India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor v/s Belt Road Initiative

1. Preface
The global order is undergoing a profound transformation, and the battle lines of this shift are being drawn
in the economic arena. As major powers jockey for dominance in the new world order, the spotlight is firmly
fixed on the evolving economic landscape. Recent gatherings of the BRICS and G20, which bring together
nations like Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, have set the stage for this economic competition.
An important development that emerged from the G-20 Summit in India is the announcement of the India-
Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, or IMEC, a project that holds the potential to rival China’s ambitious
Belt and Road Initiative.
The IMEC project, introduced jointly by leaders from the United States, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates, France, Germany, Italy, and the European Union, aims to establish a vast railway and port network
connecting India to the Middle East and the Middle East to Europe. This initiative holds great promise for
economic development by expanding trade connections across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. IMEC
consists of two main corridors: the Eastern Corridor, linking India to the Middle East, and the Northern
Corridor, connecting the Middle East to Europe. Spanning three continents and interconnected by rail, road,
and sea routes, IMEC’s primary objectives include securing regional supply chains, reducing costs, and
fostering extensive integration among the three regions. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the India-
Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) are two ambitious infrastructure and economic development
projects that have garnered significant attention on the global stage. While BRI, initiated by China in 2013, is
already in motion, IMEC is currently in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) stage. In this essay, we
will compare these two initiatives based on several key factors, including their scale, geographical coverage,
transportation modes, directionality, and the scope of the projects involved. (HEComnomist)

2. What is IMEC?
IMEC—an initiative of US allied countries aiming to connect Asia with
Europe through gulf countries, was made public on the eve of the G-20
Summit held in India this year.

 The IMEC is being envisioned as a network of transport corridors, including railway lines and sea lanes.
The IMEC comprises an Eastern Corridor connecting India to the Gulf region and a Northern Corridor
connecting the Gulf region to Europe. It will include a railway and ship-rail transit network and road
transport routes that is expected to aid economic growth through integration between Asia, the Arabian
Gulf, and Europe.
 Aim: The arrangement will include a railway route that, upon completion, will provide a reliable and
cost-effective cross-border ship-to-rail transit network to supplement existing maritime and road
transport routes.
 This will enable goods and services to transit to, from, and between India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan,
Israel, and Europe.
 The project is a part of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment (PGII)

3. India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor at G20

Several nations, including India, the US, Saudi Arabia, the European Union, the United Arab Emirates, France,
Germany, and Italy, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to build the India-Middle East-European
Economic Corridor (IMEC) on the sidelines of the G20 Summit 2023 in New Delhi. Concerns about

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 1 of 12

 unsustainable debt and the geopolitical ramifications of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects led to
the decision.

4. India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor Member

Countries
Other participants besides India will be Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France, Germany, Italy, the
United States, and the European Union.

5. India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor Map

The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) will be comprised of two separate corridors:
 The east corridor connecting India to the Arabian Gulf and
 The northern corridor connecting the Arabian Gulf to Europe

6. How will IMEC function?

The IMEC project faces formidable challenges, particularly in constructing a railway network across challenging
terrains like the Balkans and Gulf deserts. The project’s financing remains uncertain, with the U.S. presenting it
as “Rebuild a better world” at the G7 Summit. Nevertheless, it might encounter delays akin to the EU’s “The
Global Gateway” announced in 2021.
Maps of the corridor indicate Greece’s Piraeus Port as the entry point to Europe, although official confirmation
is pending. Intriguingly, 67% of Piraeus Port is owned by the Chinese company COSCO, suggesting that the
transfer point might shift to Italy rather than Greece. Italy’s efforts to entice China to withdraw from the Belt
and Road Initiative might be linked to this development. If Greece is included in the route, other options like
Kavala, Volos, and Dedeağaç could also be considered.

7. IMEC Significance
This corridor will protect local supply chains, improve trade accessibility, and allow for a greater focus on the effects
on the environment, society, and government. It will be created to boost economic cohesiveness, cut greenhouse gas
emissions, create jobs, and increase efficiency, resulting in a dramatic integration of Asia, Europe, and the Middle
East.

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 2 of 12

 By bridging a dangerous global gap, the corridor “enables greater prosperity and better connectivity for key regions
around the world.” The initiative will give the participating nations the chance to play a significant part in the “global
connective tissue of commerce, digital communications, and energy.”
A railway route will be a part of the arrangement, and once it is finished, it will offer a cross-border ship-to-rail transit
network that is dependable and affordable to add to the current maritime and road transport networks. The
movement of products and services to, from, and between India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and Europe
will be made possible by this. The members plan to install a cable for digital connectivity and energy together with a
pipe for clean hydrogen export along the train track.
I. ‘A big deal’
Still, even as the details about the IMEC are not yet available, the initiative is certainly “a big deal” in that it
is set to be a geopolitical move to limit China’s growing footprint both in Europe and in West Asia, albeit in
smaller scale and presumably with far less funding. The imperatives laid out in the MoU and Beijing’s
expanding footprint in the Middle East clearly indicate that the new corridor is poised to be a competitive
narrative to the BRI.
Beyond this, if completed successfully, the eastern rail corridor connecting India to the Arabian Gulf and the
northern shipping corridor connecting the Gulf to Europe will energize inter-regional economic integration
and stimulate economic development. It also aims to help facilitate clean energy (hydrogen) exports;
improve digital connectivity, as well as access to electricity; and strengthen food security and supply chains,
among other developmental objectives. Hence, as a major medium of economic integration between the
three subcontinents, the IMEC is set to become a “green and digital bridge across continents.”
(Prospects & Perspectives)
II. Sustainability of IMEC
Nonetheless, it is an ambitious initiative that risks getting fizzled due to lack of finances or improper planning.
The worst-case scenario would be the IMEC reflecting the fate of the India-Japan-led Asia-Africa Growth
Corridor, which at the time created similar buzz as a game-changing project expected to slow the Chinese
wheels in Africa but did not reach its potential largely due to lackadaisical implementation efforts and not
deep-enough pockets. Moreover, the failure to implement methodological execution and serious policy
coordination could lead to the IMEC getting lost among the several projects backed by the US to counter
China’s BRI — the Blue Dot Network and the G7’s Build Back Better world (B3W, launched in 2021) to name
a few.
Importantly, with the slowdown in global economy, particularly with Europe facing the downturn due to the
protracted Ukraine war and the ensuing economic shocks and the U.S. constrained due to abundant such
priorities amid President Joe Biden’s mounting domestic troubles, the financial aspect will meet more
scrutiny. In essence, the IMEC is an optimistic and timely grand design, which if duly planned and coordinated
on its own merit — rather than constantly weighed through the competing lens of China’s BRI — could
potentially live up to its promises. (Prospects & Perspectives)
8. THE GEOSTRATEGIC SIGNIFICANCE OF IMEC
IMEC emerges as a pivotal geoeconomic and geostrategic project, with India and Saudi Arabia at its core. This initiative
guarantees India’s energy supply, especially in the Middle East, solidifying India’s position as a major player alongside
the USA and China. India has ties with groups like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where China and
Russia wield significant influence. However, the long-term sustainability of this initiative remains uncertain, and India’s
role as a bridge between these global poles could inadvertently reinforce bipolarity rather than multipolarity.
 Saudi Arabia and the UAE, also part of this initiative, seem to be seeking ways to mitigate the potential fallout
from a new Cold War. Diplomatic efforts and complex economic projects aim to minimize long-term damage.
While some Chinese experts dismiss the U.S. corridor plan as « talk without much substance », they perceive
it as a clear countermove against China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 3 of 12

  The primary objective of the USA in this initiative is to isolate China from the Middle East. The Belt and Road
Initiative is a massive project aimed at connecting Asia with Europe and Africa, tracing ancient Silk Road
routes. Over the past decade, the initiative’s total investment has approached $1 trillion, significantly
contributing to global economic growth. Data from the World Bank reveals that China’s trade volume with
Belt and Road countries reached $9.2 trillion between 2013 and 2020, with direct Chinese investments
around $140 billion.
 The IMEC project, however, requires substantial resources, enforcement capabilities, and a complex
institutional mechanism, and it remains uncertain to what extent these will be available and effectively put
into action. Additionally, recent events in Israel and Palestine further complicate the future of this initiative.
In conclusion, it’s evident that IMEC represents a response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The world teeters on
the brink of a new Cold War, with the ongoing rivalry between the USA and China shaping global politics and
international cooperation. On one side, it pushes for a bipolar alignment, while on the other, it paves the way for a
non-aligned stance, led by India. As IMEC unfolds, it will be a pivotal player in this evolving global landscape,
influencing the future direction of the international economy and geopolitics. (HEComnomist)
9. Prospects of the India-Middle East-Europe-Economic
Corridor (IMEC)
Introduction: The India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor (IMEC) is a transformative infrastructure project that
seeks to connect the Indian subcontinent with Europe via the Middle East, creating a seamless trade route. It has
bright prospects of success for the following reasons:

i) Rebranding of Existing Route:

With 70% of the corridor comprising sea lanes, IMEC is 90% already complete or operational,
significantly reducing the need for extensive terrestrial infrastructure. The European leg of the
corridor is already well connected with the railroad network, further facilitating transportation. The
primary infrastructure requirement remaining is in Saudi Arabia, where the Chinese, known for their
rapid infrastructure development, could play a pivotal role. Completing this segment within five years
is an ambitious yet achievable goal, given China’s track record.

ii) Financial Viability and the Wealth of Participating Countries:

IMEC’s unique advantage lies in the fact that, compared to BRI, it is a small project that passes through
wealthy countries and is a project of the “Rich Men’s Club.” The participating nations, including India,
the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, and European nations, have the financial capacity to fund
and support the corridor’s development. This minimizes the financial burden on any single nation and
ensures a shared investment in the project’s success.

iii) Fear of Chinese Dominance:

The rise of China has spurred concerns among many nations involved in IMEC, driving them to take
the project seriously and expedite its early completion. The corridor tries to provide an alternative
trade route that could reduce dependence on China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and offer greater
strategic autonomy. This fear of Chinese dominance in the region is a powerful motivator for these
countries to work collaboratively towards IMEC’s realization.

iv) Role of the Robust Private Sector:

The private sector in the participating countries, including India, Middle Eastern nations, and European
economies, is well-equipped and eager to undertake infrastructure projects. They see IMEC as a

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 4 of 12

 lucrative opportunity for investment and growth. Private sector involvement can significantly expedite
project implementation, as it often operates with greater efficiency and innovation than purely state-
led initiatives.

v) Economic Benefits and Regional Integration:

IMEC’s completion would not only bolster international trade but also foster regional economic
integration. The corridor would facilitate the flow of goods, services, and investments, spurring
economic growth in participating countries. Additionally, it could serve as a model for cooperation
between regions that have often been viewed as separate entities, enhancing regional stability and
prosperity. These prospects of rapid growth through connectivity raise its prospects.

vi) Energy Security:

The Middle East is a significant source of energy resources, and IMEC would strengthen energy
security for both India and Europe. Diversifying energy supply routes reduces vulnerability to
disruptions and price fluctuations, ensuring a stable energy supply for these energy-hungry regions.

vii) Environmental Considerations:

As claimed by its proponents, IMEC’s maritime routes and well-connected rail networks are more
environmentally friendly than alternative transportation options. As global concern for climate change
grows, the corridor’s environmental benefits, including reduced carbon emissions and lower
transportation costs, are increasingly significant.

10. Geographical Advantage for India

India stands to gain greatly from the ‘India-Middle East-Europe Shipping and Railway Connectivity
Corridor’ (IMEE EC), which firmly places it along the commercial route spanning South East Asia to
the Gulf, West Asia, and Europe. This strategic location provides India with significant strategic and
economic advantages and creates significant opportunities for the logistics and transportation
sector.
Additionally, it provides a transit option that is more effective and affordable, supporting India’s
commerce and export activities. This corridor can be built with an emphasis on sustainability,
coinciding with India’s objectives for its “green transition,” enhancing its regional influence and
enabling Indian businesses to contribute fairly to infrastructure development. Additionally, the
corridor claims to safeguard supply chains, create jobs, and improve accessibility and trade
facilitation.

11. India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor Benefits for India
The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor will aid in fostering global supply chains and food
security among emerging nations. In accordance with the MoU, this corridor will connect Europe to
the Arabian Gulf via a North Corridor and India to the Arabian Gulf via an East Corridor. A railway
network will be included in the proposal to supplement the current marine and road links.
This railway route, which primarily travels across the Middle East, also includes plans for the
installation of power cables and clean hydrogen pipes. The project aims to facilitate increased trade,
notably in energy products, among the participating nations. This initiative is viewed as a substitute
for China’s massive Belt and Road Initiative Project. With the Belt and Road Initiative, China sought
to integrate the majority of the world’s economies.

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 5 of 12

12. Challenges for IMEC
While the India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor (IMEC) holds great promise, it is also beset with
numerous challenges that could impede its successful execution.

a) Complex coordination among numerous countries:

IMEC involves approximately 20 countries, each with its own set of interests, priorities, and bureaucratic
processes. The coordination required to execute a project of this magnitude is formidable. Unlike the
Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which benefits from centralized decision-making, IMEC’s multi-
country nature makes decision-making slow and complex. Coordinating regulatory frameworks and
customs procedures and resolving disputes among such a diverse group of nations is a daunting task
that could lead to delays and inefficiencies.

b) Financial Hurdles and Debt Burdens:

Despite being termed a “Rich Men’s Club,” many of the participating countries in IMEC are grappling
with significant debt burdens. This financial strain raises questions about where the funding for IMEC
will come from. While India and Saudi Arabia may have the capacity to finance their portions of the
project, the other countries may struggle to allocate funds for their commitments. Dependence on
foreign loans or international institutions could exacerbate the debt problem and compromise the
corridor’s economic viability.

c) Geopolitical and Security Concerns:

IMEC’s route passes through some of the world’s most geopolitically sensitive regions,
including the Middle East. Geopolitical rivalries, conflicts, and security issues could pose serious
challenges to the smooth operation of the corridor. Regional tensions, such as those in the
Persian Gulf, could disrupt trade flows, deter private-sector investment, and necessitate costly
security measures. These uncertainties could deter investors and make it challenging to ensure
the corridor’s safety.

d) Environmental and Regulatory Issues:

The construction and operation of IMEC could raise environmental concerns, particularly in ecologically
sensitive areas. Balancing economic development with environmental preservation and adhering to
international environmental standards will be a complex task. Striking this balance while meeting the
diverse regulatory requirements of multiple countries along the route is a daunting challenge.

e) Infrastructure Gaps and Technological Integration:

While IMEC may rely heavily on sea routes and existing rail networks, addressing infrastructure gaps and
ensuring technological compatibility across borders remains a significant challenge. Ensuring that roads,
ports, railways, and digital infrastructure are seamlessly integrated to facilitate trade and logistics is a
formidable task, especially when different countries may have varying levels of infrastructure
development.

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 6 of 12

13. Challenges to Pakistan’s Geopolitical Significance from IMEC
The India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor (IMEC) has been widely discussed as a potential
game-changer in the region. However, it’s important to address the exaggerated hype surrounding
IMEC and its potential impact on Pakistan’s geopolitical significance, especially in the context of the
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
a. IMEC’s Dependence on Pakistan:
IMEC, if realized, would require Pakistan’s cooperation and access to its territory for any overland
connectivity between India and the Middle East. Pakistan’s participation would be essential for the
corridor to function efficiently. This dependency on Pakistan underscores its continued geopolitical
relevance in the region. Any attempt to bypass Pakistan would involve much longer and costlier routes
through alternative countries, making IMEC economically unviable.
b. Geopolitical Realities:
The complex geopolitical realities in South Asia, including the India-Pakistan rivalry, further highlight
Pakistan’s enduring importance. Regional stability and cooperation are prerequisites for any large-scale
infrastructure project to succeed. Without resolving longstanding conflicts and addressing security
concerns, the seamless operation of IMEC is unlikely.
c. Pakistan’s Unique Geopolitical Location:
Pakistan’s strategic geographic location is integral to the regional dynamics of South Asia, the Middle East,
and Central Asia. Its proximity to China, Iran, Afghanistan, and India makes it a critical player in regional
geopolitics, trade, and connectivity. IMEC, as a project primarily focused on India, the Middle East, and
Europe, does not diminish Pakistan’s strategic importance in the region. Pakistan’s role as a crossroads
for regional trade and energy routes remains unparalleled, and its significance cannot be easily replaced
by projects like IMEC.
d. THE MISSING PIECE: TURKIYE
Turkiye, an essential regional player, is notably absent from the IMEC project, as indicated on the project
maps. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been vocal about the necessity of Turkiye’s involvement,
stating, “There’s no corridor without Turkiye. The best route for East-West traffic should go through
Turkiye.” This sentiment evokes memories of the “Development Road Project”, a 1,200-kilometer railway
and highway connecting Turkiye to the Persian Gulf’s Fav Port, often referred to as the new Silk Road.
This project aims to offer a faster and more cost-effective alternative to the Suez Canal route and aligns
with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, specifically the Middle Corridor involving Turkiye.
It’s uncertain if IMEC could provide an alternative route to the Suez Canal, as Turkiye’s participation is
absent from the official maps. This situation is reminiscent of the 2021, G-7 Summit, where an alternative
plan to China’s Belt and Road Initiative was introduced but lacked a roadmap due to insufficient financing,
as highlighted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

14. India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor & Countering

China

The BRI project of China builds railway lines and road network to reach the
markets of Europe and the Middle East, mainly through its Silk Road
Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Route.
One of the primary challenges facing Pakistan is the misconception surrounding IMEC’s scale and its comparison
to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While IMEC is undoubtedly a significant project, it is on a much smaller scale
compared to BRI, particularly the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The financial magnitude of CPEC alone
is several times larger than the entire IMEC project. However, the perception in India, and to some extent globally,

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 7 of 12

 has been inflated, creating unwarranted expectations that IMEC could diminish the significance of CPEC. It is
essential to emphasize that BRI and CPEC remain massive undertakings that play a pivotal role in Pakistan’s
geopolitical importance.
 This initiative is being undertaken as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two longtime US
allies, are deepening their ties with China. These nations want to strengthen their ties to the east,
where economies are expanding quickly. China has recently improved relations with the Middle East
as well, aiding in the negotiation of an agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran early this year.
 The oil-rich Gulf States declared their intention to join the organization during the BRICS Summit 2023,
with China taking the lead in this action. The strategy is viewed as a bold attempt by Washington to
compete with China’s Belt and Road initiative, which aimed to link more of the world to that nation’s
economy. Recent issues with China’s BRI have been brought about by an increase in loan defaults and
a slowdown in investment.

15. IMEC V/S China’s BRI

At present, the memorandum of understanding (MoU) on the project has been signed by European Union,
France, Germany, India, Italy, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the U.S. Although few details are available on the
just-released initiatives, questions persist on its viability, particularly in face of China’s own extravagant
connectivity plan, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
I. Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment (PGII)
The G7 (or Group of Seven) conference in the UK in June 2021 was the first public announcement of the
infrastructure plan. The United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the
European Union (EU) make up the G7 Countries. The concept was dubbed the Build Back Better World (B3W)
initiative by US Vice President Joe Biden. However, little progress was noted.
With the U.S. joining as a “Guarantor Partner” of sorts, the IMEC is backed by the G7’s Partnership for Global
Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) — a rather new venture (launched in 2022) that aims to narrow the
infrastructure gap in developing countries and accelerating global progress on SDGs.
 It looks to mobilize US$600 billion by 2027 for quality and sustainable infrastructure projects and
is widely considered the G7’s counter to the BRI.
 In addition to this, the fact that China was conspicuously absent at the special event announcing
the IMEC — even as other Indo-Pacific stakeholders including Japan attended — has led to
immediate comparisons between the two initiatives.
 Nevertheless, any comparison between the IMEC mega economic corridor and the BRI strategy
are rather premature. For one, the BRI is an established decade-old project with a massive reach
and financial clout (as per some estimates, about $1 trillion have already been spent with plans
to invest up to $3 trillion across Africa, Asia, and Europe).
 So, any speculations about the IMEC’s future, either as a doomed venture or a legitimate
alternative to the BRI seem hasty and distorted at the very least.
Additionally, unlike the BRI, the IMEC is the result of ongoing discussions between multiple stakeholder nations, and
will be financed through multiple sources, including public-private partnerships.
II. Member states
The IMEC project, introduced jointly by leaders from the United States, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates, France, Germany, Italy, and the European Union, aims to establish a vast railway and port network
connecting India to the Middle East and the Middle East to Europe. Additionally, it must be noted that Saudi
Arabia, the UAE, and Italy are BRI members; and France and Germany, despite establishing their own Indo-
Pacific strategies, do not share the U.S.’ enthusiasm against China. BRI is known for its extensive geographical
coverage, encompassing approximately 150 countries.

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 8 of 12

III. Europe and IMEC
 Italy — the IMEC MOU signatory and the only G7 state that is a member of the BRI — showing signs of
opting out of the BRI in March 2024, when its membership comes up for renewal. China’s weaponization of
trade (including dominance in critical raw materials that Europe needs for green and digital transition) has
created an atmosphere of distrust in Europe.
 Germany, which has long been a critical supporter for enhancing business and political ties with China
despite the latter’s coercive politics, is now keen to shed optimistic notions in favor of a de-risking approach.
Its presence in the IMEC indicates that the country is keen to strengthen its strategic hold in the Indo-Pacific
and branch its Asia outlook beyond its traditionally narrow China focus.
 France
In contrast, although France has resisted the pressure of following the U.S. view of China with its China
bonhomie, it has also not shied away from any opportunity to boost its strategic interests in the region, even
if they do not align in China’s favor. The IMEC is another tool in strengthening such strategic autonomy
aspirations, besides the officially stated aims of inclusive and sustainable prosperity.
The headline-grabbing story of the project as a China counter notwithstanding, the IMEC does offer impressive
features. Not only will the new corridor achieve a 40% reduction in time and 30% reduction in cost in India-Europe
trade, but also act as a stabilizing influence in the region. Importantly, the G7-backed hybrid connectivity initiative
should expand the scope of the I2U2 grouping (India, Israel, the US and the UAE).
IV. Presence in Different Regions
India does consider China a continuing adversary but has cautiously refrained from directly acknowledging
being part of exclusive “anti-China” or even counter-China” domains.
 Particularly, the IMEC is poised to contest China’s footprint in the Middle East – a fast-emerging fulcrum
of the Indo-Pacific — where the political tailwinds are strongly in China’s favor. Recently, China’s
presence in the region has not only strengthened its economic engagements in the region but also
provided a strong challenge to the U.S. — the traditional security provider and power broker in the
region.
o For example, China’s brokering of the Iran-Saudi normalization deal has been a serious game
changer: China, which is normally shy of getting into the thick of conflicts as a mediator, has
signaled its power one-upmanship strategic intent.
o That too, with one of the U.S.’ traditional allies. In this sense, the IMEC is part of the U.S. counter
to China’s such nascent strategic attempts and marks a cooperative approach to rebuilding the
U.S. geopolitical influence in the region.
o Including Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the plan only emphasizes that their partnerships with China
need not be deal-breaking enterprises for the U.S.
 Notably, the IMEC also allows for an overland rail route covering Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel,
highlighting the potential for normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia if the project actualizes.
 At the same time, as China’s role in West Asia (and Central Asia) has been on ascent, its star is on the
descent in Europe.

In this context, beyond being a geopolitical move, the IMEC brings immense direct economic and developmental
benefits for the countries involved and the regions at large. In other words, it is not merely a grandiose plan of
strongman political leaders, but a practical connectivity initiative capable of offering useful economic solutions that
are transparent, based on equitable financing, and rooted in each country’s development models.
Prospects & Perspectives

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 9 of 12

 V. Difference in the Scope of Projects
 BRI is known for its multidimensional package, which includes a wide array of projects ranging from
infrastructure development (roads, railways, and ports) to energy projects, fibre optics, agriculture, and
industrial zones. It is a comprehensive initiative designed to address various development needs in
participating countries.
 In contrast, IMEC’s scope appears to be more limited, with a primary focus on shipping lanes and rail and
road infrastructure. This indicates that IMEC may not encompass the same breadth of development
opportunities as BRI.
VI. Difference in the Scale of Investment
 One of the most significant distinctions between BRI and IMEC is the scale of investment. BRI is an
extensive project with an estimated value of around US$8 trillion. This vast financial commitment covers a
wide range of infrastructure and development projects across multiple countries.
 In contrast, IMEC is projected to involve significantly smaller investments, possibly amounting to only a
few billion dollars. This significant disparity in scale indicates that BRI has the potential to create a more
substantial impact on the global economy.
VII. Difference in the Geographical Coverage
 BRI is known for its extensive geographical coverage, encompassing approximately 150 countries. These
countries are predominantly developing or emerging economies, making BRI a truly global initiative.
 On the other hand, the IMEC is planned to cover around 20 countries, primarily in the Middle East and
Europe. These countries are generally more economically developed compared to the BRI’s participant
nations.
 Thus, BRI’s reach is far broader than that of IMEC.
VIII. Difference in Initiation and Progress
 BRI was officially launched by China in 2013 and has been actively pursued since then. It has seen
substantial investments and progress across various regions.
 In contrast, IMEC is still in the MOU stage, indicating that it is in the preliminary planning and negotiation
phase.

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 10 of 12

  This difference in initiation and progress suggests that BRI has a significant head start over IMEC.
IX. Difference in the Transportation Modes
Another key difference between BRI and IMEC lies in the transportation modes they predominantly rely on.
 BRI is characterized by its diverse transportation network, with approximately 70% of the initiative focused
on land-based routes, including roads and railways.
 IMEC, on the other hand, primarily emphasizes sea transportation. It envisions the development of shipping
lanes and rail and road connections.
 This contrast reflects the geographic and logistical differences between the two initiatives.
X. Difference in the Directionality
 BRI is a multi-directional initiative with global tentacles. It aims to connect China with various parts of Asia,
Europe, Africa, and even the Americas. This multi-directional approach facilitates enhanced connectivity
and trade opportunities.
 In contrast, IMEC is planned to be unidirectional, primarily connecting India to Europe. While this focused
approach has its advantages, it may limit the diversity of trade routes and opportunities compared to the
BRI’s comprehensive network.

16. Conclusion
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) represent two
distinct approaches to infrastructure development and economic integration. BRI, with its larger scale,
extensive geographical coverage, and multi-directional network, is poised to have a more significant global
impact. IMEC, while promising, is still in its early stages and is primarily oriented toward connecting India
with Europe through sea and land routes. The choice between these two initiatives will depend on the
strategic objectives and economic priorities of the countries involved, with each offering its own unique set
of opportunities and challenges.
While IMEC may offer economic benefits and enhanced connectivity, it is crucial to recognize that Pakistan’s
geopolitical significance remains intact. The exaggerated comparisons between IMEC and CPEC or BRI should
be tempered with an understanding of the unique role that Pakistan plays in regional geopolitics. Pakistan’s
strategic location, its crucial role in facilitating connectivity, and the necessity of its cooperation in realizing
IMEC make it clear that Pakistan’s geopolitical significance cannot be diminished by the emergence of new
projects like IMEC. Instead, Pakistan’s involvement and collaboration should be seen as integral to the
success of any regional connectivity initiative.

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ Page 11 of 12

‫رانا مدثر نصیر‬ ‫‪Page 12 of 12‬‬