India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently announced the launch of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), a new transport corridor that aims to enhance communication and transportation links between Europe and Asia. This corridor, touted as the basis of world trade for centuries to come, has garnered attention and speculation about its potential impact and whether it can rival China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
The IMEC was announced during the G20 summit in Delhi, with US President Joe Biden and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman expressing their support for the project. While the primary focus of the corridor is to boost economic ties and facilitate trade, it also reflects American foreign policy objectives, particularly in countering China’s growing influence.
The BRI, initiated by President Xi Jinping a decade ago, aims to connect China with Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Russia, and Europe through infrastructure projects. However, the BRI has faced criticism for its financial implications and strategic intentions. Countries like Italy have expressed their desire to withdraw from the initiative, while others, such as Sri Lanka and Zambia, have struggled with debt traps.
In contrast, the IMEC is seen by some as a counter to the BRI and a way for the US to assert its influence in the region. Although the IMEC’s ambitions are commendable, experts suggest that it is not a game-changer on the scale of the BRI. China has a significant head start, with over $1 trillion invested in the BRI.
The IMEC, although not matching the scale and ambition of the BRI, reflects a global trend of transactional partnerships and collaborations among countries. Many nations seek to participate in multiple alliances and fora to maximize their economic and strategic interests.
The formation of the IMEC is just the beginning, as an action plan is expected to be developed in the next 60 days. However, implementing the corridor will be complex, requiring cooperation from multiple government agencies and the establishment of a new customs and trade architecture. Geopolitical complexities also pose challenges, as partner countries like the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia may have divergent interests.
Furthermore, the IMEC’s competition with the Suez Canal raises questions about its economic viability. The sea-level waterway in Egypt offers a cheaper and faster mode of transportation between Mumbai and Europe. Transport economics suggests that sea transport through the Suez Canal is more efficient and convenient.
Despite these challenges, the IMEC’s ambitions extend beyond trade and economics. The corridor aims to include various sectors, such as electricity grids and cybersecurity, contributing to a safer and more habitable planet. However, turning these lofty ambitions into reality requires substantial effort and coordination.
As the IMEC progresses, it will be important to monitor its development and assess its impact on global trade and geopolitical dynamics. While it may not be able to rival the BRI’s scale and influence, the IMEC has the potential to create new avenues for collaboration and connectivity between Europe and Asia. Its success will depend on effective implementation, addressing logistical challenges, and navigating the complex web of international relations.
