Mar 292017
 

This refers to the article, ‘Opposition to CPEC’ (Mar 28) by Abdul Sattar. The writer has tried to absolve China of all criticism regarding CPEC.        However, his inferences and examples are weak.   For     example, his point pertaining to taking land from the native Indian tribes in the US in 1830 will not find any moral support in the case of acquiring land for CPEC projects today.    Similarly, the sale of large tracks of land – which would have been justified in 19th century when land was easily available – does not justify the acquisition of agricultural land in thickly populated areas for CPEC projects.  The writer has also mentioned that China is pumping $960 billion into the ‘One Belt One Road’ project and there is no complaint of exploitation.    There is no complaint centre to find out if there is any complaint against Chinese investments. The fact that China has huge foreign trade surpluses is enough to prove that Chinese trade is not balanced.  But the more important thing to note is that the GNP of the investor is increasing while that of the debtor is moving at a snail’s pace.          This is the case of exploitative investments.                      

Unfortunately, none of the projects included in CPEC were selected by an analysis or systematic study. There were no economic feasibility studies, proper cost-benefit analysis or competitive bidding. The concept of an economic corridor is not ours. It will only leave us with unnecessary infrastructure and heavy debt repayments.                  

Abdul Majeed

Islamabad

Click for detailed story

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

*

Get Adobe Flash player