I-CAN Issues||Exploring the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor by Santhosh Rao UPSC

[@Praveenaspassion]

• Italy was planning to leave China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Italy had joined the BRI at a time it was desperate for investment and infrastructure building, having survived three recessions in 10 years. Its government at the time did not share warm relations with the EU, and was happy to turn to China for the funds it could pump in. Four years later, the agreement hasn’t done much for Italy.

[@sklux6147]

There are two aspects to the propsed IMEC corridor. Cost of building and the cost advantage after the corridor becomes operative. The two countries involved in this, UAE and Saudi, are not going to be the major beneficiaries. That leaves Jordan, Israel and Greece all of which have limited scope to exploit this more than the rent earning potential of this project which will be due only after the corridor becomes operative. That leaves European partners. They will not have overwhelming advantage after balancing out time gain advantage over cost disadvantage. Economic corridors connecting Asia with Europe are not always attractive cost advantage wise. This may be true particularly in the case of India - ME - Europe corridor. Here the adage - Time is Money - doesn't justify so much because delivery over this route is going to be not cost effective under present terms. For China the opposite may be true. Corridor is not just about transportation of goods. It is about connectivity which means ability to channel movements of goods as well as energy and communication lines. It is also about strategic derisking by means of creating alternatives. It can also be the means of facilitating the integration of chain of economies which are not very involved in trade etc due to historical and political reasons. Chances of success for any given corridor will be more based on solving the risk perceptions and on opportunities for aligning trade and strategic interests that it will create for countries rather than cost and time considerations alone. Routes traversing through multiple countries mean encountering not only varied geographies but also politics, geopolitics etc which is minimal for maritime trade routes. The competing economic corridors involving rival countries and opposing strategic intiatives will face road blocks. The emerging world order is not going to consolidate any sooner and it might take atleast a decade. Usually change of world order requires some kind of a major war between the countries that is not happening in the present day nuclear deterent regime. In the current assessment the urgency for the newly proposed corridor is not overwhelming. It is more about creating distraction for China's BRI. The key differentiator between IMEC and BRI is going to be the strategic one in that BRI is a China lead initiative with China centered as the beneficiary while IMEC is US lead initiative in which the direct beneficiaries are the participating nations and US is the strategic guarantor of the project. Interesting days ahead. Good time to speculate. 😴 Satyamev Jayate! 🪷 Jai Hind!! 🫡

[@parvathi9977]

Sir please provide pdf of your lectures

[@Insights_IAS]

It will updated during weekend so please refresh the link on Sunday night

[@parvathi9977]

@@Insights_IAS thank you sir

[@kavyagovindaraju]

PGII is a initiative of G7 group

[@nilofarkothari84]

Italy leaving BRI and join IMEEC

[@narennarendra5798]

NEITHER 1 NOR 2