The Belt and Road Initiative:

In September 2013, during a visit to Kazakhstan, Xi Jinping proposed building a “Silk Road
Economic Belt,” later adding a “21st Century Maritime Silk road.” Taken together, these two strands,
which sought to connect China to Central, South, and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and
Europe would form “One Belt, One Road” (now more commonly known as the Belt and Road
Initiative). BRI has since outgrown its original corridors, becoming global in scope. Under BRI,
China has financed and built roads, power plants, ports, railways, and digital infrastructure. It is the
world’s largest ever global infrastructure undertaking, with China financing up to $1 trillion in
infrastructure around the world. Nearly 150 countries have signed on to BRI in some form.

China’s overall ambition for the BRI is staggering. To date, 147 countries—accounting for two-thirds
of the world’s population and 40 percent of global GDP—have signed on to projects or indicated an
interest in doing so.

Analysts estimate the largest so far to be the estimated $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic
Corridor (CPEC), a collection of projects connecting China to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port on the Arabian
Sea. In total, China has already spent an estimated $1 trillion on such efforts. Experts have predicted
that China’s expenses over the life of the BRI could reach as much as $8 trillion, though estimates
vary.

Over two-thirds of European Union (EU) member countries have formally signed on to BRI
with large Chinese infrastructure investment responsible for projects such as the renovated port of
Piraeus in Greece and the Budapest-Belgrade railway in Hungary. Beijing has also funded a number
of projects on the continent in non-EU countries. These investments have “made it harder for the EU
to craft a united approach to China,” and Greece and Hungary have obstructed bloc-wide efforts to
criticize China

IMEC:
On 10 September 2023, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in New Delhi, Saudi Arabia’s Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman, alongside representatives from the United States, United Arab
Emirates (UAE), and the European Union unveiled plans to create a transformative transport and
economic corridor that would connect South Asia with the Gulf countries and European nations.
This ambitious initiative, known as the "India – Middle East – Europe Corridor" (IMEC), was
formalized through the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding by the participating parties.

This reflects a recognition in Washington that even though BRI has encountered serious setbacks,
Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy undertaking is not going anywhere. In addition,
even a stumbling BRI poses significant challenges to the United States. If successful, IMEC would
help knit together important regions and offer an alternative to BRI, but major questions remain
regarding financing, timeline, and viability.

Project Details:
The proposed 4800 km trade route comprises two primary corridors: the east corridor, connecting
India to the Gulf; and the northern corridor, linking the Gulf to Europe. At its core, IMEC seeks to
establish a reliable and cost-effective cross-border ship-to-rail transit network, complementing
existing maritime and road transport routes. This network aims to facilitate the seamless movement of
goods and services between key regions, including India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and
Europe.

The project involves a multifaceted approach, encompassing the construction of an extensive railway
network and the development of relevant port infrastructure stretching from India through the Gulf to
the Mediterranean. The participants have a shared goal of enhancing the capacity of transportation
routes for the efficient movement of export and transit cargo. Notably, IMEC represents the first
major cooperation initiative in the field of communications and transport that brings together nations
as diverse as India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, the European Union, France, Italy, Germany, and the
United States.

IMEC's potential impact on the global economic landscape is anticipated to enhance efficiency,
reduce transportation time and costs, stimulate job creation, and increase throughput via transit
routes. However, one of the central aspects that has garnered international attention is the perception
of IMEC as an alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which was initiated in 2013. This
viewpoint, however, warrants a closer examination, taking into account the complex motivations and
implications surrounding IMEC.

In addition to the trade links, IMEC envisions electricity and digital infrastructure as well as pipe for
clean hydrogen export. In Africa, a Trans-African Corridor (the Lobito Corridor) will connect
Angola to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Zambia, eventually reaching the Indian
Ocean. Details regarding financing and timeline, however, have yet to be announced.

If successful, these corridors have the potential to increase supply chain security and resilience,
generate economic growth, and promote trade among U.S. partners. European Commission president
Ursula von der Leyen, for instance, noted that IMEC would make trade between India and Europe 40
percent faster. At the same time, the new corridors’ geopolitical motivations are hard to miss. If the
Lobito Corridor is able to increase the production and trade of critical minerals such as copper and
cobalt, it will decrease reliance on China for the electric vehicle supply chain. IMEC can be seen as an
effort to respond to Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s tilt toward China, facilitate economic integration
between Israel and the Arab world, and promote an alternative to Russian energy supplies.

IMEC and the Lobito Corridor are big undertakings that will take many years to bear fruit even under
the best circumstances. But there is a better and simpler way to compete with BRI right now:
reorienting the World Bank to focus more on digital connectivity, infrastructure, and energy access
while expanding its lending capacity. Given its long history of leadership in the World Bank and its
unique position in World Bank governance, the United States is well positioned to spearhead such
efforts. The Biden administration should be commended for beginning this process, which could
prove even more consequential than headline-grabbing economic corridors.

Perception of IMEC as an alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI):

First and foremost, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all participants in IMEC view it as an
outright challenge to China or an exercise in geopolitical rivalry. It must not be forgotten that
countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan actively engage in the BRI, seeking to diversify
their economies and attract foreign investments, including those from China. For these countries,
IMEC represents an opportunity to consolidate economic wealth and to position themselves as global
crossroads. They do not perceive IMEC and BRI as mutually exclusive but rather see the potential for
complementary economic advantages. In this context, Saudi Arabia and the UAE view IMEC as a
means to strengthen their economic and infrastructure positions in the evolving global connectivity
landscape, particularly in light of developments following the Ukraine conflict.

For Saudi Arabia, the prospective corridor neatly fits into the Kingdom's agenda of re-modeling the
country by creating a highly diversified economy by 2030, as part of its Saudi Vision 2030. The
diversification of the Saudi economy is a central goal, and participation in IMEC aligns with this
vision. For the UAE, participation in the IMEC initiative is also about opening up the country and its
vast resources to the wider global audience. By doing so, they aim to attract investment and increase
the country's geopolitical weight. The UAE has been positioning itself as a global hub for trade,
tourism, and finance, and IMEC represents another step in this direction.

Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that parts of the proposed IMEC route share similarities with
existing BRI infrastructure. Examples include the Haifa Port in Israel, which was largely under
China's control until India's Adani Group acquired a significant stake in July 2022, and the Piraeus
Port in Athens, previously controlled by the Chinese shipping company Costco. Additionally, the
railway infrastructure connecting Greece with Central Europe is integrated into the BRI. This
illustrates that China itself can potentially utilize multiple segments of the IMEC transport route,
complicating any simplistic narrative of competition.
An additional noteworthy aspect to consider is the historical backdrop characterized by a series of
unsuccessful endeavors that aimed to offer alternatives to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Notable
examples include the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative, subsequently rebranded as the
Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), as well as the Blue Dot Network. These
initiatives were marked by their absence of a centralized hierarchical framework akin to that provided
by the Chinese government, which enables efficient coordination and rapid execution of projects.
Furthermore, they encountered substantial difficulties in procuring the essential financial resources
required for their successful realization. Notably, most of these initiatives failed to achieve meaningful
implementation within the initial year of their announcement.

Comparative Analysis of the BRI and the IMEC:

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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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. This difference in
initiation and progress suggests that BRI has a significant head start over IMEC.
 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.
 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.

Prospects of the India-Middle East-Europe-Economic Corridor (IMEC)

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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Challenges for India-Middle East-European Economic Corridor (IMEC):
While IMEC ostensibly holds huge promise, it is not without its share of challenges. One key
challenge is determining the actual demand along the proposed corridor. Additionally, harmonizing
regulations, taxations, and customs procedures is essential to ensure seamless operations. IMEC's
multimodal nature, encompassing both land and sea sections, presents logistical complexities.
Moreover, established trade routes, such as the Suez Canal, will continue to compete with IMEC.
Successful trade corridors typically rely on existing infrastructure, which may not be readily available
for IMEC. In Greece, where the EU ports closest to IMEC are located, underdeveloped railways due
to geographical challenges and financial constraints pose a significant hurdle. In the Gulf region,
constructing a railway network across vast deserts in Saudi Arabia and the UAE will substantially
increase project costs. Questions also persist regarding the financing of this ambitious endeavor, with
neither the United States nor the EU providing comprehensive explanations at this stage. The IMEC
announcement is an extension of the G7's commitment made in June 2023 to raise $600 billion, from
both private and public sources, over five years to fund infrastructure projects in developing countries.
Over the next two months, the governments participating in IMEC will work on developing a plan of
action. This plan will include setting specific timing goals and creating standards related to financing
and regulations, among other topics.
Is there any 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).
Misconceptions about IMEC’s Scale: 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, 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.
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.
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.
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.