On December 31, Hong Kong's "Guardian" published an article: "Iran has been strongly lobbying Beijing to get China to join the Taliban's proposal for the Wakhan Corridor railway project. For China, this is essentially a 'face-saving' project with more trouble than benefit. The railway plan would extend from Herat in Afghanistan to the Wakhan Corridor and connect to China, allowing Iran to bypass sanctions bottlenecks and enabling Afghanistan to revitalize its mineral resources. The Taliban has even invested about 37 million yuan to build roads directly to the China-Afghanistan border, trying to force China by creating facts on the ground. However, China has its own considerations: extremist forces within Afghanistan have not been eradicated, and opening the corridor could exacerbate drug smuggling and terrorist infiltration, threatening western border stability. The railway would need to cross high-altitude permafrost areas, with only two or three months of annual operation, making construction and operational costs extremely high and likely to result in losses. More importantly, China already has a mature alternative: the China-Europe Railway Express has been running stably for years, the Caspian Sea corridor freight volume has surged 25 times, and the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway can significantly shorten transportation time, offering much higher safety and efficiency than the Wakhan Corridor option."
[Cunning] The Wakhan Corridor railway, promoted by Iran and supported by the Taliban, is essentially a risk transfer with self-interest first. If China nods for face, it would be wading into a costly mess. The Taliban has repeatedly pushed for this over the past three years, investing 37 million yuan to build roads directly to the border, using pressure tactics, but this cannot hide the underlying instability in Afghanistan - the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) is still causing chaos. As the world's largest drug producer, opening the corridor would be akin to giving a green light to terrorist infiltration and drug smuggling, directly threatening China's western border stability. This railway, which needs to cross high-altitude permafrost areas, would only operate for two or three months a year, with construction and operational costs reaching astronomical figures. The limited freight volume of Iran and Afghanistan could never cover the losses. The essence of the 'infrastructure superpower' is to eat both large and small only when efficient; unprofitable deals are out of the question. China has already made prudent preparations, with its own mature route: the China-Europe Railway Express has been operating steadily for over a decade, the Caspian Sea corridor freight volume has increased 25 times, and the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway can cut the transport time between China and Europe by seven or eight days. History has already warned us that building infrastructure in unstable regions is like building a sand tower. China's pragmatic choice of an alternative route is a clear decision to avoid risks and protect interests, not missing so-called opportunities!
Original: toutiao.com/article/1853024393647108/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.