Pakistan’s relations with the EU and China: On the path towards sustainable connectivity Agnieszka Nitza-Makowska Collegium Civitas, Poland With its strengths in environmental sustainability and challenges related to financial and people-to-people connectivity, Pakistan lags behind most Asian countries. Can the European Union (EU) and China, through their long-term multifaceted relations with Pakistan, help the country catch up with its peers? This paper investigates the contemporary dynamics of the EU–Pakistan and China–Pakistan relationships to identify their contribution to the realization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Pakistan. The study is motivated by (i) Pakistan’s characteristics as a pivotal and fragile state. Despite its geopolitical and nuclear potential, the country is beset by severe domestic (terrorist and separatist activities) and external (rocky relations with India and Afghanistan) threats. As Pakistan’s security situation has global implications, the fulfilment in the country of the SDGs, especially SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions), will have a positive impact on the region and beyond. Another reason to conduct the study is (ii) the poor global recognition of the EU–Pakistan relationship. While Pakistan maintains strategic relations with the US and China, its relationship with the EU lacks significant political dynamics. Finally, (iii) the development of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) also motivates the study. Its pilot project, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), cannot be ignored when discussing Pakistan’s international connectivity. SDGs and foreign policy Sustainable development is a demanding and attractive (if not utopian) world order project (Hass, 1996, p. 239), but the global response to foster development as outlined by the 2030 Agenda has not been ambitious enough (UN, 2019). Also, as it is primarily each nation’s own responsibility to implement the SDGs (Schaller, 2019), expectations that countries will help their peers achieve the Goals may be unrealistic. However, foreign policy, especially vis-à-vis fragile states, which to a large extent depend on external actors, can significantly affect countries’ capabilities to achieve the SDGs. Despite the evident interdependence between foreign policy and SDG implementation, “the foreign policy dimensions of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda have not been sufficiently broached by foreign ministries to date” (Carius, Ivleva, Pohl, Rüttinger, Schaller, Tänzler & Vivekananda, 2018, p. 1). Nor has this topic been adequately addressed by political and social scientists. This paper analyses contemporary EU–Pakistan and China–Pakistan relations through the lenses of Pakistan’s sustainability and the nexus between the two bilateral connectivity. Based on scholarly literature and primary sources (e.g. the CPEC LongTerm Plan and the EU–Pakistan Strategic Engagement Plan), the paper assesses the two relationships against the ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting) Connectivity Index and Sustainability Index (Becker, Dominguez-Torreiro, Neves, Tacao Moura & Saisana, 2018, pp. 24–25). 143 Pakistan-EU and Pakistan-China: What connectivity? Covering physical, economic/financial, political, institutional and people-to-people pillars, the Connectivity Index demonstrates the multidimensional characteristics of Pakistan’s relations with and the EU and China (Table 1). 144 Table 1: Pakistan’s bilateral connectivity with the EU and China. Source: Becker et al., 2018. Indicators Physical International flights’ passenger capacity (seats) Trade in gas (thousand kg) Economic/Financial Trade in goods (bn USD) FDI (m USD) Personal remittances (m USD) Political Embassies network International students’ mobility in tertiary education (n. of students) Research outputs with international collaborations People-to-people Patents with foreign co-inventor Trade in cultural goods (m USD) Migrant stock Origin Destination Data Pakistan EU 476500 EU Pakistan 440100 China Pakistan 157100 Pakistan China 157100 EU Pakistan 194.9 No China Pakistan 13.5 No EU Pakistan 5.8 No Pakistan EU 6.9 China Pakistan 17.2 Pakistan China 1.6 EU Pakistan 1600.0 Pakistan EU 13.0 China Pakistan 3100.0 Pakistan China 108.0 EU Pakistan 2800.0 No China Pakistan 22.0 No EU Pakistan 18 Yes Pakistan EU 19 China Pakistan 1 Pakistan China 1 Pakistan EU 13400 No Pakistan China n/a No EU Pakistan 6300 - China Pakistan 1978 - EU Pakistan 4 - China Pakistan 0 - Pakistan EU 410.0 No EU Pakistan 54.0 China Pakistan 677.0 Pakistan China 5.0 Pakistan EU 842200 EU Pakistan n/a China Pakistan 312 Pakistan China 4500 145 Stronger connectivity Symmetry Yes Pakistan-EU Yes Pakistan-EU Pakistan-China No No Pakistan-China No Pakistan-EU equal Yes n/a Pakistan-EU Pakistan-EU Pakistan-China No No No Pakistan-EU Selected indicators of the Connectivity Index (Table 1) demonstrate Pakistan’s stronger economic connectivity with China, which surpasses the EU in trade in goods and bilateral Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows. However, the EU holds the position of Pakistan’s top export partner. Also, the EU has developed stronger person-to-person relationships (measured by research outputs with international collaborations and patents with foreign co-inventor) and physical connectivity (measured by international flights’ passenger capacity and trade in gas) with Pakistan than China has. Both bilateral relationships are highly asymmetrical, which is characteristic of the cooperation between the parties, whose political and economic capabilities differ significantly. However, in some cases, such asymmetry can harm the weaker party. Pakistan’s sustainability Pakistan’s unfortunate geopolitical heritage has resulted in a high impact of external actors on the country’s performance. The impact was assessed at 8.8 out of 10 by the Fund for Peace (2019). Consequently, external actors have the potential to affect Pakistan’s achievements in SDG implementation and its performance on the Sustainability Index (Table 2). Table 2. The correspondence between the SDGs and the ASEM Sustainability Index. Source: Becker, et al., 2018 p. 25. Environmental SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG 13 (climate action), SDG 15 (life on land) Social SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 4 (quality education), SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) Economic/Financial SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) However, topics related to Pakistan’s sustainability have been hardly recognized within most bilateral agreements. Salik (2016, pp. 123-124) notes that this gap has harmed Pakistan’s social sustainability, as “external factors adversely affected [the] government’s development efforts and further pushed the vulnerable groups into poverty”. In their own commitments to multifaceted connectivity with Pakistan, China and the EU do notice the country’s sustainability. However, they approach the social pillar of sustainability differently. Unlike China, the EU seeks to exchange best practices with Pakistan on gender equality (SDG 5). While both seek to contribute to reducing inequalities (SDG 10) in Pakistan, only Brussels highlights the place of minorities in that context. These differences result from the respective characteristics of the EU's and China's foreign strategies. While Brussels’s schemes emphasize conditionality—for instance, improving the standards of democracy (SDG 16) and human rights (SDG 10)—China’s initiatives do not attach any political strings. China’s and the EU’s ambitious plans to support the Islamic Republic’s sustainability, as declared in the bilateral agreements, are challenged by the contemporary trajectories of the two relationships. Brexit will significantly decrease EU–Pakistan physical, economic, political and people-to-people connectivity, as the UK served as the engine of the overall bilateral dynamics. It will be followed by a decrease in the EU’s capabilities to affect Pakistan’s sustainability. Unlike the EU, China with its CPEC is pivoting towards Pakistan. Wolf (2018, p. 87) notes, "The CPEC influences many aspects of state and society: it relates to the economic, political, and social spheres, as well as foreign policy objectives and geopolitics”. The initiative 146 promises to improve economic and social sustainability, but it poses a serious threat to environmental sustainability, which is the primary sustainability domain in Pakistan. References Becker, W., Dominguez-Torreiro, M., Neves, A. R., Tacao Moura, C. J., & Saisana, M. (2018). Exploring ASEM Sustainable Connectivity–What brings Asia and Europe together. doi, 10, 77696 Carius, A., Ivleva, D., Pohl, B., Rüttinger, L., Schaller, S., Tänzler, D., Vivekananda, J. (2018). A Foreign Policy Perspective on the SDGs, Climate Policy Brief, Adelphi. Fund for Peace. (2019). Fragile https://fragilestatesindex.org/country-data/. States Index, Pakistan. Retrieved from Haas, P. (1996). Is "Sustainable Development" Politically Sustainable? The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 3(2), 239–247 Salik, M. A. N. (2016). Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda: Pakistan, Strategic Studies, 36 (3), 113–135. A Significant Opportunity for Schaller, S. (2019). When Agendas Align: The SDG Summit and ‘Sustainable Foreign Policy’, SDG Knowledge Hub. Retrieved from https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/when-agendas-alignthe-sdg-summit-and-sustainable-foreign-policy/. UN, 2019, The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019. Retrieved https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf from Wolf, S. O. (2018). China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): Regional Cooperation in the Wider South Asian Region. In: B. R. Deepak (Eds.) China's Global Rebalancing and the New Silk Road (85–100). New Delhi: Springer. 147