then is there so much frustration over the government “NAPping”? A meaningful critique of NAP probably requires a better comprehension of the possible drivers of the current instability and to ask ourselves if Pakistan has a real long term counterterrorism strategy? Firstly, poor or superficial understanding of the nature of terrorism that is stalking parts of Pakistan translates into unqualified criticism. Secondly, tall claims of “gains” against terrorist networks by both the military and civilian leadership serve as the another major contributory factor of anger, because such claims raise public expectations Thirdly, the actions of the civilian law enforcement agencies against criminal syndicates and religious conglomerates running thousands of seminaries and tens of thousands of mosques across the country are tardy and unconvincing. Similarly, the construction of mosques on public property, and unchecked, toxic, and often anti-democracy speeches from the pulpit, feed the sense of helplessness and despondency. Why shouldn’t India demand access to Salahuddin? Fourth, the frustration is a direct result of the assumption that terrorist forces such as TTP and ISIS are perpetrating terrorism for a sacred...
Pakistan Taking off?
by Imtiaz Gul In recent public appearances, including in an article, the Minister for Planning, Ahsan Iqbal, has likened Pakistan to an aircraft and spelt out the basic conditions for a successful take-off: “An aircraft can land with one of its engines shut down, but it can never take off without all engines working together. If all these conditions are not met, the plane can’t take off successfully.” While underscoring the criticality of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Iqbal says that in order to realise the “dream (of development) we need to follow the rules of a successful take-off — maintaining favourable political weather, ensuring a smooth platform of consistent policies, and working together as a united, determined and focused nation”. Iqbal’s noble intentions, focus and hard work on the CPEC notwithstanding, his recipe for the take-off itself contains a caveat for important stakeholders in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) and Balochistan — a smooth platform, consistent policies and unity. Is the government really focused, united and transparent and does it have all stakeholders on board? Is it riding on a sense of shared responsibility, nationhood and identity? The K-P government, for instance, complains that out of the Rs359 billion allocated to the CPEC projects so far, not a single penny is meant for the western route. Out of this, some Rs10 billion has been “fraudulently” earmarked for “acquisition of land between Mianwali and Islamabad”. The factual position is that Islamabad is not part of the western route. Similarly, Rs265 billion have been earmarked for LNG pipelines to be built from Gwadar to Nawabshah and onwards to Havaili Bahadur Shah Jang to Baloki on GT Road near Lahore — at best, a Punjab-based project. Most energy projects, argue the critics, are located on the eastern route. Were investors from other provinces encouraged to get involved in these projects, even if they were meant for the eastern route? Were environment impact studies...
Pakistan’s Counter-Terror Conundrum
by Imtiaz Gul Executive Director CRSS Imtiaz Gul takes a look at the dilemmas faced by Pakistan in counter radical ideology and violent extremism, labels five reasons for why there is such clamor over the implementation of NAP, and suggests possible ways forward. The public outrage over yet another “security lapse” (Bacha Khan University terror attack[1]) made complete sense. It marked the fourth consecutive terror strike within a week (Khyber Agency, Quetta, Charsadda) leaving over four dozen innocents killed. These incidents of violence justifiably shocked everyone because of the considerable decline in acts of terror in 2015. Much of the fury from politicians and intellectuals was directed against the 20-point National Action Plan (NAP)[2]. Most critics equated the attack to a sheer failure of NAP. Frankly, the NAP essentially is a reiteration to strictly enforce existing laws, to work on improving security conditions and to address major drivers of religious extremism. At no point did this framework promise total elimination of terrorism per say. Nor did it rule out future terror strikes. Why then the fuss and frustration over “napping” NAP then? Gains since December 2014 On the face of it, Pakistan can claim considerable successes in its anti-terror campaign since the adoption of NAP in December 2014 after a terrorist assault on the Army Public School in Peshawar. As many as 144 children and their teachers were killed and the incident literally galvanized the entire nation, resulting in the unanimous adoption of NAP. It followed on the heels of the Operation Zarb-e-Azb, launched in June 2014 in North Waziristan after a brazen terrorist assault on the Karachi airport. This operation dislodged the Taliban and their allies from North Waziristan. A good number of them succeeded in slipping out to Afghanistan, other tribal areas and mainland Pakistan.[3] The government claims to have arrested over 11,700 terrorists, handlers and facilitators, and killed thousands...
TOP STORIES
TESTIMONIALS
“
I am also a member of National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting. Recently, we held a meeting with the Director General of Radio Pakistan and we told them to initiate such local programs (like Constituency Hour) in regional languages to educate and inform people. Even Indian Radio can be heard in FATA which is being used for propaganda purposes and must be closed. Therefore, we should launch some standard and quality programs like CRSS that will change the taste of the listeners.