The New India-Middle East-European Corridor’s Geopolitics
The launch of a new project to build a rail and maritime corridor connecting India to Europe via the Middle East was one accomplishment made on the fringes of India’s G-20 Summit. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by the leaders of the United States, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France, Germany, Italy, and the European Union to create a new India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), according to a White House fact sheet.
It is important since it includes several of the key Middle Eastern nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE, and Jordan. This is especially true from a geopolitical standpoint. The leaders made this announcement at the G-20 Leaders’ Summit on the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), where they also mentioned that the IMEC will involve energy pipelines, high-speed data cables, maritime lines, and rail connectivity. These will supplement the current road and sea infrastructure, facilitating trade and service mobility “to transit to, from, and between India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and Europe.”
The United States and its allies have worked to develop strong counterproposals, particularly in light of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) announcement. The PGII is another infrastructure program that will provide funding for connectivity projects in underdeveloped nations. It was introduced at the G-7 Summit in August 2022 as a response to China’s BRI. The PGII, like IMEC, has four main areas of focus: gender equality and equity, digital connectivity, health and health security, and climate and energy security. After the Memorandum of Understanding was signed, the PGII had a number of initiatives and investments.
The European Union also unveiled its plans for a “Trans-African Corridor,” a transportation system connecting Angola, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, at the G-20 conference along with IMEC. In the news announcement, it was said that the Trans-African Corridor represented “a powerful evolution” of the PGII.
Both from a geopolitical and infrastructure and connectivity standpoint, IMEC is important. Two distinct pathways are included in the project: the eastern corridor, which connects India to the Arabian Gulf, and the northern corridor, which links the Arabian Gulf to Europe. In line with the MoU, IMEC is “expected to stimulate economic development through enhanced connectivity and economic integration between Asia, the Arabian Gulf, and Europe.”
Other significant aspects of the new corridor are dependable and secure regional supply chains, improved trade accessibility, and trade facilitation. The goal of the participating nations is to “increase efficiencies, reduce costs, enhance economic unity, generate jobs, and lower greenhouse gas emissions – resulting in a transformative integration of Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.”
While more information is awaited, it is currently known that IMEC is looking into a variety of routes that would connect several ports along the way, such as Haifa in Israel, Piraeus in Greece, and three ports on India’s west coast: Mundra (Gujarat), Kandla (Gujarat), and Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (Navi Mumbai). Five Middle Eastern ports, including Dammam and Ras Al Khair in Saudi Arabia, Fujairah, Jebel Ali, and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, will connect with Indian ports. The final choice will be based on the routes that can “potentially reduce the freight load on one route,” and all of these are now being shortlisted.
All ports, with the exception of those at India’s Mundra, Israel’s Haifa, and Greece’s Piraeus, are owned by the government. The Indian multinational Adani Group is in charge of the ports in Mundra and Haifa. The Chinese state-owned company COSCO Shipping, which acquired a majority stake in the port of Piraeus in 2016, is in charge of Greece.
Studies are being conducted to determine the condition of the infrastructure, especially the Middle Eastern railway networks, according to official sources cited in media reports. Missing linkages for new construction projects under IMEC are being highlighted. Although the actual cost of the IMEC is unknown, a media source stated that the partner nations “may allocate an estimated $20 billion” to the economic corridor. Officials reportedly said that it is “too early to peg costs,” but other media reports cited an early estimate of $3 billion to $8 billion for developing each of the IMEC lines.
The MoU’s signatories will gather in November to begin finalizing the details.
In terms of geopolitics, the IMEC is promoted as a rival to China’s BRI, however the BRI is much more extensive and wide-ranging. Over 150 nations and about 30 international organizations have endorsed the BRI since its inception ten years ago. India has opposed the BRI since the beginning since a crucial BRI project, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, passes through Indian-claimed territory. Despite having the support of many nations, the BRI’s reputation has been damaged by the debt problems in nations like Sri Lanka. Italy most recently declared its intention to leave the BRI because it “did not bring the results expected.”
The kind of economic and strategic outreach that China has engaged in through programs like the BRI is challenging for one nation to accomplish. However, it looks that by providing a strong alternative to the poor world, countries like India, the United States, and a number of other technologically and financially advanced nations may together thwart China’s efforts. The IMEC partner nations seem to have all the necessary components to worry Beijing.
