China losing its grip on Pakistan - a win for Obama's policies and India's security

[Scriptable]

The Obama administration has out maneuvered China.



China losing its grip on Pakistan

Since the early 1990s, China has taken advantage of opportunities to move strategically and militarily closer to Pakistan, always with an eye on rival India. China took advantage of U.S. pique over Pakistan from 1992 to 2001, and of political instability in Pakistan induced by the Pakistani army. China befriended former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and offered the country missile technology via North Korea.

China also helped Pakistan build its nuclear reactor and stockpile plutonium to offset India’s advantage. The military partnership included building a Pakistani version of a Chinese jet fighter, and a military port at Gwadar in Balochistan province at the apex of the Arabian Sea. China also supplied other military hardware, although inferior, that could not be procured in the West or Russia.
...
India in 1997 tested its atom bomb, and so did Pakistan. An overconfident Pakistani military overthrew the civilian government and began a fresh military offensive with India in the Kargil Mountains of Indian-administered Kashmir. This was a bad move by Pakistan.
...
Then came the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York, and the days of the Taliban were numbered. They ran to Pakistan’s border region to seek protection. It was the Pakistanis who created the Taliban, so their protection from the big, ugly and ruthless Americans was essential.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in September, 2001, gave Pakistan three days to decide whether it was “with us or against us.” Pakistan reluctantly joined the United States to punish the perpetrators of 9/11, but privately supported the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

Playing a double game, Pakistan asked the United States for quick military and economic aid in 2001; at the same time it sought Chinese aid to build the Gwadar port to offset India’s naval advantages. Also, in 2007 new medium-quality fighters from China appeared in Pakistani skies.

China played a good game, but it miscalculated. It realized the Pakistanis could shift over to the U.S. orbit in a jiffy if a suitable offer was made. That offer came in early 2009, when U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration turned sympathetic toward Pakistan’s plight and offered long-term aid to the tune of US$1.5 billion. China could have matched the offer, but refusing the U.S. offer would have had grave consequences for Pakistan.

The new Obama administration has understood Pakistan’s double play between the Taliban and the United States, and has again asked them to choose. To ensure continued economic and military support, Pakistan chose to go with the United States, and began its war on the Pakistani Taliban. Now with Pakistan firmly in the U.S. orbit, China-Pakistan relations have come under strain.

Pakistan supported the Chinese 50 years ago only in pique against India. In return, China showered it with gifts and diplomatic and military support. With this China thought it had effectively neutralized India. But the United States changed the equation completely.

In the last 20 years, an overconfident China has been exerting pressure on India’s northern border.

To make their point, they built an economically unimportant China-Tibet rail link. This rail link is miserably weak because of its construction on permafrost. It also upgraded its military infrastructure along the Indian border to intimidate India.

All these issues make the region’s geopolitics interesting if viewed collectively. Pakistan is back in the U.S. fold but internally it is stuck in a fight with Pushtun tribesmen, who form the Pakistani version of Afghanistan’s Taliban. The urban insurgency unleashed by angry tribesmen has turned more serious.

India, sensing a bit of a respite from constant insurgency in Kashmir, has begun reinforcing its northern border in Tibet to face China. The Chinese, unable to find a strategic equilibrium in South Asia, have upped the propaganda against India with India bashing as their new pastime.
...
None of this could be to China’s liking. China wants Pakistan to keep its daggers drawn toward India.

Realizing that Pakistan is less of a threat now, India has begun countering the Chinese threat in Tibet, hoping to neutralize China’s build-up over the past 20 years. Assuming the Chinese can deploy an additional 10 divisions from their reserves to augment their current strength of 14 divisions in Tibet, it is still inadequate to mount an attack on India. Half of this force is needed to keep Tibet calm while the remaining force would face an Indian gauntlet in the Himalayas.

Not only that, India has eight divisions in the eastern sector facing China and will deploy an additional 40,000 heavily equipped mountain and snow warfare troops this year. In addition, two divisions keep an eye on China in the West, reinforced by an additional 20,000 troops who have been reassigned as the threat from Pakistan has diminished. Presently, India can match China’s power.

India has upgraded a major military and air force base close to the Chinese border in the east. It will field a squadron of the mightiest fighter jet in the world, the SU-30MK1. This fighter jet in friendly combat with U.S. F-15Cs and F-16s scored nine out of ten victories. This squadron alone can not only neutralize the Chinese air force in Tibet, but also bomb the China-Tibet rail link by melting the permafrost on which it stands. Without it, China will have difficulty resupplying 400,000 troops in Tibet.

Full story (http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/07/03/china_losing_its_grip_on_pakistan/4629/)

[Ordie]

I don't think China ever considered Pakistan a client state.

However, China's policy of non interference of the domestic affairs of recognized states is coming to an end. The PRC is realizing that being a friend to all ends up being a friend to none.

[Confuse]

I would say that the non interference policy isn't realistic... play such a game while no one else is doing the same is just handicapping yourself.. with the 1962 war china would have been better off keeping the captured territory and equipment (or at least destroying it) instead of giving it back to india just to have them increase the negative stance against china..same with the non first nuke uses policy, china needs to play the game like everyone else

[AZZenny]

Michael Totten has a free-ranging discussion with geopolitical journalist Robert Kaplan that touches on this same Chinese strategy:



The biggest takeaway fact about the Sri Lankan war that’s over now is that the Chinese won. And the Chinese won because over the last few years, because of the human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government, the U.S. and other Western countries have cut all military aid. We cut them off just as they were starting to win. The Chinese filled the gaps and kept them flush with weapons and, more importantly, with ammunition, with fire-fighting radar, all kinds of equipment. The assault rifles that Sri Lankan soldiers carry at road blocks throughout Colombo are T-56 Chinese knockoffs of AK-47s. They look like AK-47s, but they’re not.
What are the Chinese getting out of this? They’re building a deep water port and bunkering facility for their warships and merchant fleet in Hambantota, in southern Sri Lanka. And they’re doing all sorts of other building on the island.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/images/Hambantota%20Port%20Design.jpgHambantota port design
Now, why did the Chinese want Sri Lanka? Because Sri Lanka is strategically located. The main sea lines of communication between the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea, and between the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. It’s part of China’s plan to construct a string of pearls – ports that they don’t own, but which they can use for their warships all across the Indian Ocean
.

[TheMiddlePath]

I don't think China ever considered Pakistan a client state.

However, China's policy of non interference of the domestic affairs of recognized states is coming to an end. The PRC is realizing that being a friend to all ends up being a friend to none.


Not only China's policy

Bandong Conference 1955.

Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country

Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence

Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs (互不干涉内政)

The five principles of the Non-Aligned Movement

Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs

[Ordie]

Not only China's policy

Bandong Conference 1955.

Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country

Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence

Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs (互不干涉内政)

The five principles of the Non-Aligned Movement

Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
Non-aligned nation is an oxymoron. Every country has an ally or two as a means of leverage, survival and legitimacy.

Non- aligned nations are whores for the highest bidder. The US offered dollar diplomacy, the Soviets offered Mig diplomacy, and now China offers presidential palace diplomacy.

The fact of the matter is that China is the friend of last resort. That can be a liability as in the case with the genocide in Darfur and the Chinese failure to protect by it's inaction at the UN Security Council on the premise of non interference.

It took an Olympics boycott threat to get China motivated.

[TheMiddlePath]

Non-aligned nation is an oxymoron. Every country has an ally or two as a means of leverage, survival and legitimacy.

Non- aligned nations are whores for the highest bidder. The US offered dollar diplomacy, the Soviets offered Mig diplomacy, and now China offers presidential palace diplomacy.

The fact of the matter is that China is the friend of last resort. That can be a liability as in the case with the genocide in Darfur and the Chinese failure to protect by it's inaction at the UN Security Council on the premise of non interference.

It took an Olympics boycott threat to get China motivated.


Bandong Declaration also include.

(a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defence to serve any particular interests of the big powers
(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries

China do not form any military alliance with any country.

By interfering in the internal affairs of other countries allows Western powers to destablise unfriendly countries (Of course using human rights, unlimited freedom etc as excuses).

As for Darfur, who started arming the rebels that started the war in the first place. And it happen so soon after a multi billion oil pipeline was completed in neigbouring Chad. Coincident ?

[Ordie]

China do not form any military alliance with any country to target a 3rd country.

Nope, but it contributes to instability.

China supplies weapons to support genocide in Darfur, props up an authoritarian dictatorship in Burma that neglects its own people, and provides nuke technology to a failed state in Pakistan.

All in the name of non-interference.

While at the same time China plays victim of genocidal attrocities committed almost 70 years ago.

Although they'll never forget and forgive the past, yet China does nothing to prevent genocide and atrocities committed by its "friends" from happening.

[TheMiddlePath]

Nope, but it contributes to instability.

China supplies weapons to support genocide in Darfur, props up an authoritarian dictatorship in Burma that neglects its own people, and provides nuke technology to a failed state in Pakistan.

All in the name of non-interference.

While at the same time China plays victim of genocidal attrocities committed almost 70 years ago.

Although they'll never forget and forgive the past, yet China does nothing to prevent genocide and atrocities committed by its "friends" from happening.


Bandong declaration also include the following

Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations

China only supply weopans enough for protecting the soverignty and territorial integrity of countries under the threat of outside interference.

So which country is screaming Genocide ? So Darfur is that simple. The Muslim Arabs against the Blacks ?

Only if Western powers stop spliting countries, threatening regime change, forming military alliance.

[Ordie]

China only supply weopans enough for protecting the soverignty and territorial integrity of countries under the threat of outside interference.

Yet nothing precludes it from using weapons against your own people.

When it comes to international affairs, I guess China lacks morality and responsibility.

With this vision, China will never become a great nation, only a hated one.

[Chimera]

When it comes to international affairs, I guess China lacks morality and responsibility.

Do you expect any country to be 'moral' ? The US isn't moral, neither is France. Countries have interests to defend and threats to eliminate. China is just playing its own game.

I don't see how China is irresponsible. It's not because you arm someone you believe to be mature and responsible (the US, UK, France, Germany... with other 'clean' nations) that it makes your country more 'responsible' because things change, terriorial conflicts occur when not expected, and unpredictable events set up new deals.

All this is just hypocritcal western point of view on how international business should be dealt with.

[Scriptable]

All this is just hypocritcal western point of view on how international business should be dealt with.
Typical Chinese response to its human rights violations and its moral poverty... claim China is "different" from the West as a justification for its extremes of totalitarian repression and support for genocidal governments worldwide.

But guess what? Human rights and global responsibility are not exclusively Western points of view. They are universal concepts. That is why there is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The duplicity of the Chinese government has earned China global distrust and contempt, and one day the wakeup call will come.

[Chimera]

Typical Chinese response to its human rights violations and its moral poverty... claim China is "different" from the West as a justification for its extremes of totalitarian repression and support for genocidal governments worldwide.

But guess what? Human rights and global responsibility are not exclusively Western points of view. They are universal concepts. That is why there is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The duplicity of the Chinese government has earned China global distrust and contempt, and one day the wakeup call will come.

I am NOT questionning that at all. I'm talking about the approach of international affairs. Of course Human Rights should be universal, and blablabla. but that does not change the fact that China does whats necessary to protect its interest, as well as the US and the rest of western nations.

Arming a third world country in conflict with its neighbors is as despicable as letting them ripping their heads off because 'it is'nt worth it' or because it is "none of our business".
If we HONESTLY want to be critical towards Chinese despicable behaviors, we would have to free every single country that is still being ruled by dictators.

[P.Koschei]

Look at the author, Hari Sud. Entire article is jibber jabber INDIA STRONG!!1!11! rubbish of the sort Adux and co regularly post.

[josh21x]

Look at the author, Hari Sud. Entire article is jibber jabber INDIA STRONG!!1!11! rubbish of the sort Adux and co regularly post.

You seem to be real bothered about Adux, did he rip you a new one?

But I agree with you.China hasnt lost control of Pakistan, that much I am sure off.!@@ They are both of the same kind and they know it!!

[Danielotu]

I don't think China ever considered Pakistan a client state.

However, China's policy of non interference of the domestic affairs of recognized states is coming to an end. The PRC is realizing that being a friend to all ends up being a friend to none.

I'm afraid I totally disagree with your post. China's decision not to poke its nose in the affairs of other countries has actually earned it more friends in the developing nations, along with increased access to minerals and markets. A clear example is Africa. Using my country Nigeria as an example, China has never tried to use its trade with us (e.g the sales of military hardware) as means of influencing our policies (either internally or externally), unlike some Western countries. Rather, they place their focus soley on the business at hand. In return, Chinese companies have begun to play a major role in the countries oil and gas sector (particularly exploration), and the telecommunications sector (Huawei and ZTE). So I don't the Chinese dumping their policy of non-interference anytime soon.

[Danielotu]

Non-aligned nation is an oxymoron. Every country has an ally or two as a means of leverage, survival and legitimacy.

Non- aligned nations are whores for the highest bidder. The US offered dollar diplomacy, the Soviets offered Mig diplomacy, and now China offers presidential palace diplomacy.

The fact of the matter is that China is the friend of last resort. That can be a liability as in the case with the genocide in Darfur and the Chinese failure to protect by it's inaction at the UN Security Council on the premise of non interference.

It took an Olympics boycott threat to get China motivated.


Non-aligned nations are not "whores for the highest bidder" as you so put it. Rather, they chose not to become satellites of the major powers, either Eastern or Western. They have far more control of their domestic and foreign policies than any other country that acts as a lackey to another.

[Ought Six]

Does this thread *have* to devolve into yet another India/Pakistan, China/West pizzin' match? Really ??? :roll:

[Vityaz]

Human rights and global responsibility are not exclusively Western points of view. They are universal concepts.

Universal for those who signed the declaration.

/devil's advocate

[Ordie]

Non-aligned nations are not "whores for the highest bidder" as you so put it. Rather, they chose not to become satellites of the major powers, either Eastern or Western. They have far more control of their domestic and foreign policies than any other country that acts as a lackey to another.

Non-allied states will leverage it's value as a means to extract the best offers. But there's always a quid pro quo involved and at times return a favor to the donor country.

[josh21x]

Non-allied states will leverage it's value as a means to extract the best offers. But there's always a quid pro quo involved and at times return a favor to the donor country.

Ordie,

With respect, then Soviets wouldnt have come to through Afganistan and Pakistan for warm water ports, Indians wonuld have given it, they didnt ! Not even after 1971 and USS Enterprise! Imagine how the world would have looked now, Soviets with an Indian Ocean base and not needin to enter Afganistan.

Not all NAM countries are for SALE!

[Danielotu]

Ordie,

With respect, then Soviets wouldnt have come to through Afganistan and Pakistan for warm water ports, Indians wonuld have given it, they didnt ! Not even after 1971 and USS Enterprise! Imagine how the world would have looked now, Soviets with an Indian Ocean base and not needin to enter Afganistan.

Not all NAM countries are for SALE!

For once, I agree with you.

[AZZenny]

I'm afraid I totally disagree with your post. China's decision not to poke its nose in the affairs of other countries has actually earned it more friends in the developing nations, along with increased access to minerals and markets. A clear example is Africa. Using my country Nigeria as an example, China has never tried to use its trade with us (e.g the sales of military hardware) as means of influencing our policies (either internally or externally), unlike some Western countries. Rather, they place their focus soley on the business at hand. In return, Chinese companies have begun to play a major role in the countries oil and gas sector (particularly exploration), and the telecommunications sector (Huawei and ZTE). So I don't the Chinese dumping their policy of non-interference anytime soon.

2005 - ...more and more Chinese companies and businessmen have come to Nigeria, with the number of Chinese people residing in the country from some 10,000 several years ago to over 50,000 now.

- Nigeria is now China's second largest export market and fourth largest trade partner in Africa.



2007 - There is a growing debate and uneasy calm within the Nigeria's business circle over the invasion of Nigerian market by Chinese investors.



- Obasanjo said the African people will never forget China's support in their struggle against colonialism and racial segregation. He said Africa hopes China will support and join Africa's efforts in seeking a solution to the conflicts in the region, and improve investment and economic cooperation with Africa to help it achieve peace, security and development soon.

During the talks, Hu expressed China's appreciation for Nigeria's consistent adherence to the one-China policy and its support to China's adoption of the Anti-Secession Law.



2009 -
China also attached great importance to bilateral military ties and was ready to advance military friendship and cooperation to a new level, Liang added.



- The People's Republic of China has expressed its readiness to deal with the complaints of Nigerians that Chinese businessmen had continued to flood Nigeria with substandard products.




- Last week, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) of Nigeria issued a press release stating that a large consignment of fake anti-malarial generic pharmaceuticals labelled `Made in India' were, in fact, found to have been produced in China.

- Most attention has focused on the multibillion-dollar infrastructure-for-resources deals China has signed with African governments. Evidence indicates that more than 80 per cent of the companies are private Chinese firms.

It goes on to say many show preference for imported Chinese workers or managementand resentment from local firms and workers is building up, not to mention corruption and siphoning off of money so that there is almost no trickle-down to Nigerians.

Perhaps wisely, Nigeria is now turning to India and Russia for important infrastructure deals. Maybe that's the quality control piece, or maybe that China has not helped Nigeria develop its domestic fuel-management or refinery capacity, so a high percentage of domestic energy consumption comes from imports. Nigeria wants Russia to help it become energy self-sufficient via NUCLEAR power in ten years.

[Danielotu]

2005 - ...more and more Chinese companies and businessmen have come to Nigeria, with the number of Chinese people residing in the country from some 10,000 several years ago to over 50,000 now.

- Nigeria is now China's second largest export market and fourth largest trade partner in Africa.


2007 - There is a growing debate and uneasy calm within the Nigeria's business circle over the invasion of Nigerian market by Chinese investors.


- Obasanjo said the African people will never forget China's support in their struggle against colonialism and racial segregation. He said Africa hopes China will support and join Africa's efforts in seeking a solution to the conflicts in the region, and improve investment and economic cooperation with Africa to help it achieve peace, security and development soon.

During the talks, Hu expressed China's appreciation for Nigeria's consistent adherence to the one-China policy and its support to China's adoption of the Anti-Secession Law.



2009 -
China also attached great importance to bilateral military ties and was ready to advance military friendship and cooperation to a new level, Liang added.


- The People's Republic of China has expressed its readiness to deal with the complaints of Nigerians that Chinese businessmen had continued to flood Nigeria with substandard products.



- Last week, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) of Nigeria issued a press release stating that a large consignment of fake anti-malarial generic pharmaceuticals labelled `Made in India' were, in fact, found to have been produced in China.

- Most attention has focused on the multibillion-dollar infrastructure-for-resources deals China has signed with African governments. Evidence indicates that more than 80 per cent of the companies are private Chinese firms.

It goes on to say many show preference for imported Chinese workers or managementand resentment from local firms and workers is building up, not to mention corruption and siphoning off of money so that there is almost no trickle-down to Nigerians.

Perhaps wisely, Nigeria is now turning to India and Russia for important infrastructure deals. Maybe that's the quality control piece, or maybe that China has not helped Nigeria develop its domestic fuel-management or refinery capacity, so a high percentage of domestic energy consumption comes from imports. Nigeria wants Russia to help it become energy self-sufficient via NUCLEAR power in ten years.

You're right that we've had problems with sub-standard products, particularly pharmacetical products, from China, and NAFDAC has done quite an excellent job so far. But Chinese companies aren't the only culprits; some Indian companies also play a huge role in the importation of fake drugs into the company, and in some cases acts of fraud (we had to deport the VASWANI brothers from the country). And unlike most countries in Africa, we also try to protect our
indigenous industries.

With regards to the energy deal being signed between my country and Russia, we're just trying to play it safe. We've learnt a lot from past years when we were under sanctions from West during the days of military rule, and I think we've had enough agreeing to pre-conditions. Besides, our upstream oil and gas sector is an open one, and it's not just the Americans, Chinese, British, Dutch, Indians or Russians doing bussiness there. We also have the Brazilians, and we'll always welcome any good investment. However, the Chinese will always play a considerable, if not major, role within this sector. In our telecomm sector, they already play a major role there.

[TheMiddlePath]

Typical Chinese response to its human rights violations and its moral poverty... claim China is "different" from the West as a justification for its extremes of totalitarian repression and support for genocidal governments worldwide.

But guess what? Human rights and global responsibility are not exclusively Western points of view. They are universal concepts. That is why there is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The duplicity of the Chinese government has earned China global distrust and contempt, and one day the wakeup call will come.


Not entirely true. Westerner only have a very narrow views on human rights. They always only talk about unlimited freedom, unlimited press freedom and unlimited political freedom.

Human rights also includes fight against poverty, illiteracy, political and social stability, economic wealth, medical care etc (always ignored by Western press due to their own lack of knowledge on human rights).

Also every country has difference level of human rights due to diferrent level of their development. Develpment must even and and all rounded not just focusing on some narrow views.

[AZZenny]

Westerner only have a very narrow views on human rights. They always only talk about unlimited freedom, unlimited press freedom and unlimited political freedom.


You have seriously over-simplified and exaggerated.

What we mainly talk about is the right people should have not to be disappeared, imprisoned, or penalized by their own government for peacefully expressing dissatisfaction with aspects of the government. We talk about the right to assemble and to worship safely in your own religion, or not to worship at all -- without fearing for your life. We talk about allowing non-government journalists to exist and report without being imprisoned or killed.

We also talk about women's right to have some say over their lives, the right of children (male and female) to basic education, the right of residents of a country to have equal citizenship rights -- however limited -- and not defined by religion, skin color, ethnicity.