India is denying media reports that it has been left out of Iran’s Chabahar railway line project following China’s cheap proposal. Delhi cast the reports as speculative and stated that Tehran is yet to nominate an authorized entity to settle the outstanding technical and financial issues related to the venture. Iran has reportedly cited delays from India in funding and starting the project for its decision.

The 2016 India-Iran Agreement

India and Iran had signed an agreement to construct the rail line in May 2016. The railway project was a venture between the state-owned Indian Railways Construction Limited and the Iranian railways. It was a part of the trilateral agreement between India, Iran, and Afghanistan to build an alternate trade route to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Located 72 kilometers west of Pakistan’s Gwadar port, the route holds economic and strategic significance for India. The Chabahar-Zahedan rail line will ultimately extend to Zaranj in Afghanistan, enabling a convenient and hurdle-free trade route.

India: ‘Significant Progress’ on Deal Despite US Sanctions

Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said that there has been significant progress on the Chabahar port project since 2016. “A longstanding commitment from 2003 relating to port was operationalized in 2016 during the Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Iran,” he said at a press briefing. “Since then, despite the United States sanctions, there has been significant progress on the port project,” Srivastava said, adding that India’s investment in the Chabahar Port had progressed well.

The port has handled 82 ships with 1.2 million tons of bulk cargo in 8,200 containers since December 2018.

Why is Chabahar Port Important for India?

Chabahar is the only oceanic port that links Iran from the western coast of India and bypasses Pakistan. It is a hassle-free gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Pakistan is a thorn in India’s commerce with Afghanistan and Central Asia as Pakistan denies overland transit facility to India over its soil. India intends to link Chabahar port to the Zaranj-Delaram highway in Afghanistan. Chabahar is also significant as it is also a gateway to INSTC (International North-South Transport Corridor).

Chabahar port will also check the growing Chinese presence in the Arabian sea. China is constructing a deep seaport Gwadar in the Balochistan area of Pakistan. The location of Chabahar and Gwadar ports are in close vicinity. It is also beneficial in terms of countering the Chinese naval presence in the Indian Ocean.

Why the Current Confusion?

Indian newspaper The Hindu, which is widely acknowledging as a communist leaning, reported that the Iranian government has decided to proceed with the long-stalled rail project without India’s participation. It reported that the Iranian railways will construct the project with a $400 million Iranian National Development Fund. Recently, Iranian Transport and Urban Development Minister Mohammad Eslami inaugurated the 628 km track-laying project for the Chabahar-Zahedan line, which will be extended to Zaranj across the border in Afghanistan.

The Chinese Angle

According to reports, the doubt is due to China’s 25-year-old $400 billion strategic partnership deal with Iran. The cooperation involves infrastructure development, manufacturing and developing transport and energy facilities, renovating ports, refineries, and other installations, and committed Iranian oil and gas supplies to China during that period.

However, Iranian officials denied a report that Chabahar port, which India took, will be leased to China. Iran proposed a tie-up between the Chinese-run Pakistani port at Gwadar and Chabahar (including projects in the Chabahar duty-free zone) last year.

Iran Denies Dropping India from Deal

According to an Al Jazeera report, Iran has also denied the report that New Delhi was dropped from the rail project. Farhad Montaser, an Iran’s Ports and Maritime Organization official, termed the story “totally false because Iran has not inked any deal with India regarding the Zahedan-Chabahar” railway.

“Iran has only signed two agreements with Indians for investment in Chabahar: one is related to port’s machinery and equipment, and the second is related to India’s investment to the tune of $150m,” Montaser was quoted by the IRNA news agency.

“We had a list of Indian investments in Chabahar port, including the Chabahar railway infrastructure and the railway, but during the negotiations, it was not agreed.” He added, “US sanctions have nothing to do with Iran-India’s cooperation in Chabahar.” In 2018, Washington agreed to a waiver for Chabahar port under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012, but the newspaper said Indian officials were still wary.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of External Affairs of India has confirmed that India is no longer involved in the Farzad-B gas field project where the country’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation had signed an agreement for exploration in 2002. Without giving any details, the MEA said that “policy changes” in Iran were responsible for the decision. It remains to be seen how things unfold in the near future.

L'articolo India Denies Being Left Out of Iran’s Chabahar Rail Line Project proviene da InsideOver.

Works are in progress in the easternmost periphery of the Old Continent to bring to life an ambitious project known as E40. The E40 is a waterway whose aim is to link the Baltic sea with the Black Sea by going through the countries in between the Russian sphere and Western Europe. It would be a modern-day water-woven Iron Curtain. The geopolitical consequences of the E40 are as high as the environmental risks and its eventual construction is set to profoundly shape international relations in Eastern Europe.

What is the E40?

The E40 project has been rumored since the early 2000s but was officially unveiled only in 2013. Specifically, it aims at constructing a 2,000 kilometres-long inland shipping route from Gdansk, Poland to Kherson, Ukraine, linking the Baltic sea and the Black sea via the Dnieper, Pripyat, Bug and Vistula rivers by going through Polesia, Europe’s Amazon. Scarce information is available about the project since little has been said until today, but the establishment of the 3SI, Ukraine’s continuing closeness with the West and the ongoing Belarus-Russia arm wrestling are reviving the debate.

Once completed, the E40 is estimated to permit the transit of 5 to 7 tons of goods annually, an incredible boost to the multilateral trade among the Baltic states, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine. Tens of thousands of jobs are expected to be created due to the necessity of a kilometres-long buildup of docks, storage facilities, distribution and sorting centers.

Key Urban Locations Boost Polish and Ukrainian Power

Furthermore, the rivers selected for the water corridor pass by, or in the vicinity of, vital business sites such as Kiev, Warsaw and Gdansk. In short, it is the perfect complement to the Polish dreams of regional hegemony and to the EU-US plans to reduce Russian exposition in the Eastern European nations as much as possible.

Warsaw has shown an increasingly willingness to link the E40 to the 3SI, which would mean access to EU funds, whereas Minsk stopped opposing any regional cooperation projects not contemplating the Russian participation and very recently has shown some interest in the E40 and in other multilateral initiatives with the 3SI members. Aleksandr Lukashenko’s endorsement is the game-changer that could allow the E40 to take form since no serious North-South corridor is thinkable without Minsk.

Where Does Belarus Stand?

Russian diplomacy seemed to have succeed in convincing Lukashenko to boycott the project so that to limit its geopolitical impact and economic potential, but in the recent months the Belarusian president changed his mind, proving again to the Kremlin that he is an unreliable partner and his double play seems now destined to give in to pressures from the Western flirting diplomacy. In the case Belarus ever decides to formalize its participation, its path to diversification and de-Russification would record an incredible boost in favor of the growing amalgamation with the Poland-centered new regional order.

Last September, Lukashenko said that the participation in the E40 is very important since it may allow Minsk to have access to the Black Sea. The same month, the then-Ukrainian minister of infrastructure, Vladislav Krikli, announced a €354,000 initial allocation to dredge 64.5 kilometres of the Pripyat river. Later that year, in December, officials from Minsk and Kyiv have signed a comprehensive agreement about the E40, as a completion to previous deals for the building of a port on the Dnepr and the joint effort to dredge the Dnieper and Pripyat rivers.

In the meantime, Poland is actively searching for investors. Polish officials aspire to attract at least €20 billion in investments and are even lobbying to the Chinese, trying to convince them of the opportunity to link the E40 to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

What’s Motivating the E40 Project?

E40 is the official name given by the European Union to a waterway designed to increase the inter-dependence among the flyover-states-turned-big players of Poland, Belarus and Ukraine. It is one of the many monumental infrastructure projects which are being set up in recent years as part of the East-focused developmental agenda sponsored by the EU-US axis. One of its main purposes geopolitically is to widen the distance between Eastern Europe and Russia.

Until today, such distance was mainly political. The once Soviet-ruled and historically Russian-influenced countries have been gradually incorporated in the EU and in the NATO and then wisely converted in strongholds of Atlanticism. Russia could do nothing to prevent this Zbigniew Brzezinski-written scenario from taking place due to a series of circumstances and external factors, and now is more encircled than ever before. The likely entry into the EU and NATO in the next future of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia ⁠— against the background of the E40 ⁠— is going to complete the encirclement.

The once-poor and underdeveloped Poland plays a key-role in this essentially anti-Russian power design by taking the lead in any considerable initiative endowed with the potential of shaping the regional dynamics, from the Visegrad alliance to the Baltic Fund, from the Intermarium-inspired Three Seas Initiative (3SI) to the dream of building a Warsaw-centered energy market covering even the Baltic states and Ukraine. It’s only by having a 360 degree view of the current historical context that it’s possible to understand the true meaning and importance of the E40.

Why the E40 is So Important

The geopolitical potential of the E40 is as high as the economic one. The waterway is designed to inter-connect deeply this post-communist region inhabited by some 90 millions people and whose anti-Russian standing is vital for the Western plans of containment and regional hegemony. Poland’s effort to link the E40 to the 3SI might justify the right to receive EU funds as well as the possibility to use the waterway for security reasons and not only for trade.

The overall outcome would be the official consecration of a new union within the European Union, acting as a modern-day cordon sanitaire capable of crystallizing the West-East divide and of making the post-communist players more amalgamated and cohesive. Russia’s influence over the region would record a tremendous hit from which it would be barely possible to recover in the case of Belarus’ effective participation.

Russia’s Cards to Stop the Project: the Environment and Donbass

The project is as ambitious as it is controversial since the environmental impact could be truly horrific in terms of loss of bio-diversity, destruction of wilderness, and the likely spread until the Baltic Sea of the contaminated waters nearby Chernobyl. The strengthening of this already-used used waterway will imply the construction of dams and locks, the interruption of meanderings, against the background of dredging and extension works to strengthen the river’s flow.

Several civic associations have been established so far to protest against the E40 for environmental reasons: BirdLife, BUEE and Bahna in Belarus, NECU and USPB in Ukraine, and OTOP in Poland. These associations are lobbying to their respective governments, exposing them the risks and the alleged anti-economic cost-benefit ratio emerged from their feasibility studies.

Welcome to Polesia

Polesia — also known as “Europe’s Amazon” — is set to be the most impacted area by the E40 and the repercussions of its artificial alteration are only partly predictable. The eighteen-million-hectares unspoiled region hosts several UNESCO-recognized protected reserves and more than 70 natural areas where dozens of thousands of animal species live and are now at risk of extinction, because some of them are endemic — namely they are based only in Polesia.

Russia is endangered by Belarus’ change of mind but Moscow has two cards to play and both of them are to be played in Ukraine: the environmental impact and the Donbass. In fact, the waterway pass by the Chernobyl exclusion zone — at its closest is only 2.5 kilometres from the nuclear reactor — and as various environmental organizations have pointed out there’s the concrete risk of making the contamination spread and threatening millions of people and animals. Russia’s approach is strengthened by these indisputable elements and it may use the already-existing environmental organizations to increase the bottom-up pressure against the E40.

The E40 is also vulnerable because of the Dnieper’s vicinity to the Donbass, where conflict between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists is still ongoing. Acts of sabotage are relatively easy-to-make via Donetsk- or Lugansk-based fighters, a large-scale Ukraine-Russia war might still break out in the next future — the E40’s inherent geopolitical significance, the Western pressures over Belarus, the NATO question and other factors will influence the Kremlin’s behavior — and they could prove extremely useful to discouraging potential investors from committing to the project’s funding.

It is not possible to predict the future, but one thing is clear as day: the E40 is a modern-day water-woven Iron Curtain, an infrastructure whose eventual construction would profoundly shape international relations in Eastern Europe, and Russia will do anything to stop and/or to hinder its contruction. Even a war. Ukraine and Belarus are warned.

L'articolo E40: the Waterway That Could Change Eastern Europe’s Destiny Forever proviene da InsideOver.

The future of talks between Egypt and Ethiopia on the latter’s gigantic Nile River dam is uncertain after Ethiopia absented itself from a recent meeting on the dam in Washington.

What Happened?

The foreign and water ministers of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan were scheduled to meet in the U.S. capital on February 27 and 28 to sign a final and important deal on the dam, following four months of talks sponsored by the White House and the World Bank. The deal determines regulations for the filling of the dam reservoir and its operation, as well as mechanisms for dealing with droughts and disputes between Ethiopia and the two downstream states, Egypt and Sudan. However, Ethiopia did not send its delegation to the meeting, giving rise to fears about what the future may hold in the stalemate over the Ethiopian project.

Egyptian Anger

Egypt has been trying to get Ethiopia to commit to signing a deal on the dam for several years now. The Nile River is the only source of water for Egypt’s population of 100 million. It gives Egypt 55.5 billion cubic meters of water every year, but this is around 30% below national needs. The same share has also been the same over the years, while the population keeps growing.

The dam will significantly lessen the amounts of water arriving in Egypt, further exacerbating its water shortages. The prospect of reduced water revenues from the Nile puts Egypt’s agricultural sector in peril, threatens the nation’s livestock, and opens the door for water shortage-induced social and political unrest.

Previous Attempts to Reach a Deal

The two countries started negotiating over the dam five years ago, but failed to reach a deal. In March 2015, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan signed a declaration of principles on water sharing. The same document allows the three countries to seek international mediation in case of their failure to reach a deal. In October last year, Cairo demanded mediation from the U.S. and the World Bank.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury held a series of meetings with the delegations of the three countries since then. The meetings culminated in a deal that should have been signed by the three states during the February 27-28 meeting. However, the Ethiopian delegation was nowhere to be found.

Egypt initialed the deal on February 28. It also criticized the Ethiopian absence, describing it as “unjustified.”

“Egyptian institutions will deal with this issue with all due seriousness and defend the interests of the Egyptian people with all available means,” the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

US Warning for Ethiopia

The U.S. Department of the Treasury said Ethiopia should not fill the dam reservoir before signing the deal with Egypt and Sudan. It added in a statement on February 28 that it looked forward to Ethiopia’s conclusion of its process of national consultations on the deal with Egypt and Sudan as soon as possible to provide for its signing at the earliest possible time. Final testing and filling of the dam reservoir, the Department of the Treasury said, should not take place without an agreement.

“We also note the concern of downstream populations in Sudan and Egypt due to unfinished work on the safe operation of the dam, and the need to implement all necessary dam safety measures in accordance with international standards before filling begins,” the statement said.

It added that the U.S. is committed to remain engaged with the three countries until they sign the final agreement.

The Department of the Treasury noted that an agreement would be transformational for the region, resulting in significant cross-border cooperation, regional development and economic integration, and improvement in the lives of the more than 250 million people of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan.

Ethiopian Persistence

Ethiopia countered the Egyptian criticism and the U.S. warning against filling the dam reservoir before signing the agreement by saying that it would start filling the dam reservoir in July. In a joint statement, the Ethiopian water and foreign ministers expressed disappointment over the statement of the Department of the Treasury.

“Ethiopia had notified Egypt, Sudan, and the US that it needed more time to deliberate on the process,” the ministers said.

The dam is Ethiopia’s national mega project. Addis Ababa says the project is necessary for social and economic development in Ethiopia. Ethiopia is investing close to $4 billion in the construction of the dam. It should generate 5150 megawatts of electrical power after its completion and full operation in 2021.

The foreign and water ministers of Ethiopia said in their statement that their country would commence first filling of the dam reservoir in parallel with the construction of the dam in accordance with the principles of equitable and reasonable utilization and the causing of no significant harm as provided for under the 2015 declaration of principles with Egypt and Sudan.

“Ethiopia does not accept the characterization that the negotiation on the Guidelines and Rules on the First Filling and Annual Operation of the dam is completed,” the two ministers said.

They added that the text initialed by Egypt in Washington is not the outcome of the negotiation or the technical and legal discussion of the three countries.

“Ethiopia is set to fill the dam reservoir step by step with a maximum period of seven years,” the ministers said. “According to the plan, the first round of filling the dam will begin in July this year,” they added.

L'articolo Uncertain Future For Nile Dam Talks After Ethiopia Skips Crucial Meeting proviene da InsideOver.

Only one day after a dual Russian-Chinese veto at the UN Security Council thwarted a resolution to allow cross-border supplies and aid deliveries from Turkey and Iraq into Syria—presented by Germany, Belgium and Kuwait on Friday—near-simultaneous attacks believed to have been carried out by drones hit three state-run oil and gas installations in central Syria. Syrian state TV and the Oil Ministry announced the news Saturday. Supplies have been flowing into Syria without formal government permission across undesignated checkpoints, but that authorization is due to expire on January 10. Aid convoys have long been suspected, in the case of Turkey at least, of carrying illegal material into Syria, including munitions and weaponry destined for anti-government factions.

Whose Drones Were They—And Why Now?

No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks which were followed yesterday by an Israeli air raid which came from the direction of neighboring Lebanon. Israeli jet fired four missiles at targets near Damascus, Homs and Latakia. Three of the four missiles were shot down by Syrian air defense batteries, which also brought down two other drones armed with high explosives near an air base in Hama and the main Russian military base in Jableh, Latakia.

Terrorist groups particularly those operating in Idlib, Latakia and the Hama countryside have systematically escalated their drone attacks against military as well as economic and infrastructure targets in 2019, having received and modified hundreds of small drones from Turkey. The militant groups have also manufactured  scores of locally made ones than can carry a payload of up to six small high explosive bombs.

Saturday’s Drone Attacks Are Believed To Be The Work Of The US Or Israel

Saturday’s drone raids—believed to have been carried out by the US and or Israel—targeted three major oil and gas plants in different parts of Syria, including the Homs refinery, one of only two such facilities in the country. The attack set fire to various gas plants but was quickly controlled and extinguished a few hours later. The worst-hit facility is now repaired and running back at full capacity, a Syrian Oil Ministry source confirmed earlier Saturday. Such attacks, exacerbated by unrest and virtual economic collapse in neighboring Lebanon have brought on extra burdens for ordinary Syrians, whose lives have already been disrupted by the ongoing war.

Syria’s Fuel Crisis

Syria has suffered acute gas and fuel shortages since earlier this year as a result of Western sanctions blocking oil and gas imports. This problem is made worse by the fact that most of the country’s oil fields have been out of Syrian government control, particularly in tge Kurdish-controlled eastern provinces, with the direct military support of the United States. Syria’s oil and gas production capability has slumped by over 85 percent over the past eight years—from approximately 400.000 barrels per day to a mere 24000 barrels a day—depriving the country of its main national income source which is badly needed for survival and reconstruction efforts which will cost an estimated one trillion US dollars.

Moscow Pledges To Revive Syria’s Beleaguered Economy

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov met with Syrian president Bashar al Assad in Damascus last week. The two sides discussed mainly economic issues and Russian plans to invest in Syria and help in the revival of Syrian economy. Following the talks, Borisov reiterated his country’s intention to invest some 500 million US dollars to upgrade the old Tartous port on the Mediterranean, build a new modern port in the city and establish a vital railway line that links Arab Gulf countries across Syria and Iraq, all the way to the Mediterranean. These are projects that Syrians hope will help jump-start their country’s war-burdened economy.

Many observers and analysts have underlined a linkage of some sort between the fresh drone attacks and recent Israeli air and missile raids against Syria on the one hand and the frustration felt by many Western and Arab nations at the UN Security Council following the fourteenth Russian-Chinese veto of last weeks cross-border aid resolution. Linkage is also being made between the recent drone assault and Israeli raids and the crucial advances made by the Syrian army in Idlib over the past few days, freeing more than 42 new towns and villages in the southern and southeastern parts of Idlib from militants. A communique issued by the Syrian Defence Ministry today reiterated the pledge made by Assad and other Syrian officials on numerous occasions to uproot terrorists from Syria at any cost, and regain control of Syria up to the last inch. The weeks ahead promise some exceptional developments and achievements in Idlib, Syria’s last major battle to recover control of the nation.

L'articolo Syrian Oil And Gas Installations Come Under Renewed Attack proviene da InsideOver.

China has often been criticised for economic colonisation and exploitation of Africa through unfair deals as the battle for economic influence in the continent grow. Its engagement with Africa has mainly focused on trade, aid, infrastructural development and investment while benefiting from the continent’s natural resources and export markets.

Aid has been an important policy instrument for China with Africa being the biggest recipient. However, this has always been tied to African natural resources. Its trade with Africa trade has also been one-sided. According to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, in 2017, China’s exports to Africa were  $94.7 billion, while the whole of Africa’s export to China were $75.3 billion.

There was some improvement in 2018 when the volume of China’s total imports and exports to Africa grew to $204.19 billion. Out of this, China’s exports to Africa were $104.91 billion, up by around 10.8%, while Africa’s exports to China were $99.28 billion.

At the same time, while natural resources make up 90 per cent of Chinese imports from Africa, China’s exports to Africa are more diversified and virtually include anything from manufactured goods, transport, equipment and machinery. Almost every household in Africa has something made in China, ranging from utensils to socks.

The extent of trade imbalance is even more evident if you look at it on a country by country basis. For instance, the value of Kenya’s total exports to China in 2017 was a paltry $98.6 million, while its total imports from China were a huge $98.6 billion.

Despite Kenya having many inland lakes and also sharing the largest fresh water lake in Africa with its neighbours, it still imports fish from China. Data from the fisheries department shows that in 2018 the country imported 22,362 tonnes of fish from China compared to the lesser amount of 19,127 tonnes in 2017.

Following complaints from local traders and fishermen, the country’s president remarked,” I have been told about the imported fish from China. It is not possible that we import fish when our local traders are here.” However, despite the warning, Kenya is still flooded with Chinese fish.

China seems unconcerned with highlighting the trade imbalance between themselves and Africa. Instead, it has focused on showing off the general growth rate of trade between themselves and Africa. “In 2018, the growth rate of China’s trade with Africa was the highest in the world. The import growth rate was also highest in the world, 15% points higher than our import growth rate of foreign trade in the same period,” said a statement from the Ministry of Commerce.

Such imbalances have made many to question whether Africa is benefiting from its relations with China. The reactions have always been mixed.

Commenting on imbalances between China and Africa in the Financial Times, the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria Mr Lamido Sanusi believes “ It is time for Africa to wake up to the realities of their romance with China.”
He points out that Nigeria, a country with a large domestic market of more than 160 million people, spends huge resources importing consumer goods from China that should be produced locally.

”We buy textiles, fabric, leather goods, tomato paste, starch furniture, electronics, building materials and plastic goods. I could go on ‘The Chinese’, on the other hand, buy only Nigeria’s crude oil,”

“In much of Africa, they have set up huge mining operations.” Although he appreciated that the Chinese have also built infrastructure, he revealed that “they have done so using equipment and labour imported from home without transferring skills to local communities.”

“Africa must recognise that China, like the US, Russia, Britain Brazil, and the rest, is in Africa not for African interest but its own,” he wrote.

However, the claims were discounted, by the President of the China Institute of International Studies Mr Qu Xing. Responding in the Times he stated that China sends its equipment to Africa because they are not available locally and it costs much more if imported from markets other than China. This makes using equipment brought in from China a cost-effective way of production.

On Chinese labour in Africa, he says many are sent to work in Africa because the Chinese companies have no other choice if they want to facilitate certain projects which require specific skills. In regards tobChina flooding African markets with its exports, he argues “ Africa consumers are free to choose what to buy. China has never acted like western colonialists by forcing Africans to buy Chinese products.”

In Qu Xing’s opinion, the relationship between Africa and China is mutually beneficially. This view is also held by various experts who believe that while China profits by securing natural resources and export markets, it has also sparred development in Africa through aid, investment, infrastructure development and trade.

Global Law Initiatives for Sustainable Development in its report titled ‘Pros and Cons of Chinese Investment in Africa’, says, “Chinese investment is advantageous and self-interested and the government has good reasons to promote it, on the other hand, it is also expediting African economic growth.”

According to Brookings Institution, a non-profit public policy organisation based in Washington DC, China truly hopes to help Africa achieve better development while avoiding meddling with the internal affairs of African countries through conditional aid.

“But on the other hand, China is not helping Africa for nothing. Chinese projects create access to Africa’s natural resources and local markets, business opportunities for Chinese companies and employment for Chinese labour.”

However, “it warns that the short term benefits should not form a cover-up for the potential long term negative consequences associated with neglecting issues of governance, fairness and sustainability. But on the other hand, Lesotho Minister for science and technology believes, “China has opened hands to Africa By doing that China also benefits”

L'articolo China’s Relations with Africa Elicits Mixed Reactions proviene da InsideOver.