China and Pakistan friendship, to Western countries, incredible

[lawxx]

http://world.huanqiu.com/roll/2011-05/1714861.html

ewspaper correspondent Zhou Rong Mou Tsung Liu political discipline case Aoki Tao short Housing ● Twin Cities reporter Rui Xiaoyu Song Zou


"Pakistan and China are brothers. As long as we have, the Chinese can use, no problem at all. People are willing to let them say whatever they say." This is before the Pakistan Navy Chief of Staff Norman Bashir, on the Western and Indian challenge the Chinese navy may use the port of Pakistan made answer. In fact, this statement is not just the official courtesy. Is considered to best reflect the opinion of the network, "Palestinian iron (iron man)", "two deep (Pakistan-China friendship higher than the Himalayas, over the Indian Ocean deep" can be seen everywhere, as a vivid portrayal of China-Pakistan relations. In has been considered "There is no eternal friendship, only permanent interests" of the Western diplomatic circles, many people do not understand China and Pakistan 60 years sustained relationship. has the U.S. media, why are we providing assistance to Pakistan much more than China, not be treated as friends? French "Atlas News" feeling that in many Pakistanis view, China is not only the allies, but also provides many opportunities for the bar, even more valuable is "not like Americans betrayed" , there is no greater for other countries, more and trade-offs.


United States worried that the Pakistani "give China"


"If the United States will hand over Pakistan, China, what will happen? Struggling economy, high unemployment, the United States and China to stop aid to fill the vacuum it?" Celebration in Pakistan, Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani's visit to China the 60th anniversary of establishment of diplomatic relations, the United States, "Huffington Post" 18 even mention two questions, question the number of U.S. congressmen called for an end to the Palestinian economic and military aid practices.


Gilani's visit to China in Pakistan relations with the United States Yinla Deng's death against the backdrop of tensions, and also makes Gilani in the Chinese words and deeds are subject to Western and Indian media. "The Times of India," said the Pakistan-China relations, Gilani said: "In all the difficult circumstances, China and Pakistan stand together. Therefore, we call China is a true friend, an all-weather friend." Article said the Prime Minister praised the Chinese friends in Pakistan, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Christopher visit in Pakistan, he said the United States and Pakistan is a "strategic partnership to face the common enemy", and tried to "make up" between the two countries "crack." However, the Associated Press, Kerry refused to cross-border in Pakistan regarding the elimination of Osama bin Laden to apologize to the Palestinian side has also submitted a Palestinian suspected of harboring militants and the "specific requirements" list.


"There is no more diverse than Pakistan's role: the U.S. allies, partners in China, India, the enemy, the Taliban enemy, these contradictory roles overlap, making Pakistan a difficult problem." French "La Manche Free Press, "that describe the state of Pakistan to bring the world's major problems. Many western media that Pakistan is "playing the China card" to the United States and India to see: Even if the United States abandoned Pakistan, Pakistan is still a major power behind the strong backing to do. "New York Times," said Pali International show with a visit to China is a safe and economic assistance to Pakistan, another optional object.


According to the judge to make the West, is its long-standing "no eternal friendship, only permanent interests" of foreign iron rule. French "Atlantic" magazine that the U.S. has been using harsh attitude toward the anti-terror ally Pakistan, that is because they believe that Pakistan will not offend the United States, in any case the main Daikin. But the article said that history proved more than once, "to be an American friend enough for a developing country in terms of risk, and more unreliable, so India and Pakistan during the war, when the nuclear arms race between Pakistan and India so that the (bin Laden events), but once again proved nothing more. " The 60-year friendship between China and Pakistan is a multi-level, the two geo-politics, international relations and other areas of mutual need and interdependence, both sides at all times be the only reliable friend.


Pakistan also act to show their choice. Pakistan's largest province, Punjab 20, 6 refused assistance from the United States to protest U.S. special forces killed bin Laden across the border. Reuters said the assistance of 200 billion rupees (about 230 million U.S. dollars), the province also called on Pakistan to re-examine the central government's relations with the United States to reduce dependence on U.S. aid.
What is the true friend of countries ？


"What is a true friend among nations?" In recent days, Pakistani media is the most talked about moral support to Pakistan. Pakistan "Observer" said Gilani's visit to China at the beginning, to express gratitude to the host, saying bin Laden was killed in China after the first contribution of Pakistan to support the national counter-terrorism, and China is required in case there is no Palestinian statement under the initiative, all because China is a "true friend." Morocco, "African Journal" 19, said the event is the Western world in Yinla Deng accused the sound of a Chinese counter-terrorism first of all praised the contribution of Pakistan, which makes a great grievances of the Palestinians feel comforted. The article said that for China, Pakistan friendship is also a reliable, 60 years, when China was isolated world, Pakistan will come forward, an important bridge between China and the U.S. secret diplomacy is Islamabad.


Since 1961, Pakistan's proposal for ten years at the UN General Assembly vote on restoring China's legitimate rights in the United Nations, and vote for it. 70s of last century, Pakistan has made in promoting Sino-US relations a unique contribution, due to the support of Pakistan, contributed to Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972, a historic trip to China. In 1989, encouraged the United States and other countries of Western sanctions against China. Held at the United Nations, "UN member states to expand the Commission on Human Rights", the United States first proposed the "sanctions against China" proposal, in its temptations and threats, many countries cast votes, with China as part of "friendly relations" with countries that abstained. Only two countries, said the fair, and subjected to U.S. sanctions, the two countries, Pakistan and Cuba, including Pakistan, especially beyond the choice of the United States expected. According to Pakistan, "Ha'aretz" reported that the U.S. had in the "Memorandum of Agreement between United States and Pakistan," said, "United States and Pakistan are both democratic countries, so Pakistan should join the United States --- the sanctions advocated by the Chinese action." In Pakistan to vote against the "sanctions against China", the U.S. State Department issued a "condemnation of the Government of Pakistan supports China's bad decisions," and suspended all aid to Pakistan. "Haaretz" said the rising in the Western anti-China period, Pakistan supported China is expensive. The article said that if Pakistan was a strong interest and temptation in accordance with international practice "interests above all else" to act, the day that Pakistan today may be different, but in the world, only the Chinese Government was likely to remain 30 to 50 years or even forever permanent foreign policy. Two generations of Chinese leaders of old and new policies for Africa, almost did not change much. And look forward to Western support, will end up paying a high price. From this perspective, select the necessary part of China is Pakistan.


For the stable and friendly relations between China and Pakistan, Americans have been unable to understand. Some U.S. politicians that the United States to provide substantial assistance to Pakistan, not only does not return the appropriate kind, but to make Pakistan a strong anti-American sentiment there. U.S. Senator James Ritchie, said: "We spend a dollar for each, there is a borrowed four cents, and a large part borrowed from China; and then we give money to Pakistan, and Pakistan's leaders are to China, said China is Pakistan's best friend. "British" Financial Times "published a letter from a reader that site," 9.11 ", the former U.S. deputy secretary of state flew to Islamabad on the Pakistani president said the war on terror not neutral, not to America's friends, is America's enemy. So-called "US-Pakistan alliance against terrorism" is established under the threat of the United States, and no friendship and trust at all. In addition, the war against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan to contribute greatly, but the war ended, the United States will evaluate the role of India's larger than Pakistan, the Pakistan kicked open, the original commitment and assistance did not affect the look.


"Pakistan patriot," said Obama by "throwing in Pakistan under the wheels to grind" to lift his support. This approach may play a role in Chicago's gang, but in international relations, this Rambo doctrine (that the purpose of the use of force to achieve foreign policy) is not feasible.


Latif Ph.D. in political science at Moscow University to accept the "Global Times" reporter, said the United States, Pakistan, but only as part of its global strategy, the U.S. pursued diplomatic pragmatism burning bridges, Pakistan has only the United States a "pawn . " While China pursues a foreign policy stability, attention to long-term cooperation between China and Pakistan, which also determines the attitude of long-term friendship between China and Pakistan's stability. "

 

[lawxx]

Who is the most valuable friends Pakistan


Western countries in recent years, almost every year on the degree of goodwill to China as a world-wide survey. The degree of goodwill to China Pakistanis are at the top. Pew Research Center survey in 2010 showed that 85% of respondents in Pakistan have expressed a good impression on the Chinese cherish, but do not like that, only 3%. Such a high rate of so many Westerners feel good feeling incredible. Pakistan China Friendship Association, 席马沙哈德 "Global Times" reporter, said that in international relations was no real friends, but history has proven that China and Pakistan did, we all help each other over the most difficult period of each other with China, saying that "zeroing." Hussein stressed that the test of time is the best way of friendship, starting from a very young Pakistanis to accept, "We have Chinese brothers" education.


Chinese journalist delegation recently visited Pakistan along with the "Global Times" reporter in the outskirts of Pakistan Heavy Machinery in Islamabad that China aided the seventies of last century the equipment still play an important role in the factory, the plant Pakistan is the only Heavy Machinery. And these "old object" to work with several decades of Gusituer man said: "I have not been to China, but the seventies and eighties of last century, I have too many Chinese experts around, they Shoubashoujiao our technology, I am learning Chinese is out with them. "turn the plant's" resume ", the first page impressively presented the names of Chinese leader Jiang Zemin, Jiang Zemin has in the last century rate of 70 to the factory in China to help train Palestinian Group technical staff. When China aided Pakistan's equipment and technology are the most advanced. Chinese journalists have gone home, please accompany journalists to cover the Palestinian police and drivers eat, dinner, and several Pakistani brothers admitted that "equality of the Chinese people moved us the most, only you as a true friend to Pakistan. The Chinese Government to do, no matter how strong it will not command other countries. "


China Reform Forum, Executive Deputy Director of Center for Strategic Studies Maccabees power to accept the "Global Times" reporter, said that China's assistance to Pakistan is really sincere, it is not the practice of the United States, the United States provided assistance to many, but the actual on the composition of the United States than in good faith with Bally assistance component, which is the largest U.S. foreign relations is not the same. For a long time, the United States need it, when Pakistan, such as the period of the Palestinian anti-terrorism strategy as a non-NATO ally, but once the strategy is achieved, it will abandon Pakistan.


"Global Times" reporter Michel Sindh University in Pakistan recently to participate in international seminars. An American scholar said up to arrogance, "U.S. assistance to Pakistan's assistance to more than ten times that of China to Pakistan, U.S. is a true friend of Pakistan, and is the most valuable friends." But his remarks , the audience has no repercussions, he was a bit irritated. In this regard, "Global Times" reporter asked, "Since the United States aid to Pakistan so much, why almost no one in Pakistan that the U.S. is better? China's assistance to Pakistan is the time when most needed in Pakistan provided assistance to Pakistan in the United States When the United States provided most in need; China's no strings attached aid to Pakistan, while U.S. aid to Pakistan to be what you is clear. "Carter, the meeting hall resounded with applause

 

[Juice]

How was this translated? Very hard to read.

 

[roadrunner]

i don't think it should be increadible.

Pakistan and China are natural allies because of geography, size, enemies etc.

 

[Hutchroy]

The self-centred beggar —Dr Manzur Ejaz

It is only in the Pakistani media that violation of sovereignty is the focus of discussion rather than Osama’s comfortable living arrangement near an elite military academy. The rest of the world is focusing on Osama rather than the legality of the American operation in Abbottabad

Probably it is a matter of taste that Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani wanted to hear the same translated lecture from Chinese leaders that Senator John Kerry had given in Islamabad. Maybe it was easier in Beijing because Chinese lectures were (hopefully) directly translated into Urdu or Seraiki. President Asif Ali Zardari may have been given a similar dose in Moscow though the details of his achievements have yet to come out. Both had rushed to the Chinese and Russian capitals to prove their utility to the military brass after the embarrassing US operation in Abbottabad.

It is clear from the published reports that China has flatly told PM Gilani that it does not give budgetary support or cash transfers to countries. They promised some loans on favourable conditions, but this was then sent for approval to the Politburo of the Communist Party. This is an atypical Chinese diplomatic way of saying ‘no’ because such a loan could have been cleared quickly if need be. This simply shows that salvaging Pakistan’s economy is not a Chinese priority or that they take it as a waste of money.

The plan to rush to Beijing was as sane as not knowing that Osama bin Laden was living in Abbottabad near a military academy for the last five years. Probably, there is no method in Pakistan’s madness of decision-making processes. Idealising Pakistan’s strategic worth in global politics, Pakistan’s ruling elite is bereft of common sense. They thought once they announce to the Chinese and Russians that they are getting a legal divorce from the US, Beijing and Moscow would jump all around and shower Yuan and Roubles upon them. No one paused for a moment to think that both China and Russia, victims of jihadi terrorism, agree with the US on the point that terrorist networks must be rooted out of Pakistan. But we have become like street-beggars who develop a habit of asking every passerby for money.

Before PM Gilani had reached Beijing, a senior leader of the Chinese military had declared that his country will not confront the US over Pakistan. And why would China confront the US over Pakistan while its economic interests are heavily vested in the US? Moreover, has China ever confronted the US on any policy other than American policy regarding Taiwan? China has proved to be the wisest nation when it comes to its economic interests. They have economic interests in Pakistan as well but cannot lose the US market, which is their bread and butter. In addition, why would China confront the US for something which, ultimately, safeguards al Qaeda, the Taliban and other jihadi terrorist groups? It is only in the Pakistani media that violation of sovereignty is the focus of discussion rather than Osama’s comfortable living arrangement near an elite military academy. The rest of the world is focusing on Osama rather than the legality of the American operation in Abbottabad.

The Chinese know what the world is saying and are afraid to run into an embarrassing position if the US decides to bring its case against Pakistan harbouring terrorists to the UN. This is the reason that they told Mr Gilani:

One: Pakistan should normalise its relations with India, the US and the rest of the world. The Chinese were telling Pakistan that it is awfully lonely and cannot be supported just by Beijing if the rest of the world stands against it.

Two: the Chinese subtly chided Pakistan for not eliminating the madrassa networks that are producing terrorists. Privately, China has been asking Pakistan to take action against jihadi nurseries but this time they went public on this point.

Three: the Chinese told Gilani that the situation in Afghanistan is improving and Pakistan should not do anything that can stall it.

The Chinese have told Pakistan that they are on the same page as the US as far as the issue of terrorism is concerned and Pakistan should lower its obsession with India. Furthermore, the Chinese have advised that the US is going to be the only source of funds needed for budgetary support for Pakistan. China can invest in infrastructure projects but no cash transfers. Recent assignment of hydro projects to Chinese companies show that China is using its leverage to get better deals from Pakistan than it could if international bids were invited.

Now it is clear Mr Gilani, Zardari, and other lovers of the military cannot deliver much beyond staging fake dramas of patriotism. The military and its backers, the PPP and the PML-Q in particular, can present themselves on TV channels as a big power that can shoot down drones and stop the US from Abbottabad-type future operations, but this is all empty rhetoric. They can neither stop drones nor Abbottabad-like operations. Boasting for the media is one thing and actual military capability is another matter, where the Pakistan Air Force is no match for the US. And, China is not coming to Pakistan’s rescue even after multiple Abbottabad-like operations.
The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.com

 

[Guest01]

Also some more reasons for friendship higher than Himalyas and deeper than Tarbela:

Pakistan has been promised an urgent delivery of a fresh batch of 50 advanced multi-role JF-17 Thunder fighter jets by China during the visit last week of Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani to Beijing.

India has officially protested saying this will affect the strategic defense balance in the region. So what’s the fuss all about; why does Pakistan need these planes and why is India alarmed? Contrary to perceptions, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s China visit and the Thunder deal is not an exclusive response to the Osama operation by the US, which has been hailed by New Delhi much to Islamabad’s chagrin.

Pakistan has for years been trying to replace its ageing F-16s fleet of 40 fighter jets that it secured in the 1980s from the US, about a dozen of which are out of service. The urge to augment its air muscle by Pakistan is also a response to India’s ambitious plan to purchase a staggering 1,500 combat planes over a 10-year period that began in 2005. As part of this plan, India this month moved closer to clinch the biggest fighter aircraft deal of the world in 20 years which will cost over $10bn and secure India about 125 fourth generation multi-role combat jets. Half of these will reportedly be based in India’s western sector (read Pakistan-specific). These will be European jets, not American F-16s, which were surprisingly rejected from the tripartite race involving American F-16, French Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon.

India, of course, has the burgeoning economy and the cash needed to buy what it wants. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India in 2010 replaced China as the world’s top weapons importer, as it aims to modernise its armed forces and project power through the region. India received 9 per cent of the volume of international transfers of ‘major conventional weapons’ from 2006 to 2010, topping China, South Korea and Pakistan. India spent over $41bn on defense in 2010, which was 2.7 per cent of its GDP. India was the ninth highest military spender of the world in 2010. China was the second highest, spending $117bn – 2.1 per cent of its GDP. Pakistan spent an estimated $5.7bn – 2.9 per cent of its GDP.

Like India, China too has the thriving economy and spare cash to build its military might and undertake regular upgrades to calibrate its needs with capacity but the Pakistani economy has been tanking for a while now and there’s barely enough money to fight an in-country insurgency by a tenacious umbrella group of terror outfits. But the instinctive reflex to keep a minimum air deterrence vis-à-vis India means Pakistan ‘has to’ restore the edge in the sky being eaten away by its ageing strike squadrons. Pakistan has a deal to get about a dozen F-16s from the US but these are too expensive and too few for Pakistan’s comfort. Hence the Thunder option. While an F-16 will set back Pakistan by a cool $125m, the J-15 will cost ‘only’ $25m. That means $1.25bn for a batch of 50. The same number of F-16s would have cost $6.26bn.

While that’s the budget side of things, the raison d ’etre of the mania to secure their respective skies lies in primal strategic calculations. All three – China, India and Pakistan – are nuclear powers. That in its self may not be super extraordinary but what is not normal is that the tense relationships between two sets of them and an unusually good relationship between one set. China and India are rival economic, military and political powers. Their nuclear doctrines calibrate worse case scenarios based on their respective offensive capabilities and build response capacities, part of which is mounting minimum air surveillance and air strike capacities. Pakistan and India are hardly the best of friends, having fought three formal and one informal war. The fourth – Kargil – was fought within a year of ending their nuclear ambiguity and testing nuclear in 1998. Four-fifths of Pakistan’s armed forces and nearly all of their offensive artillery postures are eastward toward India. A third of India’s formidable military assets – roughly five times Pakistan’s – are Pakistan-ready.

The odd relationship out among the combination within this nuclear troika is Pakistan and China. Odd not because it is unexpected but because it is inevitable. India has fought wars with both China and Pakistan while Beijing and Islamabad have never. The maxim of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ makes sense to cultivate by these two. However, because of the policies and goals and economic and military capacities, this is not an equal relationship. China gets the satisfaction of strategic policy encirclement of India by being Pakistan’s ‘all-weather friend’. All Pakistan gets is a guarantee of no veto against it in the United Nations. China doesn’t do grants, aid and budgetary support – the three perennial shopping items in Pakistan’s basket. The best it does is investment and that’s purely profit-centric, Beijing managing to recoup any money it ‘gives away’ in this shape to Pakistan. The 50 Thunder jets is the perfect ingredient of this unequal but functional relationship: Pakistan restores some of its India-centric edge in the sky while China actually gets money from Pakistan to install strategic air restraints over India towards the side of India where Beijing is not itself present! Hence the Indian concern at the Thunder deal between Islamabad and Beijing.

But the problem, from a citizen’s perspective in Pakistan, is that despite their one war, China and India are also major trade partners while Pakistan is a small fry when it comes to being a commerce pair. According to the Confederation of Indian Industry, while international trade has been growing at around 15 per cent on an average, India-China trade has increased by more than 50 per cent annually in the last five years. In 2008, China became India’s largest trading partner and the bilateral annual trade between the two countries touched $52bn. India has emerged as the 7th largest export market of China and 10th largest trade partner. The bilateral trade between the two most populous countries is set to cross $100bn per annum by end of 2012. Since it is projected that, by 2050, India and China will be the two leading economies in the world, it is inevitable that bilateral trade between the two countries will be among the most important economic relationships in the world. And all this between two traditional rivals! Why should China want to disturb this trade balance in its favor for Pakistan’s obscure advantage when Beijing can get Indian money to beef up its military edge against New Delhi!

The Sino-Pak annual trade by comparison is puny despite some strides in recent years. It has increased from $1.9bn in 2002 to $6.9bn in 2011. The two have vowed to ramp this up to $15bn by 2014. China, which has surpassed the EU as Pakistan’s second-largest trading partner, exported goods worth $5.5bn to Pakistan in 2010 and imported $1.3bn worth of products. This means Pakistan is a net exporter of money to China! And yet Pakistan crows about a relationship that is ‘deeper than the oceans and higher than the mountains’. The reality is that Pakistan sells itself cheap for this grossly unequal relationship for merely a veto shield at the UN.

The real story is not that China is providing Pakistan a clutch of fighter planes or that India has problems with China squeezing it a bit in the western sector – after all India’s own fighter jet acquisition spree more than neutralises any strategic edge Beijing or Islamabad can sculpt from this deal. The story is in what has been left unsaid: why can’t Pakistan invest $1.25bn to be paid for the planes in its tanking economy to revive it and with the profits generated buy whatever planes it wants? After all Pakistan can’t afford to go to war with India anytime soon as it only has six days of oil reserves and can’t push the fight more than six days and neither does China want Delhi and Islamabad to actually fight a war. So while Pakistan has an as-yet unnecessary edge in the sky what about the situation on the ground? Where will the money come from to cut the burgeoning poverty, unemployment and illiteracy?
Adnan Rehmat is a journalist, analyst and media development specialist. He heads Intermedia, a Pakistani media support NGO.

Sky Wars: Pakistan, India and China | | DAWN.COM