CPEC & BRI and attacks on national narratives | By Dr Mehmood Ul Hassan Khan


CPEC & BRI and attacks on national narratives

DIVERGENT forces of development and destruction, cooperation and conspiracy, harmony and horror, prosperity and propaganda, dialogue and debris and last but not least, consensus and unilateralism have clashed for so long. years

The Chinese concept of shared prosperity and the hegemonic orientation of the United States and the West have strived to form specific national narratives around the world.

It gained momentum after the launch of the Century Projects, namely One Belt & One Road and CPEC by China.

More recently, a series of articles, commentaries and information against the BIS and CPEC have been published inside and outside the country. Once again, the global soul merchants poured out a lot of funds to pollute the importance of BRI & CPEC in the country.

Pseudo-intellectuals have written numerous anti-BRI and CPEC articles even in the country. India, the United States and even other countries in the region have published a series of anti-CPEC articles calling it a debt trap, hidden debts and the rise of so-called Chinese imperialism with economic domination. , etc.

On the other hand, more recently, President Xi Jinping drew up a new roadmap for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which consisted of its total transformation through high-level, sustainable and beneficial measures. for public welfare and support. developing countries to go green and low carbon in their energy sectors. Addressing the third BRI development symposium in Beijing, he assured that China will consolidate the basis of BRI cooperation on interconnectivity and create new opportunities for international cooperation. President XI underlined the importance of striving to achieve a higher level of cooperation, greater efficiency of investments, better quality of supply and greater resilience in the growth of the initiative.

Xi rightly pointed out that the international environment of the BRI has become increasingly complex due to the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial revolution resulting in unprecedented fierce competition, and climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic exerting unprecedented influence on humanity.

Conversely, the US research institute “AidData” recently published a report claiming that an average year during the BRI era was in which China spent $ 85 billion on development programs. abroad, causing a significant increase in “hidden debt” in low- and middle-income countries.

The report also listed a series of other problems which it said were caused by the BRI, such as “violation of labor rights” and “environmental problems”.

Critical analysis of this widely disseminated and widely disseminated report reveals that it is full of human / technical / professional errors, distortions, confused concepts, misinterpretations, self-defined economic theories, self-accounting parameters. -inserted, false self-assumptions and intentional deviations from the basic concept of research methodologies and professional neutrality.

The said report intentionally classified a major component based on unofficial funds such as business investment and finance and non-profit activities within the scope of China’s foreign aid, and it exaggerated the proportion relevant data. In addition, the said report considers commercial loans granted by state-owned commercial banks as public expenditure.

Ironically, this includes military cooperation such as China’s provision of funds for United Nations peacekeeping operations, as well as foreign investment from private companies such as Huawei, as part of official development finance. It is full of serious biases that are not based on official Chinese channels and data sources.

Chinese loans are not rich country specific to so-called grabbing resources, but the reality is that most of China’s foreign aid goes to least developed countries, and many BIS recipient countries are resource-poor economies.

The report intentionally correlated the sanction and the flow of Chinese funds to countries with serious corruption problems listed by the Global Governance Index and accusing them of supporting corruption.

On the one hand, the point is that China’s BRI cooperation consists of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits with full openness and transparency with zero tolerance for corruption.

In addition, Chinese investments have never set conditions for its international cooperation and it is based solely on the will and needs of the parties concerned.

In this context, project aid and material aid have been the two main tools of China to help developing countries mainly with the aim of avoiding the possibility of corrupt behavior.

On the contrary, Western countries are controlled by elites in recipient countries, which not only increases economic and social inequalities in recipient countries, but also breeds corruption.

Since its inception, the BRI framework has been productive, efficient and development-oriented. China has always insisted on the guiding principle of South-South cooperation.

China’s development finance to other developing countries not only helps them solve long-term financial difficulties, but also provides public products for local development.

China provides commercial loans at relatively low interest rates that often last 20 years or more. The United States has never supported the public good in developing countries.

It propagates proposals in terms of “debt traps”, “plundering resources” and “pollution”, simply attempts to slander China’s cooperation with other countries, and tries to damage China’s international reputation. China, to hamper China’s cooperation with other countries in order to maintain the hegemony of the United States.

In conclusion, AidData’s methodology intentionally includes the full value of a Chinese loan to a joint venture investment as “under-reported debt” of the host government, contrary to World Bank guidelines.

About US $ 153 billion has been loaned to Joint Ventures (JVs) and Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), limited liability companies created for specific projects.

Some of these are majority owned by host governments, but in several important cases they are controlled by private ExxonMobil companies, for example with modest participation from host governments.

The World Bank does not classify these latter loans as public debt. AidData intentionally introduced two separate concepts into this report.

“Under-reported” loans refer to loans that are not reported to the World Bank’s debtor reporting system, the source of IDS data. Most of the takeaways from the report refer to these “underreported” loans.

The second, “hidden” loans refers to the set of loans granted to host country public enterprises, public banks and SPVs with some degree of host government ownership but without government guarantees.

The tug-of-war has now turned into a fierce debate over national narratives on the world stage. Chinese communism with socialist characteristics has gradually erased the economic domination of capitalism thanks to the vision of shared prosperity of Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Prime Minister Imran Khan has previously tied Pakistan’s socio-economic prosperity to CPEC.

Thus, the national media should fight American and Western propaganda to save strategic assets like the CPEC. Since the creation of the BRI in 2013, more than 200 cooperation agreements have been signed with 172 countries and international organizations.

This resulted in $ 9.2 trillion in cumulative trade and $ 130 billion in Chinese foreign direct investment in the BRI.

So the US Research Institute’s AidData report is fabricated, bogus, fake, and fictional that has no substance but all fairy tales.

Previous Egypt's COMESA Presidency aims for regional integration and the use of AfCFTA: Sisi - Foreign Affairs - Egypt
Next No downside to New Zealand deal, says Commerce secretary