What's new

First shipment along new China-Myanmar corridor makes it to Chengdu

CMEC is a competitor and great threat to Pakistan's CPEC.

China and maybe the whole East Asia need more than one, or two corridors. So not a problem. In fact, the dual options make either corridor less likely a target for terrorist attack or 'bombardment' by a foreign country if the idea were to disrupt China.
 
CMEC is a competitor and great threat to Pakistan's CPEC.
The BRI has six main economic corridors:
(1) the New Eurasian Land Bridge;​
(2) the China-Central Asia-West Asia Corridor;​
(3) the China-Pakistan Corridor;​
(4) the Bangladesh-China- Myanmar Corridor;​
(5) the China-Mongolia-Russia Corridor;​
(6) the China-Indochina Peninsula Corridor.​

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/futu...inners-and-losers-along-chinas-belt-and-road/

BRI_6_corridors_pop-crop-c0-5__0-5-1340x828-70.jpg

Most Pakistanis believe they are special because of CPEC.
 
China and maybe the whole East Asia need more than one, or two corridors. So not a problem. In fact, the dual options make either corridor less likely a target for terrorist attack or 'bombardment' by a foreign country if the idea were to disrupt China.

Yes. It is great from Chinese POV to have a backup or a redundant route but from Pakistan's POV this is not good.
The BRI has six main economic corridors:
(1) the New Eurasian Land Bridge;​
(2) the China-Central Asia-West Asia Corridor;​
(3) the China-Pakistan Corridor;​
(4) the Bangladesh-China- Myanmar Corridor;​
(5) the China-Mongolia-Russia Corridor;​
(6) the China-Indochina Peninsula Corridor.​

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/futu...inners-and-losers-along-chinas-belt-and-road/


Most Pakistanis believe they are special because of CPEC.

Yes. BRI has many routes to EU but CMEC is a direct competitor to CPEC.
 
Yes. It is great from Chinese POV to have a backup or a redundant route but from Pakistan's POV this is not good.


Yes. BRI has many routes to EU but CMEC is a direct competitor to CPEC.

No. You didn't read my sentence. The dual corridors actually make either less likely a target of the terrorists. Imagine the works and the lives (terrorists') needed to disrupt 'one' corridor but then, hey, it's not going to damage China much. So that'd guarantee another level of safety to either corridor. Stability and safety are valuable assets -- if you know trades.
 
No. You didn't read my sentence. The dual corridors actually make either less likely a target of the terrorists. Imagine the works and the lives (terrorists') needed to disrupt 'one' corridor but then, hey, it's not going to damage China much. So that'd guarantee another level of safety to either corridor. Stability and safety are valuable assets -- if you know trades.

I perfectly understand what you are saying. Hence I said it makes sense for Chinese but from Pakistan's perspective this is not good.

It would have been great for Pakistan, If the redundant route were to go through Pakistan too like Eastern and Western route instead of having a competing route in CMEC.

Now China can completely ditch Pakistan and continue to use CMEC instead which is not desirable.
 
I perfectly understand what you are saying. Hence I said it makes sense for Chinese but from Pakistan's perspective this is not good.

It would have been great for Pakistan, If the redundant route were to go through Pakistan too like Eastern and Western route instead of having a competing route in CMEC.

Now China can completely ditch Pakistan and continue to use CMEC instead which is not desirable.

I do not agree. Trades from China and East Asia's will need more than CPEC can handle. You're talking about adding another garden hose size outlet to release water from a dam. China still needs its sea routes and land routes through Russia.
 
Back
Top Bottom