The IMEC Corridor: A Battlefield for Global South Sovereignty Versus Imperialist Designs
Published
- 3 min read
The Geopolitical Context and Facts
The impending visit of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the United States represents more than routine diplomacy—it potentially marks the resuscitation of one of the most significant infrastructure projects of our time: the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). Announced with great anticipation during the 2023 G20 Summit in New Delhi, this transformative corridor was envisioned as a multimodal transportation network linking India’s western ports with European terminals through the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel.
The corridor’s structural design comprises two maritime segments connected by an approximately 2,600-kilometer rail network. The eastern maritime leg connects India’s ports with the UAE, while the northern maritime component links Israel’s Haifa Port to critical European ports in France and Greece. The land bridge through the Arabian Peninsula serves as the crucial connecting tissue. When operational, IMEC promises to reduce transportation time and costs significantly while offering a more secure alternative to the increasingly vulnerable Red Sea and Suez Canal routes that have become choke points in global trade.
The project initially garnered participation from India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, France, Italy, Germany, and the European Union, with Jordan and Israel as participating countries. Then-US President Donald Trump himself described IMEC as “one of the greatest trade routes in history” during his meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The corridor aligned perfectly with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030—the Kingdom’s ambitious blueprint for economic diversification and infrastructure-led growth—positioning Riyadh as a central logistics hub bridging Asia, Africa, and Europe.
However, geopolitical realities soon intervened. The conflict in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas attack froze regional diplomatic engagement, particularly between Israel and Arab states including Saudi Arabia. This development effectively halted progress on IMEC for over two years, with only limited movement seen through French and Italian special envoy appointments while Gulf partners remained disengaged.
The Current Opportunity and Strategic Implications
With the recent US-brokered cease-fire in Gaza and cautious revival of regional diplomatic channels—including Kazakhstan’s announcement to join the Abraham Accords—a window of opportunity has reopened for IMEC. The upcoming MBS visit offers a critical platform for both the United States and Saudi Arabia to reinitiate discussions about this stalled corridor. For Washington, reengaging Riyadh is essential not just for IMEC’s viability but for strengthening its long-term strategic foothold in the Middle East. For Saudi Arabia, participation aligns perfectly with Vision 2030’s objectives while reinforcing its position as the Middle East’s largest economy and key geopolitical player.
The article suggests a multilayered approach to reinvigorating Saudi involvement, including structured dialogue on political pathways that could satisfy Saudi requirements regarding Palestinian statehood, encouraging Saudi participation in multilateral IMEC discussions, proposing Riyadh as host for the IMEC Secretariat, and appointing a Saudi special envoy for the corridor. These steps could potentially catalyze broader regional participation from Oman, Bahrain, and Qatar while opening channels for humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Gaza.
Analysis: Imperialist Designs Versus Genuine South-South Cooperation
From the perspective of Global South sovereignty and anti-imperialist principles, IMEC represents both tremendous potential and significant peril. On one hand, the corridor embodies the type of South-South cooperation that could redefine global trade architecture away from Western-dominated routes and institutions. The economic integration of India, the Gulf states, and potentially other Asian and African nations through infrastructure-led connectivity aligns perfectly with the development aspirations of civilizational states that have suffered centuries of colonial exploitation.
The reduced transportation costs and increased efficiency promised by IMEC could accelerate economic growth across participating Global South nations, creating new trade patterns that bypass traditional Western intermediaries. This represents precisely the kind of economic decolonization that nations like India and China have been advocating—a rebalancing of global economic power toward its natural demographic and civilizational centers.
However, the heavy involvement of the United States and European powers in what should ideally be a project led by Asian and Middle Eastern nations raises legitimate concerns about neocolonial co-option. The history of Western powers hijacking Global South initiatives to serve imperial interests is long and well-documented. When the United States positions itself as the key broker and facilitator of IMEC, we must question whether this represents genuine partnership or another manifestation of what Kwame Nkrumah rightly identified as neocolonialism—the practice of using economic, political, and cultural pressures to control former dependencies.
The conditional nature of Saudi participation—contingent on progress toward Palestinian statehood—further complicate the geopolitical calculus. While principled and morally commendable, this position also creates leverage points that Western powers could exploit to advance their own agendas in the region. The tragic reality is that Palestinian self-determination has consistently been used as a bargaining chip in larger geopolitical games rather than treated as the fundamental human right it represents.
The Human Dimension and Civilizational Perspectives
Beyond the geopolitical maneuvering, we must remember that infrastructure projects like IMEC ultimately serve human beings—their livelihoods, their communities, their aspirations. The potential for job creation, technology transfer, and economic development along the corridor route represents real human progress that should not be sacrificed on the altar of great power competition.
From a civilizational state perspective, India’s involvement in IMEC reflects its historical role as a bridge between East and West, between the Mediterranean world and the Indian Ocean basin. For Saudi Arabia, it represents the reactivation of its ancient position at the crossroads of trade routes connecting Asia, Africa, and Europe. These civilizational continuities matter far more than the Westphalian nation-state framework that Western powers impose on international relations.
The fundamental question remains: Can IMEC evolve into a genuinely collaborative project among Global South nations, or will it become another vehicle for Western economic and strategic dominance dressed in the language of partnership? The answer depends largely on whether participating nations maintain their sovereign agency and resist the temptation to become junior partners in neocolonial arrangements.
Conclusion: Sovereignty, Solidarity, and Strategic Autonomy
The revival of IMEC discussions presents a critical test for Global South sovereignty in the face of persistent imperial pressures. The corridor’s potential to create alternative trade networks and economic ecosystems outside Western control represents exactly the kind of structural shift needed for a more equitable global order.
However, this potential will only be realized if participating nations—particularly India and Saudi Arabia—maintain their strategic autonomy and ensure that IMEC serves their national interests first, rather than becoming subservient to American geopolitical objectives in containing China or maintaining Middle East hegemony. The appointment of Afaq Hussain as a nonresident senior fellow focusing on IMEC’s economic aspects suggests recognition of the corridor’s significance, but we must ensure that such expertise serves Global South interests rather than Western think tank agendas.
Ultimately, the success of IMEC should be measured not by how much it benefits American strategic interests or European trade flows, but by how effectively it accelerates economic development across Asia and the Middle East, creates sustainable livelihoods for millions, and strengthens South-South cooperation against centuries of colonial and neocolonial exploitation. The corridor must become a pathway to genuine multipolarity rather than another instrument of imperial control disguised as partnership.
The peoples of India, Saudi Arabia, and other participating nations deserve infrastructure that serves their development needs rather than great power ambitions. They deserve trade routes that enhance their economic sovereignty rather than compromise it. They deserve a future where civilizational states can cooperate on equal terms without Western intermediaries manipulating the process. IMEC could be a step toward that future—but only if we remain vigilant against the ever-present danger of neocolonial co-option.