What would you have China do? They're dominating production of pretty much every renewable energy source and its still not enough to support China's industrialization. China also doesn't really have vast oil and gas reserves that it can use to convert coal plants to natural gas plants.
Meanwhile, the EU is thinking of aggressive tariffs on Chinese EVs because... they're too cheap and might get too much adoption in the EU.
Why are people even bothered by this? The US has clearly established the strait as subject to FONOPs because it's not territorial waters. Who the fuck cares about a plane flying over international waters? It's not like ADIZ are an element of international law.
Maybe France should just pull out of Niger? Ever thought about that?
Turns out the French embassy either serves croissants or military rations... And the Nigeriens took the croissants.
Friendly reminder that abortion is a legal and widely available in China and that the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic was one of the first countries to legalize abortion for any reason (and indeed, with the exception of the period surrounded WW2, abortion was both legal and common in the USSR). Abortion services are also widely available in Vietnam and Cuba.
Abortion policy in much of the EU is ancient and reflects a view that women are somehow less human than men. Something like half of the EU limits it to a 12 week term limit and it is still illegal (if not enforced) in Germany.
Thanks for your contribution!
Which is, of course, why productivity increased when they instituted the 8 hour work day and is, of course, why Americans only average something like 3 hours of work in an 8 hour day. Because more time working means more work done. Obviously.
It's also, of course, why people are still starving when agricultural output easily exceeds consumption. Because of food scarcity, obviously.
This must also explain why in Britain, notorious for underpaying doctors, becoming a doctor is still one of the most desirable occupations. Because people won't pursue societally necessary jobs if they don't pay well. Obviously.
I'm pretty sure it's the latter: the corridor makes a lot of sense, but not for the reasons people are touting. It's not really connecting India to Europe so much as it is connecting India to the Middle East and Europe to the Middle East. It's getting past some of the key challenges of moving goods to and within the Arabian Peninsula, but connecting India to Europe through it would be silly given that the Suez already exists.
AFAIK it's mostly been the US/EU that's been pushing the narrative that the corridor will connect India to Europe... obviously, given geopolitical tensions with China. Meanwhile, global shopping organizations and shipping analysts treat it as niche product for Europe-India trade.
I wouldn't say it's blowing air so much as it is a method of getting Western funding - you say the words "compete with China" and suddenly the US and EU are willing to throw billions of dollars at you.
Edit: It might be beneficial specifically for perishables because I'm sure you could do some smart container placement and logistical management (using smaller container ships, unloading perishables first), but that's a rather niche market because the two ocean freight legs aren't exactly short... so the items have to be perishable, but not too perishable, and not valuable enough for air freight.
So you're completely ignoring the value-add industries that, due to globalization, other countries haven't needed to develop and have thus become dependent on a few key sources?
Globalization only works because countries don't feel the need to develop key domestic industries. That was broken the minute the US used economic sanctions solely to hamper China's economic development because "oh no they're going to become more powerful than us!"
You can find a bad example for any form of government. By any reasonable metric of success, the US government is performing poorly compared to non-democratic countries... Even in terms of freedom of speech, given the prevalence of government and intelligence-funded "independent think tanks" that influence policy in Washington.
At least most people in Russia and China can distinguish between the truth and the party line.
You're assuming speed as if containers can roll off a boat and straight onto a train like a game of Factorio. As it stands, IMEC would require two ocean freight legs with a transfer on rail. That means that, instead of requiring 2 port stops, it takes 4 (!). Each port stop takes a tedious amount of time (up to 1-3 days if all goes well) and the time to transit the Suez is only, what, 12-16 hours? Sure, maybe you save 5 days by not having to go around the Arabian Peninsula, but those savings are pretty quickly eaten up by port time.
I'm saying that IMEC isn't even cost-competitive for India relative to the Suez, nevermind China.
Plus, at a peak throughput of 30 trains per day (and assuming 240 containers per train double-stacked because we're limit testing here), that's only a third of the capacity of a typical container ship passing through per day. In comparison, the Suez can handle 50 ships per day with ease.
Sweet of you to think that