Sino-Indian relations

Why India wants to buy the world’s emptiest airport in Sri Lanka

Hint: It has something to do with China.

This article first appeared on The Interpreter.

Geopolitical rivalry between big powers sometimes yields odd results. The latest development in growing strategic competition across the Indian Ocean region is India’s purchase of what has become known as the “world’s emptiest international airport” in Sri Lanka, maybe just to keep it empty.

Hambantota dreaming

The small fishing town of Hambantota, near the southern tip of Sri Lanka, has long been Exhibit A for those who worry about the strategic impact of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Hambantota burst into international consciousness around a decade ago when Chinese companies were contracted to build a big new port, an international airport and, of course, an international cricket stadium – all connected by Chinese-built multi-lane freeways.

It was all part of a plan by Sri Lanka’s then president Mahinda Rajapaksa to turn his own sleepy constituency into a new global shipping hub. After international investors and aid agencies baulked at the business case, Rajapaksa went to China to finance and build the projects. Although the commercial terms are opaque, the projects have probably cost more than $1.5 billion in all, much of it in relatively high interest loans.

According to its backers, the new port’s location next to the busiest sea lanes across the northern Indian Ocean makes it a natural hub for transhipment and logistics. It is part of Sri Lanka’s ambitious plans to turn itself into an all-purpose Indian Ocean hub that might one day come to rival Singapore.

But security analysts argued that Hambantota might also be a good place for a Chinese naval base, as part of a Chinese ‘String of Pearls’ across the Indian Ocean. It was, according to several Indian analysts, part of a grand Chinese plan to surround India in the Indian Ocean.

A Sri Lankan white elephant

Unfortunately for Sri Lanka, the foreign bean counters were right. The whole project has turned out to be a white elephant. International shipping companies had no interest in using Hambantota, when there was an excellent port at nearby Colombo. Only a handful of ships visit the port, mostly docking there at the insistence of embarrassed Sri Lankan agencies.

The shiny new Rajapaksa International Airport also sits virtually unused, with a full complement of employees and only one international flight a week. The empty terminal and its bored-looking workers make a great photo opportunity for journalists. Some of the newly-built hangars are even rented out to locals to store rice.

When the bills became due, the government couldn’t repay them. Sri Lanka, now minus Mahinda Rajapaksa, was forced to go to its Chinese backers cap in hand – essentially to hand over ownership of the port in a debt-for-equity swap. Although Sri Lanka claims to have retained control over management of the port, the details are suspiciously murky. China now has plans to build a big Special Economic Zone around Hambantota. This may eventually drive some demand for shipping, but it is hard to see it ever becoming the global shipping hub it was once touted to be.

For some, Hambantota is a perfect example of what can happen when an authoritarian leader, not subject to usual democratic balances, gets into bed with Chinese companies that may well have ulterior motives. The project is held up as proof that the Belt and Road often involves foisting uneconomic projects on developing countries with loans that can never be repaid. According to critics, these projects will only damage long term economic development and make many countries politically indebted to Beijing.

Similar claims are being made about the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor now being constructed in Pakistan at a cost of somewhere like $40-100 billion, with some fearing it will create a debt trap’for Pakistan.

Checkmating the Chinese navy

The Chinese takeover of Hambantota port only increases New Delhi’s worries that it will become an Indian Ocean hub for the Chinese navy. But, in fact, Hambantota has never been feasible as a full blown Chinese naval base. Its proximity to India would make it highly vulnerable to air attack in the event of conflict between the two countries. But short of war, Hambantota would make a fine logistics point for an expanded Chinese naval presence. Although Colombo has repeatedly claimed that no Chinese naval facility will be permitted in Sri Lanka, New Delhi worries that China’s influence will one day reach a point where the Sri Lankan government simply cannot say no.

This is where the world’s emptiest airport comes in. India is proposing to spend around $300 million to buy out Sri Lanka’s debt to China in return for a 40-year lease over Hambantota airport. But India’s future plans for the airport are hazy. Maybe a flight school? A new destination for Indian weddings? There seems little chance that it will turn a profit.

That is not the point of the deal. A key element in any overseas naval base, and even a logistics facility, is easy access by air for people and supplies. A naval base also requires maritime air surveillance capabilities. Control over Hambantota airport will give India considerable control over how the port is used. It is difficult to conceive of the Chinese navy developing a significant facility at Hambantota without also controlling the airport. In short, India is spending $300 million buying an airport to block a Chinese naval base.

The long and twisted saga of Hambantota is emblematic of growing strategic competition in the Indian Ocean region, much of it focussed on ownership and access to infrastructure. In coming years, we are likely to see a lot more jostling between India, China and others in the Indian Ocean over control of ports, airports and other pieces of critical infrastructure – and perhaps increasingly for control over governments.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.