What's new

Analysis: Pakistan relying too much on China against U.S.

Oldman1

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
10,145
Reaction score
-1
Country
United States
Location
United States
Analysis: Pakistan relying too much on China against U.S. - Yahoo! News

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan's quick response to charges by China that militants involved in attacks in Xinjiang had trained on its soil shows the importance of its ties with Beijing, but it could be a mistake for Islamabad if it relies too much on China.

Pakistan immediately dispatched Lieutenant-General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency, to Beijing after Islamic militants mounted a weekend attack that left 11 people dead in the western region of Xinjiang, according to media reports.

While the ISI declined to confirm the trip, Western diplomats and Pakistani analysts agreed that the attacks would likely be at the top of any agenda.

"We cannot allow Pakistani territory to be used for any activities against any neighbor, especially a close ally like China," said Mushahid Hussain Sayed, Chairman of the Pakistan-China Institute.

"There are strong ties between Pakistan and China, and we are cooperating closely on this issue."

Pasha's speedy trip was a clear sign of Pakistan's priorities.

The United States rarely gets that level of cooperation when it presses Pakistan on militants operating in its border regions. American officials for years said al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, killed in a U.S. raid in Pakistan in May, was hiding in the country.

Pakistan often responded with demands for specific, actionable intelligence before it would consider investigating.

Islamabad makes no secret of its preference for China over the United States as a military patron, calling Beijing an "all-weather" ally in contrast to Washington's supposedly fickle friendship.

The Pakistani foreign ministry issued a statement on Monday extending "full support" to China.

China is a major investor in predominantly Muslim Pakistan in areas such as telecommunications, ports and infrastructure. The countries are linked by a Chinese-built road pushed through Pakistan's northern mountains.

Trade with Pakistan is worth almost $9 billion a year for Pakistan, and China is its top arms supplier.

But all that matters only up to a point.

"Pakistan wants to play its own game by creating a front against the United States," said Hasan Askari-Rizvi, an independent political analyst.

"That will not happen. ... Now China has the same complaint which the United States has with Pakistan."

Barry Sautman, a professor at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said that China, like the United States, wanted Pakistan to help it control Islamist militancy. But it is frustrated by the chaotic nature of Pakistani governance, and its inability to control militants or militant-friendly elements in its security agencies.

"I would think the Chinese government would want to have its military and security apparatus liaise with Pakistani authorities to come up with a common plan, but the U.S. found that very difficult to do," he said. "And I am sure China will find it difficult as well."

Furthermore, Pakistan's usefulness to China is only in South Asia, where it competes with India. But China has global ambitions; it is unlikely to sacrifice them for an ally that has proved a headache to the United States, which has its own deep relationship with China.

"Being seen to take a provocative stand alongside Pakistan comes at a substantial cost, but provides little strategic benefit," Urmila Venugopalan, an independent analyst and former Asia editor at Jane's Intelligence Review, wrote last month in Foreign Policy.

China, he wrote, does not want to push India deeper into the American orbit.

"An escalation in Chinese aid to Pakistan would surely antagonize India, creating a new point of friction in the triangular relationship between Beijing, New Delhi, and Washington."

China has also shown no sign that it is willing to shoulder some of the financial burden of propping up Pakistan that the United States has so far been willing to bear.

In 2008, when Pakistan was suffering a balance of payments crisis and sought China's support to avoid turning to the International Monetary Fund and its restrictive terms on a $7.5 billion loan, China provided only $500 million.

China may share concerns over Pakistan's stability, Venugopalan writes, "but it has preferred to let Americans bear the costs of improving the country's security".

Pakistan's attempts to play China off the United States will ultimately backfire, analysts say. Although important, Pakistan is not the most important issue for Beijing and Washington.

"It is our misunderstanding if we think that we will team up with China if we are pressed by the United States," Rizvi said. "China and the United States have their own relations and they cannot compromise them for the sake of Pakistan."
 
Pakistan's quick response to charges by China that militants involved in attacks in Xinjiang had trained on its soil shows the importance of its ties with Beijing, but it could be a mistake for Islamabad if it relies too much on China.

Pakistan immediately dispatched Lieutenant-General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency, to Beijing after Islamic militants mounted a weekend attack that left 11 people dead in the western region of Xinjiang, according to media reports.

Pasha's speedy trip was a clear sign of Pakistan's priorities.

We appreciate the fast response from Pakistan. :cheers:

On topic: As for whether Pakistan wants to be closer with China or America... that's their own choice, and we will respect their decision.
 
"That will not happen. ... Now China has the same complaint which the United States has with Pakistan."

China has had that 'complaint' for years now. Counter Terrorism cooperation between China and Pakistan started years ago, specifically targeting terrorists/insurgents from Xinxiang.

It is not so much the 'complaint' (when a terrorist attack happens), but rather the actions Pakistan takes to address the issue.
 
We appreciate the fast response. :cheers:

As for whether Pakistan wants to be closer with China or America... that's their own choice, and we will respect their decision.
U cant help but respect. What can you do to another sovereign nation?
 
As for whether Pakistan wants to be closer with China or America... that's their own choice, and we will respect their decision.

The Chinese are cooperating on civilian nuclear power, on advanced military hardware, on major dams and infrastructure projects, and don't have a long running 'smear campaign' against Pakistan's military and intelligence, as the US Establishment has been doing using outlets such as the New York Times etc.

In terms of tangible cooperation, rather than aid, the US does not even come close to China.
 
U cant help but respect. What can you do to another sovereign nation?

We can disrespect the choice, like we did to India's Forward policy in 1962.

Now maybe we can discuss the topic?

China has had that 'complaint' for years now. Counter Terrorism cooperation between China and Pakistan started years ago, specifically targeting terrorists/insurgents from Xinxiang.

It is not so much the 'complaint' (when a terrorist attack happens), but rather the actions Pakistan takes to address the issue.

I think the SCO will be the ideal platform to improve on regional security issues in the future. :tup:
 
The Chinese are cooperating on civilian nuclear power, on advanced military hardware, on major dams and infrastructure projects, and don't have a long running 'smear campaign' against Pakistan's military and intelligence, as the US Establishment has been doing using outlets such as the New York Times etc.

In terms of tangible cooperation, rather than aid, the US does not even come close to China.
If the relation is as sweet as assumed, China would not have resorted to media attack!! They would have directly addressed the problem with Pak. The relationship might be "all-weather", but no country tolerates attack on its soil by terrorists aided by another country.
 
If the relation is as sweet as assumed, China would not have resorted to media attack!! They would have directly addressed the problem with Pak. The relationship might be "all-weather", but no country tolerates attack on its soil by terrorists aided by another country.

What 'media attack'? Contrast the statement of 'terrorists that trained in camps in Pakistan' to the propaganda out of the US 'ISI training terrorists killing Americans', 'ISI sheltering OBL and supporting Al Qaeda' etc. etc. etc.
 
What 'media attack'? Contrast the statement of 'terrorists that trained in camps in Pakistan' to the propaganda out of the US 'ISI training terrorists killing Americans', 'ISI sheltering OBL and supporting Al Qaeda' etc. etc. etc.
What ever terror infrastructure is present in Pakistan, it is responsible for attacks on other countries. You cannot differentiate between attacks on China and attacks on rest of the world.
 
Local officials have a habit of putting their foot in their mouth, better to wait for an official statement from the national government.

And even then, I have not seen even one direct statement from any local official that blames Pakistan.

The attackers were Chinese nationals (Uighurs) who committed crimes on Chinese territory. Clearly the biggest failure was on our side, we failed to control the movement of our own militant groups.
 
I do not understand why people always want to deliberately trying to distort, where there is a "China blames Pakistan?" I think it is just a note on the background of the mob, is an effective step to a more transparent to the domestic public. Sometimes, I was really impressed , the West can even catch a local government's instructions, and then to distort it, in order to use cheaper, the Western is really very good at playing psychological warfare, and will not miss every opportunity.
 
What ever terror infrastructure is present in Pakistan, it is responsible for attacks on other countries. You cannot differentiate between attacks on China and attacks on rest of the world.
Where did I differentiate?
 
What 'media attack'? Contrast the statement of 'terrorists that trained in camps in Pakistan' to the propaganda out of the US 'ISI training terrorists killing Americans', 'ISI sheltering OBL and supporting Al Qaeda' etc. etc. etc.

Where did I differentiate?
Differentiate in the sense, US 'propaganda' vs China's statement...both mean the same!
 
Back
Top Bottom