Indo-Israeli Relations Piloted by Modi Netanyahu Coalition

India and Israel have positive relations for the past thousands of years. In 1000 BCE, Indian merchants used to sell peacocks and organize monkey games in the places which has Israel under its control now. The Saravathi Civilization of India and the Babylonian culture of present Israel were exchanging goods and services. The age-old friendship made the troubled Jews to seek asylum in India. One can find Jewish synagogues in Cochin, Mumbai and many other cities of India. But the independence of India in 1947 and its compulsion to go along with the Arab nations to counter the anti-Muslim image projected by Pakistan, India opposed Israel’s entry into the United Nations. India supported Palestine. All changed in 1992 with P.V.Narashima Rao as the Prime Minister. He redefined foreign policy of India and made it more pragmatic than sentimental as in the past.  After Rao’s focus on Israel the subsequent governments be it BJP or Congress, embraced Israel. Narendra Modi has taken the Indo-Israeli relations to a new height.

When the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu was hugged and welcomed at the Indira Gandhi International airport by his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi, few in the world would have expected the grand opening of bilateral ties for the betterment of both nations. From defence equipments to entrepreneurship, from agriculture to the startup culture, from innovation to industrial development, from aviation to artificial intelligence, India and Israel are collaborating. Definitely India is going to be the big gainer. As a perennial victim of the terrorist attacks, India has many lessons to learn from Israel.

India a major victim of terrorist attacks and cross border terrorism needs Israeli support to put a full stop to this long pending problem. With state of art of surveillance gadgets, Israel can be the best support to India. TraceGuard, a chemical process which can free particles from luggage for a quick detection. This technique was co-developed by Israel with the USA. This method can detect explosives easily and leave out harmless ones like perfumes.

Suspect Detection Systems (SDSs) is another easy method to filter out terrorists from ordinary citizens entering airports. This is an automated interrogation and background technology which can pinpoint terrorists. SDS combines detection and robotic characters which can prevent terrorists from entering vital installations.

WeCu mixes psychology with the hi-tech mechanisms to draw attention from terrorists roaming around airports. It projects pictures of dear ones of terrorists on the wall which can be seen by terrorists only. This two way method can easily alert the security agencies about the nearing of terrorists.

Vigilant Surveillance Systems can be alert 24x7 even if the human security personnel fall sleep. This is an intelligent digital monitoring system which can prevent crime and terror attacks on the streets. This is an all-time monitoring mechanism which is need of the hour.

Safe drinking water for every citizen is the biggest challenge for India. Israel has proper mechanisms to help India in this regard. A cost effective method to install desalination plants to provide safe drinking water for every Indian can be realized with the help of Israeli technologists.

Israel is considered as the land of innovations and inventions. In the last 63 years of Israreli independence it has developed 45 indispensable innovations for the world. Given Imaging is the world leader in providing patient friendly solutions especially intestinal visualization.

Netfim is a global leader in providing micro irrigation. For a water starved parts of India, this can be of great help.

Ormat Technologies specializes in geo thermal energy.

Pythogras Solar makes smart solar windows which provides energy efficient windows with the help of photo voltaic cells.

Decell Technologies provide real time road traffic which is needed to clear the chaotic roads of Indian cities and towns.

Takadu provides minute information about water leaks, zone breaches, busts etc.

Cubital provides solid rapid protyping machines which will revolutionise the engineering, printing, medical industry and every other manufacturing process around the world.

There are hundreds of innovations and simple solutions which India can learn from Israel. Netanyahu Modi collaboration can develop both countries effectively. Both countries must shed their pre-reserved ideas and march ahead of the other nations.  

Trumpism: Mantra for the new world order?

Donald Trump, the newly elected President of United States of America (USA) came from nowhere to everywhere.  In the fiercely fought battle for the White House, he defeated veteran democrat and charismatic Hillary Clinton. Despite managing the White House for 8 years as the first lady and occupying the prestigious secretary of state post, Hillary lost to Trump - a political administrative novice. This is still a mystery to many. But those who watched the election closely know well that Trump is going to create long waves in the world politics. Exactly it happened. Not only Trump won the US Presidential election but he became the mantra for the new world order. Trumpism is all about anti-immigrantism. Trumpism is all about giving jobs to locals alone. Trumpism is all about capturing the world imagination about America – the great.

 Apart from an anti-immigrant attitude, “country first”, “local manufacturing”, “employment to local people” are going to be the hot issues in the world. Trump has set the world stage on these issues. After his victory using these issues, leaders from other nations won’t rest on the customary themes of electioneering.  Safe drinking water, electricity, transportation and other day-to-day issues will take the back seat. Macro issues like immigrant population, global terrorism, climate change and denial of employment to other nationalities will come to the forefront.

Foreign policies, economic development, financial management, capitalizing human resources, America First, ban on immigrants from some countries, women’s status, climate change, wall in the Mexican border, Russian relations and many more issues have put Donald Trump in the spotlight. Whether this spotlight is for good or bad needs to be analysed.

Trump talks to family friends, media, heads of foreign nations, diplomats, public representatives and strangers in the same manner. Is this frankness or peculiar personality trait to win every deal? In whichever way one look at it, Trump’s nature has triumphed in every field he entered. Be it real estate business, or owning Miss.World and Miss.Universe pageants or running gold courses or managing sports teams or winning the US presidential election. Trump has become a challenge to the personality analyzing psychologists.

Trump has shifted his position on several crucial issues many. According to NBC News, Trump made “141 distinct shifts on 23 major issues”. His political affiliations and party orientation too changed over the years. From a Republican to Reformists to Democrat to finally Republican winning the presidential contests is not a silly joke. It needs La Donald Trump to do this trickiest job,

Take some of the shocking and surprising acts of Donald Trump.

1.      On 31 August 2016 morning, Trump blasts Mexico for flooding USA with migrants and vow to build a border wall. In the evening he reaches Mexico to address a joint press conference with the Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto

2.      Both of them look cool. Was it a carefully crafted strategy to satisfy the Americans and Mexicans?

3.      Definitely this has changed the minds of many Mexicans and made them to vote for Trump

4.      In July 2016, Trump promises to throw out the I.T workers from India once he gets elected and promises to give that jobs to Americans

5.      When the election approached, Trump changed his stance towards the Indians, sensing their relevance in his electoral victory

6.      In a dramatic statement on 16 October 2016, a few weeks before his election, Trump said “I am a big fan of Hindus and a I am a big front of India”

7.      These kinds of contradictory statements and very powerful messages against the terrorists coming from Islamic countries, jobs for the natural Americans, massive income tax cuts for Americans clicked Trump with the voters

In short, Trump is the new icon for the locals who are threatened by the power of immigrants. Europe, Australia, Canada, Mexico, the Wealthy Asian and African country politicians will take Trump’s mantra of anti-immigrantism to win the elections.  There will be a resurgence of Right Wing politics across the world.  

Beware of PRICS and Act Immediately on it

Russia was an unflinching ally of India for nearly seven decades. When the United States of America did not pay heed to India’s wish to be its partner in the early fifties, Russia invited India to be its friend. This friendship continues for a very long time. It seems that there is an imminent threat to the long standing Indo Russian relationship. This threat comes from Russia’s feeling that India is abandoning it for the sake of United States of America.

In the game for global supremacy, India has been the worst victim. In the fifties, India was forced to join the Soviet Union side although it maintained non-alignment in paper. With the exit of Soviet Union and the presence of an influential Indian population in the USA, tables are turning. India wants to gain the friendship of USA once again and the response has been very positive and warmth.

There is a growing strength of support in USA in favour of India for many reasons. Not only the dominant Indian community and their success is a push factor but also the patronage to terrorists given by Pakistan. It was understood clandestinely that Pakistan is behind several anti-American terrorist activities. Americans understood the double game of Pakistanis. The discovery of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of anti-Americanism in Abbotabad in Pakistan and his eventual elimination in 2011 made crystal clear to the world what Pakistan has been doing for ages.

On the one side, Pakistan is drawing heavy amount of money from USA to develop their economy, military and society and on the other side, Pakistan is sheltering anti-Americans on its soil. Not only sheltering them but also aiding and abetting anti-American and anti-Indian terrorists. This common victimhood naturally brought America and India together. The growing voice against Pakistan’s indirect patronage to anti-American terrorist group has finally paid dividends. The government of USA has cut down the civilian and military aid to Pakistan.  From $3.1 billion in 2011 to $1 billion dollars in 2016. 

American attitude and aid to Pakistan is changing drastically. Its approach towards India is also changing. Pakistan is facing negative actions while India is facing positive response from the USA. It seems that the bond between India and USA is getting stronger and stronger every day. This has created nervousness among many. Notably Russia, China and Pakistan.  

Can India ignore Russia for the sake of strategic partnership with USA? There is a little possibility for India to be friends with all. The reason is global supremacy requires two sides to show their dominance. In this game of global dominance muscle flexing, two sides gather members to their teams. India was forced to be on the Soviet side till the end of Cold War. Naturally this has forced America to accept Pakistan as its ally. After the end of Cold War and Pakistan’s blatant anti-Americanism, team members of the global game are reshuffled.

Although, the Cold War ended in perception after the fall of Soviet Union in the late nineties, reality of it continues in other forms. Russia is trying its best to regain the lost slot occupied by the Soviet Union. China is attempting to barge in. Already America is in the game although its status has come down heavily after the collapse of Twin Towers in 2001, lost economic clout and social disruptions.

Now there is a possibility of Pakistan, Russia, Israel, China and Saudi Arabia (PRICS) coalition. The reason is simple suspicion of one long term friend on the other long term friend fearing the long term friend is moving towards enemy. “Friendship 2016” between Russia and Pakistan is the most worrisome development. The saddest part of this story is the drill was to be in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Given the long history of Pakistan’s negative credentials, Russia may not trust Pakistan so easily. But the faster developments in the Indo-USA relations are pressurizing Russians to act fast.

Russia feels that its long term friend India is moving towards USA. Israel is fearing that its long term friend USA is moving towards its arch rival Iran. The Israelis did not like Americans signing nuclear pact with the Iranians. There is a less possibility of Israel joining the coalition with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia because of the strong Islamic connections and their patronage to Palestine. But in the race for global supremacy nothing can be ruled out.  Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and China are already long-term friends.

Augusta Westland: Another Scam; Another Timepass

India has been witnessing innumerable scams everyday. Most of these scams are true; some are political accusations. But the cost of these scams and fake accusations are enormous on the development of the nation. In the interests of the true national growth, all three pillars of the country - Legislature, Executive and Judiciary must do a quick post mortem of these scams and bring out the truth immediately. The latest scam in the Indian circuit is Augusta Westland the chopper purchase for VVIPS from Italy.

Times  of India writes on 28 April 2016

The latest faceoff between government and Congress over the Agusta Westland chopper deal portends another round of fireworks in Parliament. The air is thick with accusations and insinuations. This time, however, it is necessary to transcend the customary trading of charges between political adversaries to let a free and fair investigation take precedence.

As political parties revert to their default tu tu main main instincts, there are several inconsistencies on both sides of the argument. Congress argues in its defence that it blacklisted the company, but is being accused of going slow on the probe to shield the guilty. The NDA government claims it is pursuing the case with gusto, yet it rehabilitated the Anglo-Italian firm to become a part of the ‘Make in India’ initiative. This made Agusta Westland eligible to participate in defence deals worth Rs 25,000 crore.

The Rs 3,600 crore AW101 helicopter deal for VVIP choppers was cancelled by UPA in 2014 and the guarantee money confiscated after allegations of payoffs running into hundreds of crores. UPA claimed the Italian company had breached an integrity pact, as commissions were paid to modify altitude specifications for the lucrative contract in which 12 VVIP transport helicopters were to be supplied to India. The tragedy is that if Courts of Appeal in Milan had not taken up the matter, it could easily have been swept under the carpet. The Italian court has sentenced Giuseppe Orsi, chief of Agusta Westland’s parent company Finmeccanica, to a four-and-a-half year jail term. In stark contrast, the NDA government claims that investigations are now at an advanced stage, but it doesn’t appear close to finding the guilty even after two years in office.

The country’s security apparatus needs urgent upgrades but dark clouds of corruption have always loomed over defence acquisitions. The legacy of Bofors means that even the slightest hint of impropriety is enough to jeopardise deals. But holdups in defence acquisitions also lead to high cost escalations. French Rafale fighter planes, for example, were selected in 2012, but the deal is yet to see the light of day. The veil of secrecy on defence deals must be lifted and we must evolve norms for the highest standards of transparency and probity, incorporating best practices from advanced western democracies.

Brexit: A Hasty Decision?

Britain is not happy to be with the European Union? This is a serious question which needs in-depth examination. They choose to be united. They choose to join with the European Union. Now they want to exit the European Union The major reason for this somersault is the increasing terrorist attacks in European cities, massive migration from the Muslim countries and financial burden increased by the weaker economies like Greece.

The Economist writes on 27 February 2016 

THE battle is joined, at last. David Cameron has called a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union for June 23rd, promising to campaign hard to stay in. What began as a gambit to hold together his divided Tory party is turning into an alarmingly close contest. Betting markets put the odds that Britons opt to leave at two-to-one; some polls suggest the voters are evenly split; several cabinet ministers are campaigning for Brexit. There is a real chance that in four months’ time Britain could be casting off from Europe’s shores.

That would be grave news—and not just for Britain. A vote to leave would damage the economy, certainly in the short term and probably in the long run. (As financial markets woke up to the prospect, the pound this week fell to its lowest level against the dollar since 2009.) It would imperil Britain’s security, when threats from terrorists and foreign powers are at their most severe in years. And far from reclaiming sovereignty, Britons would be forgoing clout, by giving up membership of a powerful club whose actions they can influence better from within than without. Those outside Britain marvelling at this proposed act of self-harm should worry for themselves, too. Brexit would deal a heavy blow to Europe, a continent already on the ropes. It would uncouple the world’s fifth-largest economy from its biggest market, and unmoor the fifth-largest defence spender from its allies. Poorer, less secure and disunited, the new EU would be weaker; the West, reliant on the balancing forces of America and Europe, would be enfeebled, too.

The Brexiters’ case is that Britain is held back by Europe: unshackled, it could soar as an open economy that continued to trade with the EU and all round the world. That is possible in theory, but as our briefing (see Briefing) explains, it is not how things would work in practice. At a minimum, the EU would allow full access to its single market only in return for adherence to rules that Eurosceptics are keen to jettison. If Norway and Switzerland (whose arrangements with the EU many Brexiters idolise) are a guide, the union would also demand the free movement of people and a big payment to its budget before allowing unfettered access to the market.

Worse, the EU would have a strong incentive to impose a harsh settlement to discourage other countries from leaving. The Brexit camp’s claim that Europe needs Britain more than the other way round is fanciful: the EU takes almost half Britain’s exports, whereas Britain takes less than 10% of the EU’s; and the British trade deficit is mostly with the Germans and Spanish, not with the other 25 countries that would have to agree on a new trade deal.

To some Eurosceptics these hardships would be worth it if they meant reclaiming sovereignty from Europe, whose bureaucrats and judges interfere with everything from bankers’ bonuses to working-time limits. Yet the gain would be partly illusory. In a globalised world, power is necessarily pooled and traded: Britain gives up sovereignty in exchange for clout through its memberships of NATO, the IMF and countless other power-sharing, rule-setting institutions. Signing up to treaties on trade, nuclear power or the environment involves submitting to regulations set jointly with foreigners, in return for greater gains. Britain outside the EU would be on the sidelines: notionally independent from, but in fact still constrained by, rules it would have no role in formulating. It would be a purer but rather powerless sort of sovereignty.

One exception is immigration, the area over which many Eurosceptics most long for control. Half of Britain’s migrants come from the EU, and there is little the government can do to stop them. If Britain left the union, it could. But doing so would have a double cost. Gaining the right to stop immigration from the EU would almost certainly mean losing full access to the single market. And reducing the numbers of immigrants would hurt Britain’s businesses and public services, which rely on French bankers, Bulgarian builders and Italian doctors.

A global concern

The longer-term costs would go beyond economics. Brexit might well break up the United Kingdom itself. Scotland, more Europhile than England, is again agitating for a divorce; if Britain decides to leave Europe, then the Scots may at last have a point. Brexit could also dangerously unsettle Northern Ireland, where the peace process over two decades has depended on the fact that both Ireland and Britain are members of the EU. The Irish government is among the most vocal foreign supporters of the campaign for Britain to stay in.

Ireland is not the only country that would suffer. European leaders know Brexit would weaken a club already in deep trouble over such issues as migration and the euro crisis. And Europe would be poorer without Britain’s voice: more dominated by Germany; and, surely, less liberal, more protectionist and more inward-looking. Europe’s links to America would become more tenuous. Above all, the loss of its biggest military power and most significant foreign-policy actor would seriously weaken the EU in the world.

The EU has become an increasingly important part of the West’s foreign and security policy, whether it concerns a nuclear deal with Iran, the threat of Islamist terrorism or the imposition of sanctions against Russia. Without Britain, it would be harder for the EU to pull its global weight—a big loss to the West in a troubled neighbourhood, from Russia through Syria to north Africa. It is little wonder that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is keen on Brexit—and that America’s Barack Obama is not. It would be shortsighted for Eurosceptics to be indifferent to this. A weakened Europe would be unambiguously bad for Britain, whose geography, unlike its politics, is fixed.

A lot thus rests on the tight race now under way. For those who believe, as this newspaper does, in free trade and freedom of movement, the benefits to Britain of its membership of the EU have never been in much doubt. What more sceptical sorts must now recognise is that Brexit would also weaken Europe and the West. The stakes in Mr Cameron’s great gamble are high; should he fail, the losses would be widely felt.

Menu of India for Barack Obama

American President Barack Obama will be landing in New Delhi in next few hours. This is a historic visit because for the first time in the history of American history, its President will be staying outdoor out of the American soil for more than two hours. It is also significant for the new bilateral trade, military, scientific and human development co-operation between the two nations. 

Although this trip of Obama is much hyped one needs to explore in deep and detail to describe the future relations between the two vital democracies of the world. Many analysts and self styled foreign policy experts may offer wide range of menu for the decision makers. But the following can be considered for the forward movement of India and USA.

1. Work out a genuine model of bilateral co-operation

2. Keep national and global interests in mind 

3. Stop issuing threats of kicking out Indian immigrants from USA

4. Ensure the ecological safety in framing development policies

5. Stop spying Indian government and citizens

6. Exchange the best of human resources

7. Help India to grow for the universal development

8. Agree to end terrorism

9. Rein in Pakistan to weed out terrorists from its soil. Take India along in this mission

10. Give the best of everything and take the best of India

Krishna Srivatsa writes in The Times of India on 23 January 2015

What happens when the world’s biggest democracy and the world’s most powerful democracy come together? Is the resultant embrace genuine bonhomie or the squeeze of death? As President Obama touches down on India there are several things Prime Minister Modi can ask for, and better still hope to get at least some of.

India’s overall strategy vis-a-vis the United States must change a little. India needs to get out of its British roots, where we believe if something is given to one country or one group, then another country or group becomes automatically eligible for it. The US instead is a tale of Washington’s fabled ‘K Street’, home to all the major lobbyists and advocacy groups of America whose complex interplay determines the final vector of forces.

Thus India needs to step up to the table and articulate what it wants, for that’s the way the US system responds. A potent example of that is how over the years Nasscom has engaged powerful lobbying firms to liaise with the US administration on visas and other issues, with reasonably good success till the recent immigration problems cropped up.

For business visitors from India, immigration queues in American airports are often a nightmare. The US has offered advance immigration facilities in Abu Dhabi and it would be convenient if the same can be extended to Mumbai and Bangalore — helping frequent flyers from the corporate and especially IT sectors a great deal. The US offered it to other countries such as Ireland in the past and India can easily seek and secure this benefit.

That apart establishment of a US consulate in Bangalore, India’s Silicon Valley, will be a good signal to an industry which sends thousands to the US every year.

Second, recent research by the Peterson Institute of International Economics argues that the economic value of Indian migrants in America is close to $50 billion per annum, significantly higher compared to US imports of services of $19 billion and goods of $41 billion. To leverage the complete value of Indian immigrants in America the proposed ‘totalisation agreement’ — which will essentially help those who spend their working lives across the two countries by protecting their benefits and removing legal obstacles from receiving them in another country — needs to be fast tracked.

Third, US goods and services trade with India touched $100 billion in 2013-14 with India being America’s 18th largest goods export market and 10th largest goods import market. Whereas the US is India’s second largest export market after EU. In general, the US has been less open than is believed and needs to liberalise its trade regime more.

Government of India statistics show that between 2000-13, US equity inflows were just 6% of $314,902 million total FDI inflow into India. While there is talk of bilateral investment and trade treaties what must be borne in mind is, if we go ahead, the US will almost certainly ask for opening up FDI in multi-brand retail (which India should agree to, although this comes with serious political implications), tougher environment and labour standards (which it would be ill-advised to agree to), elimination of various tariffs on consumer goods, stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights, foreign ownership of retail banks/professional services firms and so on.

India might not be ready to do all these just yet, perhaps these are still a few years away. It would be too premature to expect India to sign the kind of carbon emissions capping treaty that the US signed with China last year (though it might be realistic to expect India to support the proposed climate change deal, which the US has been pushing).

In which case, the moot question is should we be discussing new trade or investment treaties at all?

Fourth, Obama and Kerry have raised the ante significantly with their anti-offshoring rhetoric. Investment is as much a matter of sentiment as it is of economic fundamentals. Obama and Kerry can’t keep saying ‘We are getting Bangalore-d’ if US companies are to deepen economic ties with India. If Obama finds it difficult to approve of offshoring to India he should at least remain silent, instead of making it the new four-letter word in Indo-US economic relations.

The logic of markets should be allowed to dictate the decisions of individual US companies vis-a-vis India, not political or other artificial quotas buttressed by negative sentiment emanating out of America’s highest offices.

The two countries should also break the old impasse over Indian laws that makes equipment suppliers liable for accidents at nuclear plants. Globally the burden is usually on plant operators; the absence of this in India has negatively impacted US companies from entering the nuclear power sector despite landmark civil nuclear agreements signed a decade ago.

India and the US have been dating each other for some time now, despite irritants and alternate suitors. Two decades after economic reforms, India has now firmly put away its leanings towards Russia and the erstwhile socialist bloc. The time is ripe for a durable relationship between India and the US. Both sides need each other more than before. This embrace can’t be fatal but has to be friendly, for each side to benefit the other.

Chinese Threats and India's Bits

India's  tackling of the Chinese threats are in tits and bits. Like handling the Chinese fishing nets in Cochin, strategy spin masters of our national security are totally callous. From Sri Lanka to Somalia, from Pakistan to Peru, Chinese are stitching an international network against India. They know well that India is a big challenger to Chinese supremacy in the coming days. 

For India it is not enough knowing what the Chinese are up against it. But checkmating their moves and eliminating the collaborations in the early stage will steady India's growth.

If India fails to wake up to the growing Chinese interests around the world, it will have to pay heavily in the future. This is a very delicate issue to be managed. Pushing overt action against the Chinese and its new friends will permanently damage India's growth. For instance, over drive of relationship with USA will put India against Russia - the longest ally. Quickly they will turn to China. Imagine the situation where Russia, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Gulf countries, African nations in the Chinese kitty!

Time for real strategies and realisation of those strategies in quick time.

Nayan Chanda writes in The Times of India.

The Silk Road, a romantic name that evokes images of camel caravans laden with luxuries wending their way through picturesque mountains and steppes, is back in the news. In its latest avatar, the Silk Road is a Chinese strategic initiative comprising an infrastructure bank and a slew of road, high-speed rail, pipelines, ports and fibre-optic cables projects. Recently unveiled by President Xi Jinping, its ambition is to tie Central Asia and Europe with the Silk Road Economic Belt and expand its trade and strategic reach in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean all the way to East Africa with the help of Maritime Silk Road.

If the Chinese vision is realised it could transform the country’s relationship with its neighbours giving it an unassailable position in all of Asia including the Indian Ocean. Surprisingly India has signed up to be a co-founder of the infrastructure bank to fund the project. Before jumping on the ‘New’ Silk Road caravan, India would do well to examine where it is headed.

Despite the comfortingly familiar old name, what China is seeking to achieve with its 21st century version bears no resemblance to the historic connector. Some two millennia ago, road networks were used by foreign traders to buy items like silk, precious stones and sell Buddhist icons and paraphernalia to China. A subsequent seaborne trade route (dubbed the ‘Maritime Silk Road’) came to be the dominant connection between southern China and the Mediterranean, with a network of Southeast Asian and Indian ports in between.

Remarkably, while China supplied the goods, it was Central Asian traders, as well as Arabs, Persians, Indians and Malays, who played the central role in the old Silk Road. In the New Silk Road of Xi Jinping’s imagination, China will not only sell its domestically produced cornucopia but will also create pathways to move goods and even manufacture them in partner countries. Instead of the world coming to China as in the past, China will now be going out to the world, building naval and resupply facilities along the ocean route. Although strategic aspect of the proactive policy is never mentioned Chinese scholars in Beijing privately explained that the New Silk Road is China’s response to what it views as US-led encirclement effort through its ‘Asia pivot’ and Trans-Pacific Partnership project.

The proposed $40 billion Silk Road Fund will finance construction of railroads, pipelines and roadways that will link China with three continents over land and sea. A proposed canal across the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand could provide a faster link between South China Sea and Indian Ocean. A state-owned Chinese company is building a deep-water container port and industrial park in Malaysia. China has already taken over from India a $500-million airport development in Maldives, considered an integral part of the Maritime Silk Road. President Xi recently inaugurated one of the most ambitious of China’s recent projects — $1.4 billion Colombo port city.

Economic factors behind China’s plans for ambitious opening to the world are easy to understand. With its greying population making labour expensive and adding to social welfare costs, and with lacklustre demand from western markets, China’s economic growth has plateaued. Closer integration with regional neighbours would dramatically expand the mainland’s potential market for goods and services. Meanwhile, relocating China’s old, polluting and labour-intensive industries to neighbouring countries would allow it to invest its mounting dollar reserves in alternative energies and meet its emissions reduction targets.

Unmentioned in the Silk Road projects, but seemingly an integral part of the outward push, is setting up facilities for China’s power projection: a reported special transmission centre in southern Balochistan to communicate with submerged submarines; an aircraft maintenance facility near Chinese-aided Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. The recent appearance of Chinese submarines in Sri Lanka gave a peek into the steel that lies under the so-called Maritime Silk Road.

While promoting the New Silk Road China has not said what the rules of the road it envisages are. Given China’s refusal to accept the UN Convention on Law of the Sea to define its territorial claims in South China Sea, the maritime passages would likely be governed by Chinese law. One can expect the Chinese navy to take over responsibility for protecting the new maritime Silk Road, as the Mongol army did for the Central Asian Silk Road in the 14th century. China’s latest project is unlikely to be as smooth as its name might suggest.