Beijing is wary of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor entering volatile Afghanistan and is seeking assurances on security, which neither Kabul or Islamabad will be able to give, sources in the Indian security establishment told News18.
Afghanistan’s Taliban-appointed foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi, Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and China’s Foreign Minister Qin Gang held talks on Monday, a departure from recent years when such dialogue had been on hold, indicating China’s plans to expand its influence in the region.
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and Qin Gang also met separately at the 4th edition of the Pakistan-China Strategic Dialogue.
“In these meetings, the Chinese basically emphasise on security and how to protect Chinese projects, workers and engineers. China wants assurances on security before proceeding into Afghanistan. Neither Kabul or Islamabad can give that assurance… the situation there is bad,” a top official in the Indian security establishment told News18.
“This is the wrong time to invest in CPEC in Afghanistan. The Afghans are not interested in the CPEC corridor. The Chinese are worried about going into Afghanistan…. Chins wants to build large scale ports, roads, container depots etc in Afghanistan, but that would not be possible. The Afghans are not interested in it,” the official added.
CPEC, also known as the One Road Project, is part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a global endeavour aimed at reconstituting the ancient Silk Road and linking China to all corners of Asia.
Beijing is bankrolling the sprawling package that includes such projects as road and power plant construction and boosting agriculture production. The package is considered a lifeline for Pakistan, which is currently facing one of its worst economic crises amid stalled talks on a bailout with the International Monetary Fund.
China has been demanding more security from Pakistan for its nationals residing and working in the country since 2021, when a suicide bomber killed nine Chinese and four Pakistanis in an attack in Pakistan’s volatile northwest.
While Pakistan president Arif Alvi assured Beijing’s top diplomat that his country will boost security for all Chinese nationals, it can’t give the same assurance on behalf of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Relations between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban have featured ups and down in the past year. In February, the two sides shut the main Afghan-Pakistan border crossing at Torkham, stranding people and trucks carrying food and essential items.
Pakistan has also lately expressed concern over a surge of deadly attacks across the country by the Pakistani Taliban — an independent militant group that is allied with and sheltered by the Afghan Taliban.
Islamabad has demanded from the Taliban in Kabul that they do more to rein in anti-Pakistani groups such as the Pakistani Taliban — also known as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan or TTP — which have stepped up attacks on Pakistani security forces in recent months.
India’s Objection
India’s main objection to the $60 billion-corridor is that it passes through Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK), giving China access to the Arabian Sea through the Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan province.
“The CPEC going through PoK is a violation. We are against the CPEC because of this reason… China and Pakistan say it’s an economic project but they have used it for their own political gains,” the top security official quoted above said.
“They are objecting to G20 in Kashmir saying it’s in dispute. According to them, we can’t do a conference in Kashmir, but they can build roads and railways worth crores in PoK,” he added.
Speaking at a press conference after the SCO Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Goa on May 6, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar had said: “On the so-called China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, I think it was made very clear, not once but twice in the SCO meeting, that connectivity is good for progress, but connectivity cannot violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
With agency inputs
Read all the Latest News here
Comments
0 comment