‘Can’t compare’: French envoy on why IMEC’s funding model is ‘very different’ from China’s BRI | Exclusive | Today’s news
The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) cannot be directly compared to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in terms of funding, French IMEC envoy Gérard Mestrallet highlights the fundamentally different models through which the two connectivity projects are being developed.
“The concept is very different. So we cannot compare the competitiveness of BRI and IMEC funding,” Mestrallet, the French President’s Special Envoy for IMEC, told LiveMint during a press conference organized by the French Embassy at ITC Maurya in New Delhi on Tuesday.
“For the BRI, there is one central bank that finances the project. Depending on the country, depending on the nature of the sector, we will bring together different groups,” he said.
Mestrallet was in New Delhi for the launch of the IMEC Ports Club together with Christophe Castaner, Chairman of the Port of Marseille-Fos.
The comments come amid renewed focus on IMEC as geopolitical tensions and disruptions in West Asia raise questions about the resilience of existing trade routes and the need for alternative corridors for connectivity.
Why IMEC cannot be compared to China’s BRI
Unlike China’s BRI, which China’s state financial institutions have historically supported, IMEC is being developed as a partnership involving multiple countries, institutions and private sector players across the proposed route.
Mestrallet said that the two projects therefore operate on fundamentally different financing concepts, making it difficult to directly compare their competitiveness.
His remarks also come at a time when IMEC is being discussed not only as an infrastructure project but as a potential strategic alternative to boost trade and connectivity between India, the Middle East and Europe.
Gaza, Iran and Hormuz Make IMEC ‘More Necessary’
The ongoing crisis in the Middle East, including the war in Gaza, tensions regarding Iran and the risk of disruption around the Strait of Hormuz, made IMEC more necessary, according to Mestrallet.
“The difficulties — October 7, Gaza, Iran, Hormuz — have even increased the need to have a resilient corridor that offers multiple options to the market,” Mestrallet said during the event.
According to the French commissioner, IMEC should not be seen as a single fixed route, but as a network of complementary routes that can provide alternatives when one route is disrupted.
“IMEC is now considered a network of supplementary routes to make it more resilient. More resilient, meaning that if there is a blockage, an accident, a technical problem or even a local crisis on one particular route, the other routes will be available,” he said.
The Hormuz crisis brings IMEC back into the limelight
IMEC has returned to the center of discussion as countries navigate the latest crisis in West Asia and the risks to shipping through critical sea lanes.
Amid the escalating conflict in West Asia, the proposed India-Middle East-Europe trade corridor is seen as a potential way to diversify connectivity and reduce dependence on vulnerable choke points.
US President Donald Trump also renewed Washington’s support after backing a proposed trade network to boost connectivity between India, the Middle East and Europe.
Read also | France says IMEC is “more necessary” amid Hormuz crisis
“Not just a technical or economic project”
Mestrallet said that IMEC should not be seen only as an infrastructure or economic initiative, arguing that the corridor also has a broader geopolitical objective.
“We consider this project not only as a technical or economic project but also as a geo-strategic project to strengthen the ties between India and Europe,” he said.
The French envoy said the current geopolitical environment has strengthened the case for building alternative and resilient connectivity routes.
He also emphasized that the market will ultimately determine which routes are used, with business decisions continuing to shape the cost, speed and performance of the infrastructure.
Rising risks in the Middle East could also change the economics of global trade routes, Mestrallet said.
“Sometimes it will be cheaper, more competitive to go the longer route, but safer,” he added.
