The United States and India, with the support of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Jordan, have announced the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) as an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This project aims to create a commercial route from India to Europe via the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, and the Mediterranean Sea. However, claims that IMEC will undermine BRI are misleading for several reasons.
Firstly, not all participants in IMEC see it as a zero-sum game or direct competition with China. Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan are part of BRI themselves and are seeking to diversify their economies by attracting investment. They view the project as a way to consolidate their wealth and become key trade hubs, rather than as a containment strategy against China.
Moreover, parts of the proposed IMEC route are co-opted from BRI itself. For example, the Haifa Port in Israel, previously under Chinese control, and the Piraeus Port in Athens, controlled by a Chinese shipping company, were both included in the project. This means that China can still benefit from multiple parts of the transport route, undermining the notion that IMEC will significantly undercut Beijing.
Additionally, the history of failed alternatives to BRI suggests that IMEC may suffer the same fate. The US and its allies have launched various initiatives, such as Build Back Better W (B3W) and the Global Partnership for Infrastructure Investment, but lack the coordinated hierarchical structure and financial resources of China’s state-led approach. China’s ability to coordinate funding, construction, and supply chains allows for rapid implementation, while the US is limited by political battles over non-military spending, resulting in underdeveloped infrastructure compared to China.
Finally, the scale of IMEC is much smaller compared to BRI. While IMEC looks to connect the Middle East to the Indian subcontinent, BRI aims to create multiple economic corridors worldwide. This includes connecting Eurasia through extensive railways, establishing new routes through Pakistan, connecting Southeast Asia through railroads in Laos and Thailand, and spanning West Asia through Turkey. The scope and ambition of BRI far surpasses the goals of IMEC.
In conclusion, the US has repeatedly attempted to rival BRI but has failed to produce a comparable project. Transcontinental infrastructure routes are not zero-sum games, as they benefit all participants. China’s BRI has always been focused on creating mutually beneficial outcomes, and each new alternative project merely provides additional routes for Chinese cargo in the meantime. Despite the hype around IMEC, it is unlikely to pose a significant challenge to the scale and vision of BRI.
Source link
