Connect with us

Features

Trade or geopolitics?

Published

on

Though not directly referred to in the MOU, one of IMEC‘s implicit objectives is to counter China‘s BRI, which strengthens its connectivity with countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America with an extensive network of land and sea routes.

By AFTAB ALAM

One of the major outcomes of the recently concluded G20 Summit in New Delhi was the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) among the governments of India, the United States, Saudi Arabia, the European Union (EU), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), France, Germany, and Italy to create the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) for establishing an economic corridor stretching from India to Europe.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed IMEC as “a beacon of cooperation, innovation, and shared progress charting a journey of shared aspirations and dreams,” which he again highlighted on September 24 in his monthly radio programme, Mann Ki Baat. Many commentators and leaders have also described IMEC as a “historic” development that would prove to be a “game changer”.

Leaving aside the euphoria generated by the announcement of IMEC as the modern incarnation of the ancient “spice route”, some hard questions need to be asked about its financing, credibility, and profitability. Who will foot the bill? Does the limited volume of trade involved justify a new and isolated rail line when there is already convenient maritime transport between India, the Middle East and Europe?

For example, India is the EU’s 10th largest trading partner, accounting for just 2 per cent of the total EU trade in goods. Is IMEC part of the US grand strategy to contain China’s growing foothold in the Asia-Pacific, Middle-East, and African regions by drawing other countries into its fold and using them as pawns? Will China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) be successfully countered by IMEC, an objective that the United States and India have been striving for? We are mistaken if we think that IMEC is merely an infrastructure project.

The proposal represents a multimode transit corridor spanning over 3,000 miles, consisting of two separate wings, the east corridor connecting India to the Arabian Gulf and the northern corridor connecting the Arabian Gulf to Europe. It will be a combination of railroads, ship routes, and roadways.

According to the MOU, the participants also intend to lay along the rail routes a pipe for clean hydrogen export and cables for electricity and communications. IMEC is being seen as effective transport connectivity, which would promote investments and strengthen regional supply chains. It is expected to increase trade accessibility and facilitate the movement of goods and services by reducing transaction time by 40 per cent and cost by 30 per cent, compared to the present Suez Canal route, as estimated by an analyst from the Jerusalem Institute of Strategy and Security.

However, the claim that IMEC would substantially reduce the time and cost is doubtful, as due to the combination of transportation means involved, this would also entail multiple loading and unloading costs and time in each port along the way, as well as transit tolls and fees.

The normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia is a crucial factor for the success of IMEC and the seamless transport of goods, which appears to be a remote possibility. The political stability in the Middle East is yet another important factor in its success, whose longevity is always questionable. The proposed corridor offers India a specific geopolitical advantage as it would find an alternative trade overland connectivity route to the west, independent of Pakistan.

India’s growing economic and strategic ties with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which IMEC aims at, would help isolate its arch rival Pakistan in the region. There are many challenges and roadblocks that IMEC will face once the project is finally rolled out. Financing is one thorny issue on which the MOU is silent. It is not yet clear what the cost of the project would be, and how the requisite funds would be mobilised.

According to the initial estimate, the project would require around US$20 billion, which would have to be generated by the participating nations. The substantial funding is expected to come from the Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment (PGII), a collective endeavour by G7 nations to finance transparent, climateresilient, and gender-equal critical infrastructure projects in developing nations.

Though not directly referred to in the MOU, one of IMEC’s implicit objectives is to counter China’s BRI, which strengthens its connectivity with countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America with an extensive network of land and sea routes. Despite accusations of promoting predatory lending practices and “debt trap diplomacy” which undermine international norms and values, BRI has bolstered China’s clout at the international level.

What worries the US the most about BRI is the inclusion in it of many of its very close allies and IMEC partners, such as Greece, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. While Italy has recently expressed its desire to withdraw from the BRI, it would still instead work on its broader economic relationship with China. It remains to be seen how a balance is struck between the two commitments.

India is deeply upset with China’s BRI, as one of its major components, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), passes through Pakistan’s illegally occupied Kashmir. India considers CPEC a direct infringement on its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The divergence of interests among the partner countries may also undermine the prospect of IMEC’s success. It must be noted that all participants in IMEC are not necessarily ranged against China. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the two main pillars of the corridor, are opposed to a bipolar world order that forces them to choose between these two rivals, China and the United States.

This is evident from the fact that they not only recently joined the BRICS group but are also trying hard to become members of the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which was established in 2001 as a political, economic, and security forum to rival Western institutions. Saudi Arabia may not share the United States’ objective to counter China’s BRI through IMEC. Saudi Arabia is getting closer to China, which recently mediated its landmark agreement with its arch-rival, Iran.

This has the potential to change the strategic dynamics of the region. It is worth noting that Saudi’s net trade with China has substantially risen to US$87 billion, while its trade with the US has declined to US$25 billion, which was almost the same as a decade ago. Saudi Arabia is also seeking to become a member of the Shanghai-based BRICS Bank, which is being developed by the world’s major developing economies as an alternative to the West-dominated World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The growing cooperation between China and many middle-eastern countries would pose a major challenge to the successful operationalisation of IMEC, as China’s economic engagement with these countries far exceeds that of the United States’ and its European allies. Over the last few years, China’s trade with the Middle East has grown by US$100 billion, with the total volume exceeding US$300 billion.

Obsessed with China’s growing global footprint and its desperate desire to rein it in, the US is looking for opportunities to wean away the nations that were enticed by China through BRI. IMEC is thus America’s endeavour to project itself as an alternative partner and investor for developing countries to contain China’s growing economic and political influence.

Our euphoria about IMEC should not blind us to the fact that many similar infrastructure projects like the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (2017) and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (2022), despite United States commitments, have remained nonstarters for want of fundraising and questions about the sincerity of the United States. In the long run, if the United States or EU withholds funding due to changes in domestic and international political dynamics, IMEC would also meet the same fate. The success of IMEC will depend on the sincerity of the member states in addressing these challenges. (The Statesman/ANN)

(The writer is a professor at Aligarh Muslim University and heads its Strategic and Security Studies Programme)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines

Published

on

Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.

Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.

Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.

Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.

Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.

The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.

The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:

=Joint planning across operational divisions

=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making

=Continuous cross-functional consultation

=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates

Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.

Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.

By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst

Continue Reading

Features

Why Pi Day?

Published

on

International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow

The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.

Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.

Archimedes

It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.

Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.

Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.

π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)

The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.

π = 9801/(1103 √8)

For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.

It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.

This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.

Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.

Happy Pi Day!

The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.

by R N A de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink

Published

on

A combined US-Israel attack on Iran.(BBC)

The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.

As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.

It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.

Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.

Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.

The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.

While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.

On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.

Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.

Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.

Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.

Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.

However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.

Continue Reading

Trending