A perfect time for China-Pakistan defence pact

[Airdef95]

[QUOTE="cloud4000, post: 8212997, member:
Why does China always get a pass?

Maybe coz they are smarter.

 

[sohail.ishaque]

well. we shud enhance the cooperation but don't need anything like pact.. it creates a lot of obligations and with it, China who don't want to interfere in our sheet politics has to get involved in it and it will create problems.. the best thing is we continue to cooperate and enhance it further by launching more joint ventures in all fields...

 

[cloud4000]

Maybe coz they are smarter.

Or no one in Pakistan will criticize China -- ever.

 

[Solomon2]

well. we shud enhance the cooperation but don't need anything like pact.. it creates a lot of obligations and with it, China who don't want to interfere in our sheet politics has to get involved in it and it will create problems.. the best thing is we continue to cooperate and enhance it further by launching more joint ventures in all fields...

Exactly. Pakistanis hate negotiated written agreements that compel them to be obliged to someone else. (It may be different when such an agreement is freely proposed by Pakistanis and accepted without change by the other party.) I think Pakistanis defy such things, if only to prove their own independence to themselves.

I do wonder, however, if the Pakistan-U.S. clash on pacts and agreements may be due in part to a subtle but real difference in contract law and their divergent social consequences. In the U.S., as in Germany, Canada, France, and many other countries, there is an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in performance of contractual obligations. That doesn't exist in English contract law - the basis for Pakistan's contract law. "Bad faith" is thus a serious breach in the U.S. that one can sue for damages, whereas in Britain it's just everyday impropriety - or perfidy.

 

[cloud4000]

Why don't you survey this forum and others? Actually globally India/Indians are disliked

According to whom? Where are you getting this idea that Indians are disliked globally? Are they more disliked than Bangladeshis or Pakistanis?

 

[Aepsilons]

That will be a win-win situation for China and Pakistan but before Pakistan, China needs it more.

This is not only inevitable, but practical, as it is in lieu with the PLAN's mobilization and fleet force projection into the Indian Ocean Region and the Persian Gulf.

This is a healthy, crucial, and imperative development for the Chinese People's Republic.

 

[Soulspeek]

You think India will allow BD to do it? Its just a (day)dream.

1. My view is that China would prefer bringing in BD into such a pact. For the Chinese planners BD has been the focal point around which her SA strategy must revolve.

a. Bringing in BD will truly secure China's soft belly. BD commands the Bay of Bengal. BD sits at the center of a region whose population has always been pro-Chinese. S Tibet, NE freedom struggles, and Nepal and Bhutan seeking to end Indian imperialism are issues that are directly related to any Chinese interest here. And we must not forget the colonialist imposed McMahon Line.
b. Such a pact will nullify all expansionist designs of India in SA in a single stroke.
c. Pakistan will then be facing an arch enemy who has no secured flank.
d. BD will be able to breathe free and progress / prosper without the strangulation of India in all facets - economic, cultural, political or national security.
e. Peoples of Kerala, South India, SL, the Sikhs, the Kashmiris and the peoples of Central and Eastern India will also breathe free with the weakening of the Brahmonic power at Delhi that such a pact will result in.

2. For this to happen, BD needs a popular govt, a govt that truly represents the people - not one imposed by RAW. A BD-China-Pak alliance is in the heart of all patriotic people of BD who understand well that otherwise a Sikkimization is inevitable.

 

[TaiwanNumba1]

You think India will allow BD to do it? Its just a (day)dream.

Let the kid dream ,he actually thinks Bangladeshi government would turn its back on one of their biggest trade partners & longest allies .

its amusing , apparently according to him Sikhs, will betray their country , this guy is so misinformed about India its like he's reading out of memes ,

 

[dadeechi]

Dont we already have one...?

That is exactly what I thought. It would be very surprising if China-Pakistan did not yet have one.

 

[asad71]

You think India will allow BD to do it? Its just a (day)dream.

On the contrary, it is pipe dream if India believes BAL / SHW are immortal.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

But be warned, once this happens, the next happening due would be GhawatulHind.

Why would China assist in GhawatulHind?, that would be a death sentence for Xinjiang.

 

[dadeechi]

A bit correction is that China doesn't want to 'dominate' the Arabian Sea. Its just to create a balance of power against the US in the Indian Ocean. Since for US China has become a threat, China has to safeguard its economic interests somehow.

One step at a time. First balance and later dominate.

Does being a Major non-NATO ally prevent Pakistan from having a formal pact with China?

Maybe coz they are smarter.

Chinese are indeed very smart.

 

[curious]

Pakistan used mutual-defence pacts to empower it to launch a war of expansion, then squawked in protest when the U.S. failed to support its ambitions. Bhutto then marketed the U.S. refusal as damaging to Pakistan's national pride - the foundation of Pakistani anti-Americanism.

Since Pakistan was supporting U.S ambitions, its not unreasonable for it to expect U.S support for its own.
The fact that Pakistan was in the western alliance, and that U.S had assured Pakistan that Kashmir dispute would be resolved according to Pakistan's wishes was why the leadership didn't participate in the Sino-India war of 1962, despite the Chinese leadership inviting Pakistan to join and liberate Indian held Kashmir. If they had joined the Chinese in 1962 there wouldn't be any need for Operation Gibraltar 3 years later.

Few Pakistanis ever expressed anything but support for this conduct by their leaders, yes?

People have often condemned the government's decision not to join China in 1962 war, many call it a blunder.

So who wants to sign a pact with leaders - or a nation - that is so morally corrupt it lacks the honor necessary to uphold such a pact in good faith?

Its always amusing to see Americans to issue such judgments to others, pretending to be on moral high ground while ignoring their own bloody history of wars of aggression, covert interventions, and the untold millions that died or were left in misery as its wake. Good faith? yeah...ok

 

[Solomon2]

Since Pakistan was supporting U.S ambitions, its not unreasonable for it to expect U.S support for its own.

The pact was for explicitly for defensive purposes, yet Pakistan launched a war of conquest, its leaders citing impatience and pride.

Its always amusing to see Americans to issue such judgments to others, pretending to be on moral high ground while ignoring their own bloody history -

Americans "own bloody history" does not render a moral judgment invalid when it rests upon its own merits.

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

With the tension in South China Sea and defence dealings of India with United States, it is about time for China to get into a strategic defence pact with Pakistan.

This is a foretelling by NiamatAullah Shah Wali and looking at the chess-board being played in South China Sea, this seems to be a "compulsive choice" for China.

When China undergoes such a defence pact with Pakistan, it will be able to

- Protect its own interest of Gawadar Port
- Get a military port on the back of India
- Get his offensive and defensive equipment for a greater control over oceans in the south and
- Get all that without compromising anything

That will be a win-win situation for China and Pakistan but before Pakistan, China needs it more.

But be warned, once this happens, the next happening due would be GhawatulHind.

In short... lease half of your country to China... History repeats... from US to China... Pakistanis need a a master... always.