THE KOOTNEETI

DIPLOMACY • INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

16-22 December 2019

KARTARPUR SAHIB CORRIDOR: DIPLOMACY BEYOND BORDERSEditorial by Amrita Dhillon

SNEAK PEEK OF WHAT'S INSIDE:

What you need to know about Trump's border wall GoFundMe Campaign

There comes rare moments or thoughts when two arch-rivals India and Pakistan comes on a single page. New Delhi and Is-lamabad both fear that under the disguise of friendship, it could be another diplomatic move. Since five centuries Nanak and his message to the world in form of Sikhism is said to be the soul of Punjab. After the partition and holocaust of 1947, Indian side of Punjab claims more on the heritage of Nanak, despite he was born in Pakistan and spent his last few days in Pakistan. Though he travelled through the world with his message of humanity and divinity.

The recent move by Islamabad on providing a nar-row corridor to Indian Sikh pilgrims gives a lot of thoughts to Indian policymakers. Definitely, this move by Pakistan is backed by their diplomatic mo-tives but ultimately it will cover stronghold of emo-tions and sentiments for those who go to the Indian borders to see the Kartarpur Sahib Gurudwara where Nanak spent his last days. Many leaves the place with the shores of emotions and disappointment of never being able to travel across the borders to visit.

RETH

INK

THIS WEEKINTERVIEW: SDG GOAL 14 Mr. Lluis Torrent, is the founder of International Outreach for IR, United Explanations, based in Barcelona Spain, speaks to The Kootneeti’s Associate Editor Abhinav Kaushal on various aspects on SDG Goal 14- Life Below Water. COP24 CLIMATE TALKS HAD A PEOPLE’S VOICE, BUT DID ANYONE LISTEN? By Aurelie Charles WHY U.S. PULLING OUT FORCES FROM SYRIA By Joe Macaron VISIT: FOREIGN MINISTER OF DENMARK TO INDIA What to expect from the visit of the Foreign Minister of Denmark to India for the 2nd Joint Commission Meet-ing between India and Denmark? CHINESE INFLUENCE IN CARIBBEAN By Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

Editorial Continues . . .

Why it can’t be another land swap? Indians recently witnessed the Tin Beegha corridor land swap with Bangladesh and it was a milestone achieve-ment for the people who were on both enclaves. It was easier with Bangladesh as those landmasses were less strategically important as compared to the Kartarpur, as Pakistan keeps a close eye on gaining the Sikh senti-ments across the border. It works as a diplomatic pres-sure building step by keeping the land in Pakistan and allowing a corridor under their own arrangements. Is Pakistan gaining upper hand in Diplomacy? 2019 is the year of 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev, Indian government came up with the proposal to start the Kartarpur Sahib corridor which is being proposed since 1999 when for the first time Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee raise the matter of a corridor for a visa-free visit during his historic Lahore trip. Again this was raised by In-dian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the 400th Anniversary of Prakash Utsav. However, no serious responses were seen by the Pakistani side. During the groundbreaking ceremony for the corri-dor, Pakistan’s claimed that they were the ones who had initiated the project – and were already ahead of New Delhi in implementation. However, under this claim, they forget their refusal in 2004 and 2005 to include Kartarpur Sahib on the list of shrines of the 1974 bilateral protocol on visits to religious shrines.

DIP

LOM

AC

YR

ETHIN

K

The recent gesture by Prime Minister Khan is constructive and gaining widespread applauses by various Sikh Organisations from all the cor-ners of the globe. However, beyond religions and diplomacy if we talk about the development of bi-lateral relations then surely there is a lot from both sides, India and Pakistan share a lot common in history, culture, appearance, food and what not. If the relation stretches to the individual level, it will be full of opportunities for the youths who are struggling with the high unemployment rates. Far-fetched Diplomacy This long dream of Indian pilgrimage came true when Punjab Congress leader Navjot Sid-dhu went to Pakistan and insisted Pakistan Army chief Bajwa to open the corridor. Here the question arises why he agrees and coop-erated with the government, as of the previous records when the corridor was proposed by the then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Va-jpeyi and PM Shariff was looking forward to it but the army was not on the same page. This could be possibly simplified in three points. 1. Despite all efforts, Pakistan failed to inflict a complete secessionist movement in Kash-mir or Punjab, a Chatham House report says that less than 3% Kashmiris want to join Pa-kistan, so it’s high time to use the meth-ods to win heart rather than inflicting terror. 2. After Trump administration’s change in at-titude toward Pakistan moved more close to China and Saudi and under Xi Beijing and KSA under Prince Salman is playing defensive and very carefully expanding its trade. Inflict-ing terror is not into their playbook, rather it stresses Cheque book Diplomacy or Debt Traps. 3. After several backlashes at home regarding Army’s interference in civil affairs, the army chief took this as a soft measure to create im-pact and help in building an image where both army and government stand together. Doves or Hawks? It’s an applauding move by the Pakistani Prime Minister to working with pace and within three months of their government, they held the groundbreaking ceremony for the cor-ridor. This was indeed a hand of friendship from the Pakistani doves of peace, but if they

were so clear with their intentions to promote peace then, inviting the Pro-Khalistani separatist leader Gopal Chawla in the ceremony was unexpected at the Indian side, he was also seen posing with Paki-stan Army Chief Qamar Javed Bajwa. Chawla who was previously seen in public meetings with Mumbai 26/11 attack mastermind Lashkar-e-Tayba chief Hafiz Syed who’s most wanted on the Interpol and UN list. Recent pictures were going viral from Pakistan where the government has allowed pro-Khalistani organisations to promote banners of referendum 2020 which is being fueled by the external organi-sations. People of India are positive about the PM Khan, and consider his moves as peaceful for the bilateral peace, but playing on the diplomatic end to fuel any movement which goes against the New Del-hi and above all common people interest will give Pa-kistan an image which will be very hard for any oth-er future Pakistani leadership to clean and gain trust Editor’s Note Prime Minister Imran Khan in his speech on the groundbreaking ceremony compared Kar-tarpur Sahib with holy Medina where Sikh pil-grims from India would be able to travel without any passport or Visa. It’s a move with immense hope, however, Nanak does not belong to a single community or religion, and everyone has equal rights to visit and not only a community specific. I hope someday India and Pakistan will reach to an agreement where Kartarpur Sahib will set an example of harmony between two neigh-bours and help to create more passport or vi-sa-free zones which will be open to all faiths, and promote trade, cultural and more opportuni-ty for which it was known before the partition. Amrita Dhillon is the founding editor of The Kootneeti. She’s also Honourary Analyst at Equilibrium Global and Defense Romania

INTE

RVIE

WSource: UN Global Goals

‘Life below Water’ is one of the 17 sustain-able goals set by the UN. How is the level of concern and awareness among the De-veloped and developing world?

The oceans and sea of a system are very important not only locally and regionally also globally. Let’s remind our-selves that oceans are the biggest climate regulator that we have in our planet because they absorb around 30% of CO2 produced by humans and currents are the definers of weather conditions that we suffer. For example, when there are episodes of El Niño or La Niña, the weather con-ditions change dramatically and that’s because of the cur-rents and the atmospheric flows. So oceans are not only global regulator but it is the source of bio-diversity, source of food and resources for around 3 billion people globally and it’s a source of joy of course and entertainment for many people. Unfortunately, we are putting these resourc-es under threat not only because of climate change which is increasing, acidification, changing the temperature and chemistry of oceans and those affecting the life beneath the water but also because of other sources of pollution. Let’s say hazard substances like mercury which is present all over the place and which in turn affects the humans because we end up eating larger fish which have high risk of containing hazardous substances. Also and recently there was lot of talk going on plastic pollution and there are huge campaigns now against this and in the frame-work of circular economy policies. There is a big project called Ocean Clean-up, which is the first largest attempt to clean the oceans but the challenge is that it is very chal-lenging because the plastic has turn compost into micro compost plastic and is affecting everywhere in the Medi-terranean, Caribbean, Pacific and everywhere around the world plastic is found and is affecting the microorgan-isms which are the part of the food chain. So whatever we go, we have human impacts and the last one is excessive level of consumption of resources that the ocean provides starting with fishing. We are doing excessive fishing and it is regulated well and there is a conflict because of that and those are the sources of tension between the coun-tries. So I would say that overall there is a high level of concerns and awareness on life below water. In the de-veloped world I think can see in developing world what is different is the level of resources available and the level of action that’s being implemented on these area Under the Trans boundary Waters Assess-ment Programme, 16 percent of the eco-systems are in the “high” or “highest” risk categories for coastal eutrophication. How alarming this sounds?

in regards to the second question, you talked about the coastal eutrophication. Well, it is alarming because of this 16% figure that you provided in your question but not only because of this but this figure will rise probably in future. Coastal eutrophication is a natural phenomenon but as it happened usually in our planet, is accelerated because of human pressure. I had a chance to work on specific project related to coastal eutrophication in Cook Islands, South Pacific. In Rerating and Aitutaki, eutroph-ication is a national concern because it affects tourism which is around 70% of the economy. Eutrophication is concerning because a lots of people living coastal areas and ends up affecting biodiversity because eutrophication provokes plants of algae and all those invasive species that end up affecting the whole life beneath the water and it is concerning because you can check out in internet that there are quite few projects funded by international fi-nancing institutions not only the South Pacific but also in Caribbean. In Caribbean it has been a huge issue and this is because it is affecting directly to tourism and small islands live on tourism quite a lot, so this is a concern. Eu-trophication also affects the food chain as I said before the invasive species are like plank ends up affecting the food chain too. To some extent, the food chain can be affect-ed because toxic substances can be absorbed by some of these algae. So this can end up added to food chain which in turn affects humans. So yes, it’s an alarming issue, it’s provoked by an increase in nutrients in water, and usually it is accelerated when there is not enough flow of water that brings more oxygen and flows these nutrients and dilutes the nutrients to the oceans. So when the waters are close, this eutrophication phenomenon is boosted. So it’s not a high risk, it’s already a problem in some areas and that’s why several projects are going in regards to that. UNCLOS provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of ‘The Future We Want’. How effective you think such laws are in sustainable marine ecosys-tem development? Having a global framework that merges previous maybe more fragmented separate framework is always desirable so it’s a good thing that we have a global framework be-cause on conservation and protection of oceans among all the things this combination also tackles all the issues like disputes etc. but related to protection having a glob-al treaty is very important because it sets like an inter-national order it brings rule of law so the rules are set.

The problem with the global treaties , in my opin-ion, are two: the conflict between the global meets and national interests which usually the later prevail over the first one and second is the law enforcement usually nation states are one to two in fight for their own resources and the number of resources allocated to this global enforcement which I think unfortunately sometimes is not enough to bring and assure this order but overall you can find people who are happy and people who are not so happy I overall think that this new global framework has brought some success, has improved conservation but if you check the num-bers and figures and states of the oceans you can clearly see that there are huge challenges ahead of us and pollution especially plastic pollution is still happening, climate change is happening. So it’s not just the sea law that needs to just be enforced all other laws including climate change framework need to be enforced because other-wise, they are gonna end up affecting the sea law. How you see the creation of arti-ficial islands in the South China Sea in the context of the agen-da ‘Life below Water’? National interest usually prevails over interna-tional order and I think South China Sea dis-pute is a perfect example of that. China has been claiming and disputing over rights for the use of the resources for many decades and have con-flicts with Vietnam and Philippines. These con-flicts arose quite a lot and they were also talking about potential wars and I think that the creation of the artificial islands are mainly related to terri-torial disputes. A lots of trades and ships crossed the South China Sea. So if you have the territo-ries, you have a chance to control or have a say or regulate it to your interests this flow of trade. Of course, building these islands has a controversial impacts. You know ditching such an amount of water, drenching the bottom of the sea and ocean have an impact usually localise but the construc-tion of these islands, in the end can foster all the collateral activity like increase trade, increase consumption of resources, increase fishing that are collateral effects or harmful effects of the re-gion and I think one of the main aim of China for developing and building these artificial islands.

So, in my opinion, it deal with the threat to the goal 14 of Life below water and it is something that it gonna take time to resolve as I said before it hap-pens the same with Arctic and Russia dispute over Arctic. You know when there is a trade and eco-nomic incentives are going conservation can usu-ally rank second, third or even fourth, so you know we have a global framework that in place but still national interest prevail in too many occasions.

Mr. Lluis Torrent, is the founder of Internation-al Outreach for IR, Unit-ed Explanations, based in Barcelona Spain, speaks to The Koot-neeti’s Associate Editor Abhinav Kaushal on various aspects on SDG Goal 14- Life Below Wa-ter.

PER

SPEC

TIVE

COP24 CLIMATE TALKS HAD A PEOPLE’S VOICE, BUT DID ANYONE LISTEN?

When the broadcaster and naturalist David At-tenborough launched the latest UN climate talks, COP24, he called for ordinary people to get involved, add their voice, and “take their seat”. A series of #takeyourseat videos were pub-lished, featuring people around the world dis-cussing what climate change meant for them. This was a sign of something new at this COP.

On Friday, its closing day, a Swedish school girl called Greta Thunberg called for a global cli-mate strike and urged policymakers to hear the voice of the youth. Our children will suffer the consequences of the past actions of their el-ders and their current lack of climate action. So was the “people’s voice” truly included in the climate talks, or was it still business as usual?

One way we can assess this is by looking at some of the pledges to emerge from the confer-ence. In the final days of COP24, for instance, EU members and scores of developing coun-tries pledged to toughen their existing com-mitments to cut emissions through enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The NDCs are simply the post-2020 climate ac-tions that nations intend to implement to meet the long-term goal set by the Paris Agreement. Yet, as the talks were taking place, references to human rights in the planning of NDCs were re-moved by negotiators, including US and Saudi Arabia. This is worrying for climate justice and human rights in general. And it’s particularly wor-rying for indigenous people, who have hands-on knowledge of the functioning of the natural world and who are often put in jeopardy for the benefit of private interests extracting natural resources.

One problem with the power of financial re-sources is that they give a fake sense of legitimacy to the use of scarce natural resources. Because I pay, runs the argument, I can use it, and the act of paying detaches me from the consequences of my consumption. Hence, there is an urgent need for policymakers and those involved in financ-ing climate to get rid of that sense of legitimacy.

Another element of the pledge is to bring in rapid change by broadening the “coalitions be-tween governments and non-party stakehold-ers”. But who are the stakeholders? Who ap-points them? Who are they accountable to and can we be sure they are genuinely committed

to fighting climate change? Undermining the voice of the people is a key element in the fail-ure of top-down policies to bring successful, rapid, and sustainable positive climate actions.

One way to push for more action on climate change is to empower women. And indeed, over the two weeks of COP24 meetings, we did hear the voice of women such as Joanna Sustento, a climate activist from the Philippines. Sustento lost many family members to Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, and is now fighting to hold 47 fossil fuel companies respon-sible for nearly a quarter of all greenhouse gases, accountable for deaths related to climate change. We saw at the meetings the commitments of major organisations and development banks to divest from fossil fuel. But whether it will turn into further green washing, feed-ing speculative bubbles in financial markets again depends on that sense of legitimacy.

We also heard the voice of Greta Thunberg, who created a global climate strike despite being herself at the margins of society because she is young, female and has Asperger syndrome. The elite of this world, flying high on corporate ben-efits and air miles, would do well to listen to the children that are now crying out for action, and to the little voice of the child they once were.

Liberty Vittert is a Visiting Assistant Pro-fessor in Statistics, Washington University in St Louis

US President Donald Trump’s sudden decision to withdraw US forces from Syria is a remind-er that this is not an ordinary time in Washington.

The political establishment and Congress have been forcing the president’s hand on key for-eign policy challenges, from Russia to Saudi Ara-bia, but Trump had a trick up his sleeve on Syr-ia. He has reasserted his executive power at home by effectively moving to limit US power abroad.

Now 2,000 US troops are scheduled to withdraw from northern Syria within the next 100 days, leav-ing behind much uncertainty for both allies and foes. What this tells us about the Trump administration?

There is no simple explanation for the timing and rationale of this decision. Some argue that Trump is using it as a distraction from his legal troubles in the US or that he has been influenced by his phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan last Friday. Others assert that a grand deal in Syria is in the making and the US sold out its Kurdish partners.

Speculations aside, Trump has been talking about with-drawal for a while now as he does not see any financial or strategic value in keeping US forces in Syria. Last March, the president casually announced during a rally that US forces will “be coming out of Syria, like, very soon”.

The Pentagon and the State Department then coalesced their efforts to convince the commander-in-chief that the US must stay, but in April he gave the military six months to finish the job against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS). Earlier this month, the US-backed Kurdish-led Syrian Dem-ocratic Forces (SDF) captured the town of Hajin, the last ISIL-controlled urban area. While ISIL remains a threat, Trump believes the necessary time given to the military was enough and US troops should come home.

His decision is very much an indication of how de-tached Trump has become from his national se-curity team. In the past few months, the conserv-ative wing of his administration led by National Security Adviser John Bolton and the military wing led by Defence Secretary James Mattis made dif-ferent arguments for keeping US forces in Syria.

Bolton, who has been advocating for months the idea of expanding the US mission in Syria to de-ter Iran, now has absolutely nothing to show for

WHY U.S. PULLING OUT FORCES FROM SYRIA

it. He managed to convince Trump in September to agree on an indefinite US role in Syria. However, his idea of an “Arab NATO” was expectedly not fea-sible and Saudi Arabia seems unenthusiastic about funding a long-term US presence in northern Syria.

Mattis, on the other hand, has been warning of Bol-ton’s adventurism that might risk confrontation with Iran and instead has been arguing that the US should stay in Syria to confront ISIL and push for a path to-wards conflict resolution. But he too seems to have become more isolated within the Trump adminis-tration, especially after he lost a key ally with the resignation of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria might widen the distrust between the White House and the mili-tary, which might have repercussions in other war zones like Afghanistan, where the president also believes the US withdrawal should be imminent.

The war and peace decisions are typically announced by the White House in consultations with key agen-cies and the Congress, but the way this decision was orchestrated reflects a deep division in Washington on this issue. Possible resignations from the Trump administration might be announced in the coming days, weeks and months as a result of this decision.

It is important to point out that US’ policy on Syr-ia has been failing dramatically in the past sev-en years and Trump might just have put it out of its misery. The balancing act between Turkey and the Kurds did not achieve necessarily any long-term conditions for stability in northern Syria.

Washington can neither make a deal nor confront Moscow in Syria nor does it seem invested in advanc-ing a UN-led political process. The new US envoy to Syria James Jeffrey recently added confusion to US policy by stating that the Trump administration wants change in the Syrian regime not regime change. As the White House tacitly approved President Bashar al-As-sad staying in power until the next Syrian presiden-tial election in 2021, the US plan in Syria shifted to trying to hunker down and disrupt the Russian plan.

Some US officials continue to believe that the US can play a decisive role on the situation in Syr-ia and remain in denial about the limits of US pow-er in the Middle East. There is also some wish-ful thinking that Trump might once again change his mind on Syria after listening to his advisers, but this does not seem the case this time around.

By Joe Macaron Ffellow at the Arab Center Washington DC

EAST

MID

DLE

Source: CNN

Source: MEA @Twitter

ANALYSING VISIT OF THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF DENMARK TO INDIA

DIP

LOM

AC

Y

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, An-ders Samuelsen, visited India on 17- 18 December 2018 for the 2nd Joint Commission Meeting (JCM) between India and Denmark, established pursu-ant to the agreement signed on 6 February 2008. Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and the Danish Foreign Minister co-chaired the 2nd JCM on 17 December. The Ministers reviewed the current state of bilateral relations and welcomed the progress in sectoral cooperation, through increased exchange of Ministerial and other high-level visits. The Ministers expressed satisfaction with the en-hanced bilateral ties in areas such as renewable en-ergy, environment, agriculture and food processing, urban development, science and technology and shipping. All the sectoral Joint Working Groups that had been set up since the 1st JCM have met during this year. Both sides also agreed to set up a JWG on digitization for mutually beneficial cooperation. The Ministers recognized the scope for expand-ing trade and investments, facilitation of busi-ness-to-business contacts, and intensification of trade promotion and ease-of-doing-business activities. The Ministers discussed regional and multilateral issues. They agreed on the need for reforming the UN in order to reflect contemporary realities. India and Denmark also look forward to working together for addressing such global issues as climate change and the UN SDGs.

The Ministers agreed on increasing the intensity of our bilateral engagement. Both sides agreed to con-duct biennial meetings of the Joint Commission at the level of Foreign Ministers. In the interven-ing years, India and Denmark will conduct bilat-eral political consultations at Senior Officials level. A Protocol on Consultations between the Foreign Ministers of India and Denmark was signed and a MoU between National Institute of Wind Energy and Denmark Technical University was also exchanged.

IND

IAN

Source: MEA @Twitter

The question that may be asked of the future is whether China’s loans to countries in the Caribbean might lead to a debt-crisis with infrastruc-ture being handed over to China as countries are unable to service their debts. Already the experience of Sri Lanka is being held up as a warning to the region but the lure of Chinese money seems almost irresistible to the region’s elites and as such, the risk of a “debt-trap” is very real. – Dr Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

In June 2013, during the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Trinidad and Tobago, the then Prime Min-ister of the Caribbean nation, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, in a fawning speech, had lauded President Xi’s vision saying, “We see in your China Dream a splendid op-portunity for China to become a model for the world.”

Like royalty holding court, President Xi thereafter hosted the leaders of Antigua and Barbuda, Barba-dos, the Bahamas,Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Suri-name and Jamaica in Port of Spain, capital of Trini-dad and Tobago, where he announced soft loans and investments worth US$ 3billion as well as grants of up to $8 million for the region. President Xi’s vis-it was an effective and a graphic demonstration of China’s growing influence and outreach in the Eng-lish-speaking Caribbean region, coming at a time when the United States (US) had been somewhat less forthcoming with financial grants for the region.

Investment Outreach and the Taiwan Factor

In the past, China had used financial enticements to lure Caribbean nations away from Taiwan which has a long history of extending financial assistance to the region – of the 23 countries to keep formal diplomatic ties with Taipei, six are in the Caribbean: Belize, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, St. Lucia, St. Kitts & Nevis, and St. Vincent. However,China’s intensified outreach to the region seems independent of the “Taiwan factor” and also perfectly timed, as a combination of economic contraction and electoral compulsions have made re-gional governments desperate for the economic lifeline that the Chinese loans and grants might provide in lieu of having to make cuts in social schemes that are waste-ful and of dubious efficacy but politically useful. The declining economic fortunes of the region have made governments grateful for the additional investment

OPI

NIO

N

afforded by China, as the region has for years reeled under the impact of falling commodity prices,crippling government debt and endemic crime and corruption. Political Compulsions Furthermore, the political compulsion of showcasing visible projects for maximising electoral gains has ren-dered the region peculiarly susceptible to the allure of Chinese fiscal blandishments. A telling example was a May 2018 decision to build a dry dock in Trinidad with Chinese assistance. This was pitched by Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley as having the potential to create “5000 jobs” in politically sensitive area. However,no tender was floated nor was any feasibility study undertaken which may makethe project economically unviable

However, as elections are due in Trinidad in 2020, the need to have a major project to show as an achieve-ment is tempting. An earlier Trinidadian govern-ment, under the late Patrick Manning, too had projected the visually impressive Chinese-built Na-tional Academy for the Performing Arts (NAPA) as a crowning achievement. Similarly, while the Baha-mas pointed to the multi-billion dollar Chinese in-vestment in the Baha Mar resort, Jamaica sought to benefit from the $300 million loan promised by China for the rehabilitation of its roads and bridges. A Price to Pay

However, Chinese financial largesse has not come with-out its price as China insists on using its own contrac-tors and labourers, bringing few employment benefits to the recipient nation. In fact, as early as 2009, Zhao Zhihai, a researcher with the Zhangjiakou Academy ofAgricultural Sciences in Heibei Province near Beijing, had suggested before the National People’s Congress that sending Chinese labourers to Africa would create about 100 million more jobs and solve the problem of Chinese unemployment. The impact on the chronic unemployment and underemployment plaguing Afri-ca did not seem to attract any attention in his discourse. Furthermore, since Chinese labourers, whether legally or otherwise, have the propensity to stay on in the re-gion, it could cause potential demographic shift among the small population of the islands of the region where

even small numbers could have a significant impact.

Poor Quality Control

In addition, the quality of Chinese construction has left something to be desired for as serious structural flaws have resulted in the closure of NAPA for more than a year with substantial costs to be incurred in its repair. Trinidad also experienced the ignominy of having to demolish an apartment complex built by China Jiangsu International Corporation as it was deemed unsafe for habitation. Even in the Bahamas, the“Chinese Dream” became something of a nightmare as the vaunted Baha Mar resort, reputedly costing $3.5 billion, has failed to open, with China Construction America (CCA) missing deadlines and facing numerous allegations of shoddy workmanship and poor construction quality.

Little Recourse

An added complication is that with China’s Exim Bank having financed the deal, it has become virtually im-possible to fire the Chinese contractors for sub-stand-ard work. Given the strings attached to the Chinese financing, the benefit that the region seeks to derive from Chinese construction projects is therefore very questionable. Moreover, given the relative negotiating strength of the parties, it is evident that the Caribbe-an nations lack the means to leverage better contrac-tual terms with the Chinese, the inevitable result be-ing that construction contracts are skewed in favour of the Chinese contractors. China’s willingness to subvert tendering processes as well as to avoid com-petitive bidding, preferring to rely on its influence among the business and political elites of the region.

*Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj was a Visiting Fellow at IDSA. He is an independent de-fense analyst and attorney-at-law based in Trinidad and Tobago.

Courting the Elite with no Transparency

China’s push for influence among the Caribbean po-litical elite has been replicated with an equally deter-mined effort to court the military and the bureau-cratic elite in the region, often deftly stepping in to take advantage of senseless overreactions on the part of the US such as the suspension of military aid to Barbados after it refused to sign a Bilateral Immuni-ty Agreement (BIA), which in turn led Barbados to avail itself of China’s offer of military training and as-sistance. The end result is that China’s military train-ing establishments now annually host a substantial number of officers from the region with an attendant increase in influence over their military leadership.

Lavish trips to China are offered to bureaucrats, poli-ticians and functionaries ostensibly to study Chinese methods while governments are actively courted by a highly effective combination of Chinese influence ped-dlers, a capable Chinese diplomatic corps and a deter-mined effort on the part of the Chinese leadership to court the media. The result has been an overwhelm-ingly pro-China viewpoint on the part of the civil and military elites of many countries in the region.

The American Reaction

Rather surprisingly, the US does not seem to be reacting aggressively to China’s creeping influ-ence in the Caribbean region. At first glance, this might seem to be the case of complacency at work, but a more nuanced assessment indicates that the US still enjoys potentially much greater influence than its current “hands-off ” approach suggests.

All countries of the English-speaking Caribbean region rely heavily on the US for their economic well-being – whether in the form of tourist arrivals, or, as in the case of Trinidad & Tobago, as a market for gas exports. In addition, the US continues to provide considerable as-sistance and support in the ongoing fight against drug trafficking as well as in judicial and law-enforcement in the region. Nonetheless, in the absence of financial lar-gesse, the US is no longer seen as a favourite ally by the region’s elite. For now, it is into this fiscal vacuum that China has stepped in, and as expected, quite effectively.

Source: Project Syndicate

OPI

NIO

N

Replacing the US?

Compared to the US, which has been wary of providing large-scale bilateral financial support due to endem-ic corruption in the Caribbean nations, the Chinese appear less concerned about such issues, thus further enhancing their prospects among the governing elites of the region where lack of transparency enables po-tentially shadowy deals between them to flourish.

In contrast, the US prefers to conduct its econom-ic assistance programs through such agencies as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the In-ternational Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), all of whom have some veneer of mon-itoring the use of funds, in contrast to the Chinese who seem to be unconcerned with issues regard-ing either the misuse or misappropriation of funds.

What is yet unclear is the motive behind China’s out-reach to the English-speaking Caribbean region. As a market, the islands of the Caribbean, with their tiny populations, do not offer much by way of a market for Chinese goods and services. Similarly, the resources of the region, oil and gas in Trinidad and bauxite in Ja-maica, are too small and limited to offer much by way of economic incentives for the Chinese. China’s sig-nificant economic and political engagement in Latin America suggests that it does not look at the Caribbe-an as a gateway to that region. Rather, it can be cogent-ly argued that the Chinese have been building their economic clout through “Chequebook Diplomacy” in various regions and that Caribbean is no exception.

The question that may be asked of the future is wheth-er China’s loans to countries in the Caribbean might lead to a debt-crisis with infrastructure being handed over to China as countries are unable to service their debts. Already the experience of Sri Lanka is being held up as a warning to the region but the lure of Chi-nese money seems almost irresistible to the region’s elites and as such, the risk of a “debt-trap” is very real.

Several crowdfunding campaigns have popped up to collect money for the wall directly from Trump supporters on-line, with the purported intent of pass-ing that money to the White House or the Department of Homeland Security. The most successful one, a GoFund-Me started by an Iraq War veteran has raised more than $14 million. It aims to raise at least $1 billion.

Whether or not raising money directly from Trump supporters can fund the en-tire wall misses the point, though. The goals of politically motivated crowd-funding go beyond practicality. Access to funding is access to power in Ameri-ca, and as that access becomes increas-ingly unequal, demonstrating an idea’s popularity via visible, public fund-rais-ing can be a tool of consolidating that power.

END NOTE

ABHINAV KAUSHAL ASSOCIATE EDITOR

TEA

MMELANIE ROMARO ASSOCIATE EDITOR

AAKASH NEWSLETTER DESIGN

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Kootneeti Team