http://www.dw.com/en/new-silk-road-and-chinas-hegemonic-ambitions/a-38843212
Likewise, The Economist gives their view on OBOR, and they clearly don't like it either:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/05/economist-explains-11
Chinese businessmen in central Asia call it “One Road, One Trap”
So EU/Germany is very wary of OBOR - that may explain why NYT is using phrases like "Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir" while critiquing the OBOR project, since NYT's stances always reliably align with EU's interests - and same goes for The Economist. Germany didn't plow all that money/effort into building EU, just to have China swallow it all into its larger fold. That would reduce Germany's relative local economic pre-eminence, and make it play second-fiddle to the Chinese Far Emperor. How can Brussels be a centre of power, if the real power lies in Beijing - who would take them seriously? Why would any junior members want to put up with tolerating EU's onerous restrictions, if big Emperor China is offering a bigger party?
Western-sanctioned Russia of course would be happy at OBOR's long-term effect of diminishing and even sidelining Western power (particularly American power), even though OBOR would be more China-centric than the ShanghaiFive Cooperation Organization, which previously had Moscow and Beijing as co-equal founders.
Not sure why Trump has now suddenly flipflopped to be sending a US delegation to the OBOR Summit (maybe he really is appeasing Russian interests?) The inherent national interest of the US would be to avoid allowing itself to be marginalized by OBOR, and see its power diminished and overtaken by China. Coupled with EU's misgivings about OBOR, then India should not have to be alone in opposing OBOR and its initial CPEC keystone. It should also create the conditions for everyone to become much more interested in the Balochistan issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment