 The India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor emerged as a talking point at the recently concluded G20 summit held in the Indian capital of New Delhi. While the United States has quickly jumped onto the bandwagon, what are the political realities of Eurasia and West Asia? And how will those factors play out in turning this pipe dream into a viable transcontinental infrastructure project? And the governor of the Japanese prefecture of Okinawa has voiced complaints regarding U.S. military bases at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Why is the governor at loggerheads with the Japanese government itself when it comes to the question of U.S. military presence in the country? Salam's you're watching The Daily Debrief coming to you from the People's Dispatch Studios here in New Delhi with me Siddharth Ani and I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you to subscribe to our YouTube channel. First up on the show today, we're talking about the India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor, an infrastructure project aiming to utilize multimodal transport, sea and rail primarily, to link, as the name indicates, India to Europe via West Asia. Now the U.S. has jumped onto the project which looks to use the Haifa port in Israel run by the Adani Group as a major hub through which this trade will take place. While this pipe dream may work for Israel, the foreign, maybe a foreign policy win for the starved Biden administration and even for Indian companies who are looking to expand port operational capabilities as well as get bigger contracts. It doesn't, however, seem to account for the political realities of the region, developments and relations between China and Russia on the one hand and West Asia's clear inclination to pursue an independent future free of Western agendas. Prabhu Prakash and New Slick's editor-in-chief is with us now. Let's go over to him for more on this story. Prabhu, at the G20 summit in New Delhi, there was discussion on this proposed infrastructure corridor linking Europe, West Asia and South Asia. What do you make of these conversations in the context of existing trade corridors, of course, and also we'll get to it later, perhaps the Belt and Road Initiative. Well, let's put it this way, it is somehow being contrasted or in some sense supposed to be competing with the Belt Road Initiative and to me, that doesn't really make much sense, but if we look at the map, the Belt Road Initiative was really to connect China, essentially East Asia to West Asia, via Central Asia and also to Europe and the possibility of connecting also South Asia and Southeast Asia, some of which have not practised. Yes, there is a Pakistan route, but India is not a participant and Southeast Asia, again, is not clear to what extent their participants are not, but they have a periway trade agreement with China, which includes a common market in some sense. So, the question is, I don't understand the competition because Europe to South Asia, again, a land route and a sea route combination would mean a combination, what is called a multimodal transport, that means you have containers, ships say, and those containers should be loaded onto trains and then after the land, they should be again offloaded and again then via ship to India. Now, we already have a ship-to-ship link with the Mediterranean via the Swiss Canal and if we want larger tankers, of course, they come via the South of Africa. So, I am not very sure what is this gap that it is seeking to meet, except to connect Europe to West Asia, that seems to be one of the objectives. Again, these are already there. There are ports on the Mediterranean and, of course, they connect to the land of West Asia. If a route, railway routes or rail connections have to be built, then, of course, there is how they repair railway lines. There is a GCC who are also trying to build a railway link and that sort of is running along the Persian Gulf. So, all of these efforts are already on the exist. In what way we supplement that if they are coming in, Europe coming in, it is not very clear to me. So, that is one ambiguity of the whole project. The second, of course, is the question which I think we should discuss further, who have the ability to build such projects, who have the capability of building such projects, where is the money going to come from? But also, the joker in the pack, the two parties who are in a sense a problem for this project. One is Saudi Arabia and its relationship with Israel. Now, that is a big problem right now. And apparently, Saudi Arabia is pulling out of its backdoor negotiations with Israel. There are some links or leaks to that effect. We do not know how far that is true. The second is Turkey. Now, Turkey considers itself a major player and the fact that Turkey has a different objective or a different set of possibilities. It is offering Turkey as an anchor point, not Greece. These are all things to be taken to account. So, I think these are some of the issues that perhaps we need to discuss here. Yes, absolutely. So, coming to that first aspect that you mentioned, some of the experts who have been commenting on this corridor have said that over 3000 kilometers of railroads still need to be built. These are the kind of gaps that exist if you look at the map in this proposed corridor. And the assumption is that no one other than Chinese companies at present have the capability to engage in that kind of an infrastructure or construction project when it comes to the railroads. But China is of course not a part of this discussion at this point, even though they might later on of course use the corridor if it does come into existence. How do you kind of balance those things out? You know, theoretically the Japanese, the Koreans, the Indians, the Europeans can build the corridor. So, China of course is the largest player today in terms of building railway lines both in their own country and for example in Africa and of course the Belt Road Initiative also has railway lines going through Central Asia. Compared to that, India has more or less been looking at its own network, railway network and then the process of upgrading it. They are not undertaking major projects like this abroad as of now. Of course, they can say they will do it in the future. European seems to be of the downswing. They really are not building, once upon a time they used to be railroad builders, not that we can see major activities of that they are undertaking either. The United States as we know, has it even built its own railway network or upgraded railway network? It has a large one, but it is really not upgrading the network, its ability to keep that network functional itself is a question mark. So, given all of that, yes, it is a question of money and companies who want to come in and build that and without the Chinese coming in, you are really looking at the oil money that is there with Saudi Arabia, that is there with United Arab Emirates, with Qatar for example, Kuwait, all of whom can fund but who can build it is an open question. But I think that the funding part of it and who is a player is going to be a big question mark and yes, you are actually right. The ability of a lot of countries to come in and put a project of this kind on the ground is not an easy task. But I think the political questions over this are the bigger ones. In the sense, what we do with Israel being thought of by Europe and tacitly by India as a major player in all of this, that the first link between Europe is going to be with Haifa, Israel and of course, Mr. Adani apparently has taken over that port, that part of it already in the background. But the point is, Israel and its current path that it is travelling of as you know, really expropriating, increasing Palestinian lands, throwing out Palestinian people, not only having them as second-class citizens but effectively confining them increasingly to ghettos. This is not a two-state solution. It's a one-state solution and expropriation of the other section, the other state that is in process and they have also said the whole process, the peace process that started long back in the 90s, that's now dead effectively. And this with that as a fulcrum in West Asia today seems to be something which is not going to pass the muster. Saudi Arabia was in talks with Israel behind the scenes, that's what the United States are telling us. But at the moment, it doesn't look like they're going to go forward. The Abraham Accords, which is what the United States really wants to push, made themselves as the hosts of the Abraham Accords. They were the ones who are pushing it and they were the ones who are acting as the priests, high priests of those marriages. That seems to have now gone to the back burner because those countries are not interested anymore in the American, European Union, Israel axis as determining the future of West Asia. If you see now, West Asian countries want to work out their own future, we have discussed it in the past as well. And Turkey is a player, leaving it out is not going to work. Egypt is a player, leaving it out is not going to work. So having all these players out and India coming in to replace China, which is what the United States seems to be trying to do, is again not going to work because we have a dependent relationship with all these countries in any case. We don't need an IMEC to have our relationship with these countries. But we cannot act as a bridge between Israel and West Asian countries today. That's not going to work at all. They would not trust anybody but themselves now to straighten out their own internal nations. And you can see all these countries are trying for your procema. We already saw that in GCC Gulf Council when they re-admitted Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia continuing to talk, Turkey wanting to enter into the mix. If we put all of it together, West Asia seems to be on the trajectory of its own and it is sailing out of the orbit of the United States and European Union. And Israel is really looked upon as an outpost of the West in what is called by the West at least as Near East or Middle East, and that is not going to work in the West Asian. If you look at the respective sizes, the economies, the kind of wealth they have in terms of oil, the resources they have, and simple area of that place, now the population of that, Israel is really a very small player in all of this. And it is only such a big player because it has been really been asked to operate on the genre of the West in that part of the world. It's an outpost of the West which is a power projection, military projection of the NATO as well as of course the United States primarily in order to control West Asia with of course the sixth fleet and all the military bases the United States has. As we have seen, none of that really works. Iraq war, they finally lost. In the case of Afghanistan, they lost. In the case of Libya, they've destroyed the country, but they have not been able to control the oil wealth of that place either, which was their original intention. So all of these projects, what I will call the imperial projects of the West have really failed and to think that this kind of IMAC project will somehow revive the western fortunes by drawing West Asia into the European orbit with some support from India. It doesn't seem to be geostrategically a viable project anymore. The center of gravity, center of gravity of Eurasia is shifting to the Eurasian land mass and the center of gravity of Iranian land. Eurasian land mass is really the center of gravity between Russia, China and India with West Asia's coming together as a possible fourth block. Of course, we have the ASEAN, let's talk about that. They are the most, the dynamically one of the most vibrant economies in the world today. This is the center of gravity. Europe increasingly is looking like a power which doesn't know where to go. It's a bit of a has been still feeling the imperial glories of the past, but that are there. They're only able to do some saber rattling in Africa, thinking that Africans still listen to them, which also is not working. So I don't think the center of gravity today in this entire region is with the European Union and I think that's the big mistake. India is also making to believe that that they could bring themselves back with the European Union to counterbalance China. Of course, having still friendly relations with Russia, that this kind of geostrategic understanding that India seems to have, I don't think is what is in conformity with the way the world is moving. I'll be last bit on Turkey and it's sort of at least perceived or even otherwise. There was a meeting recently between Putin and Erdogan. They sort of brokered the Black Sea grain deal for as long as it did run for about a year. The increasing closeness with Russia, is that something that the players behind the scene like the United States are looking to counter in some way? Turkey is like India. It's a swing player. It's not a poll in that sense of the political scenario. The polls are very obvious today, Russia and China on one side and United States on the other with European Union and not counting small players like Australia and this, but these are really the two polls. And then you have swing players who have leverage because of these two polls, who have the leverage to play in all of this and they don't necessarily have to align with one or the other. That's why the word multiple alignment with foreign minister is very fond of the Indian foreign minister. Turkey has been playing the multiple alignment game for quite some time. It's a part of NATO. It fights in Greece and obviously the European powers are much closer to Greece than they're going to be ever with Turkey. Let's play a place in very clearly for what it is. Turkey is whatever it might, Ankara, Istanbul elite may feel, particularly Istanbul elite is not considered European. They are Asiatic whether they like it or not. Therefore the future whether they want it or not is in Asia and that's what the Europe has said very clearly a number of times and it's not going to change. So given all of this, I think Turkey will act as a swing player. It is a part of NATO officially and you know that how comfortable NATO is about it at the moment, but at the same time the center of gravity, the economic center of gravity shifts more towards Asia than and less from moving away from Europe. Turkey also knows where its future is and I think therefore Turkey is not going to burn its bridges with West Asia, with Russia. It will also keep its relationship with the United States, keep them guessing and with European Union and with particularly taking Greece as a major element in that they're going to be at cross purposes. So there is a lot of issues over there. That's not something that we can discuss today in this context. So as far as the IMEK project project is concerned, they have quite clearly shown they're going to play a spoiler. All right, thanks very much Prabir. Interesting also, we left out a discussion on the United States and co-opting sort of this project from their point of view, perhaps displaying the Biden administration's kind of desperation to clutch at any kind of straws that that kind of offsets the bankruptcy of their foreign policy over the past few years heading up to the elections. But thanks very much for that detailed kind of analysis on what's going on with the IMEK and hope to have you back on the show very soon. Thank you. And for our second and final bit for today's show, Denny Tamaki, the governor of the Japanese prefecture Okinawa, has voiced complaints at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva against military bases in his region. He said the large and disproportionate U.S. military presence hinders peace in Okinawa, reduces the participation of locals in governance and decision making, and also that Japan's tense relations with its neighbor as well as its push towards militarization are a cause for concern that demand international attention. Okinawa accounts for just 0.6 percent of Japan's land area but hosts over 70 percent of the United States is over 30,000 troops in the country. Anish covers the region for People's Dispatch and is with us now. Anish, I guess it's significant that the governor of Okinawa has brought up the threat to peace that the continued U.S. military presence in his prefecture specifically is to peace in the region as I was mentioning and hoping that the Japanese government accelerates instead diplomatic efforts to work on its ties with other countries in the region. How significantly do you view these statements at the UN Human Rights Council? Well, coming at a time when Japan is trying to become the spirit for a very pro-U.S. sort of access in the Asia Pacific region and it has played a big role. Recently, we have seen the current government under Fisheela trying to expand the military expenditure and also to expand military bases or the presence of military bases, not just from Okinawa and spread it out throughout the entire archipelago. All of these definitely are part of a larger plan to obviously militarize Japan and the couple of years. So the Okinawan governor's statement at the Human Rights Council talking about peace and how that is threatening rights of average Okinawans is something that is far more significant than most media reports would like to give credit to, primarily because obviously connecting peace and with human rights is something that is very rarely done. It has not been done before, but it's very rarely done because it is basically asking for deceleration of any kind of tensions in the region. It is calling for opposing militarization of the region, not just from the United States but also from Japan. So these specific things, obviously these are context of it. These are not something that is specifically brought up in very detailed manner by the governor. But definitely this is the context in which this is happening and that is the reason why Okinawans who have to deal with about 70% of US military infrastructure based in Japan and more than two thirds of the troops that come to Japan clearly have a significant interest in peace as well because obviously there is a long history of this island being at the center of the Pacific theater, a very bloody center in fact and in that case it was and also the long history of occupation that was only related decades after Japan was given its due constitution. So all of these factors definitely have an impact on how you've announced you and primarily one of the reasons why most Okinawans continue to support these pro-peace campaigns, pro-peace candidates be it Governor Tamaki or for that matter when it comes to parliamentary elections or local elections in most cases if not all of them. And so this is something that is to bring that up, to internationalize this matter is necessary because obviously when you're talking about peace it has to be internationalized in some way or and using this platform is something that is quite important and like should be considered in a way that does not undermine significance of this. Domestically though Anish we've seen the government in Japan and most recently even the Supreme Court trying to quash the desire for peace that like you were mentioning day to day Okinawans have and probably maybe not just limited to of course Okinawans only. How do you see the political dynamic in the country that is contributing to this increased sort of militarization and why is the establishment trying to quash voices for peace and against increased military presence? Well there is an ideological reason but primarily Japan has always presented itself as the most steadfast ally especially a developed nation being a steadfast ally in the region and that has always worked in USA's favor in many cases. There is also in the case of the Japanese Supreme Court which actually rejected the plea against the base expansion and asked government to the local government the prefectural government to give access to areas that were needed for the expansion of bases at the time contentiously as it might be was barely a matter of legality because obviously when you sign treaties of military nature it's not necessarily illegal it might be contentious nevertheless. There are definitely you know a very split or divided sort of population opinion like among the Japanese population and that is something that needs to be considered. While many of them want Okinawan's burden to be spread out throughout the rest of the Japanese territories most of them and asked if they would welcome a base in their cities said that they would not. So this clearly shows that there is a divide in how the Japanese a large part of the Japanese public kind of perceive the American military presence in their country because most of them really do not have to deal with the US military bases in their backyard. They do not have to and we have to remember that this has had a significant level of impunity that has been afforded to the Americans not only when troops commit crimes in Japan but also in during the COVID-19 pandemic when at one point in time we remember we have proposed about this in the show of how many of them like were infected like most of the infections came from Okinawa at that time and that clearly shows a very disproportionately large number in fact more than a quarter of the infections at one point where from Okinawa and all of these factors were completely you know under the carpet by the Japanese government at the time. So obviously there is the ideological factor of the anti-communism, the conservatism, the significantly growing right wing tendencies within the ruling party that is pushing forward this sort of militarization but then there is also on the ground a significant perception who are not ready to actually appreciate American military presence in their backyard as well and it's not just the Okinawans. The Okinawans are facing the front of it but then the rest of the Japanese are also not ready to welcome it and this is something that the Japanese government tries to underplay very often and that is going to be at their own detriment in the long run I think. All right thanks very much Anish for that update reminder that 30,000 also American troops are stationed in Japan and Okinawa even though it's a very small part of the country like Anish was saying host the vast majority of them we leave it there for today Anish thanks so much. That's a wrap on this episode of The Daily Debrief as always we take this opportunity to invite you to head to our website peoplethispatch.org for details on these stories of course but also all of the other work we do don't also forget to follow us on the social media platform with your choice we're on Twitter Instagram and Facebook if you haven't done so already we'll be back same time same place with another episode tomorrow until then stay safe thanks for watching goodbye