China BAD

[Mugwop]

 

[Amaa'n]

@muse would it be ok if I compare it to Pakistan - TTP Peace process? We have allot to give to TTP ( like we are giving them goats- pakistanis- to kill ) and in return TTP have nothing to give us back?

BTW we take that space away and it becomes "Chinabad"

 

[shuttler]

I wasn't expecting China to provide cover against the drones.

First, it was the Pakistani government that allowed these and some were in collaboration with Pak-Mil.

Second, China's support for Pakistan at the UN over issues like Balochistan and veto-rights are already enough support.
Third, China's assistance in military tech and sanction-proof supplies.
Fourth, continuing Sino-Pak cooperation in nuclear field.

China has already provided enough moral, diplomatic, military and economic support to Pakistan.

Thanks for your understanding!

I cant understand why you are tolerating the drones killing your fellow citizens! I have seen many protests in Pakistan on our tv against the massacre of innocent people although the us claims they are targetting their enemies!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Muse is a good poster, I doubt he is trying to attack China.

True that. What the writer of the Op/Ed and the OP are just trying to do is draw attention to what the realities are "behind the scenes". Which are in stark contrast to the "effusive panegyrics" that one sees here in tribute to the 'perceived state' of Sino-Pakistani relations. Even at the official levels there are "frequently flowery talk and purple prose". Which virtually borders on poetry; EG "Higher than....., deeper than....... culminating in sweeter than honey!". What the Op/Ed questions: is all of that true? In its length and breadth?

On another thread; I just came across a post which is quite revelatory too, hence I quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar
So those countries that wish for a major Chinese Purchase or total Chinese electronics.. go for the FC-1.. while those that want the more westernized specification go for the JF-17. Now while PAC has design input on the JF-17, due to the project being financed by China essentially .. it forgoes sales profit if the aircraft is to be manufactured at Chengdu which will be the FC-1. The JF-17 specification is only manufactured at Kamra.. hence the profits for the JF-17 will go majorly to the PAF. At the present, the PAC assembly line is overloaded with orders for the JF-17 from the PAF at its current capacity.. hence, they cannot accommodate exports. So, any orders for the aircraft will most likely end up in China. Moreover, China also seems a more stable supplier to most interested parties.. hence the FC-1 is more likely to be ordered and Profits to remain for the aircraft in China.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-...role-fighter-thread-5-a-68.html#ixzz2Z2ITTnox

So then the question then arises (in my mind at least): How much is the FC-1/JF-17 project then a really a co-operative, 50-50 JV ?

And then some reactions to this thread are really obtuse; if not downright asinine. A worthy example attributes even sectarian motives to the thread. @muse, I do wonder what would've happened if any Qadiani were accused of starting this thread?

 

[Vinod2070]

I don't think the OP bashes China or calls China "Bad".

I have not seen anyone pointing out a factual error in the OP, just blaming the supposed intentions.

China is a pragmatic country not much given to the "emotional" stuff that is so much bandied about and the is taken so seriously by some.

Not that there are no realists in Pakistan who don't go overboard with platitudes, they are just very few in numbers.

End of the day, every country has to look after oneself. No one is going to forever save a country from itself.

 

[VelocuR]

Please use small letter 'BAD'. You made it sound like big deal.

Yes, Muse and liking of US are very concerned of the closeness between two nations.

Diplomacy: US shrugs off concerns by Pak-China closeness

ISLAMABAD: The United States Ambassador to Islamabad, Richard Olson told journalists that Washington does not feel threatened by the growing Pak-China relations, but stressed the need for a level playing field while addressing the media at his residence here on Friday.

“We do not see any competition as long as everyone is given a level playing field,” said the diplomat.

He was answering a question regarding the impact of the Gwadar-Kashgar initiative on America’s New Silk Road, which aims to connect South Asia with Central Asia via Pakistan.

He said that the development of the Gwadar port was consistent with the US plans of expanding regional trade. The ambassador said that the New Silk Road initiative could not be fully materialised due to political, infrastructural and security challenges.

Responding to another question, Olson claimed the US was annually providing $3 billion to Pakistan on account of civil, military assistance and disbursement of the coalition support fund. He added, this year again the civilian assistance will be, by and large, in the range of $800 million to $1 billion.

Olson refrained from commenting on his country’s support for Pakistan in the IMF Executive Board. He said Washington was in general supportive of the new government’s economic policies. He said the IMF programme was still under discussion and has not yet been fully finalised.

The American diplomat also highlighted the significance of the upcoming visit of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), Elizabeth Littlefield, to Pakistan to hold discussions with public and private sector representatives. Littlefield will meet Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, State Bank of Pakistan Governor Yaseen Anwar and other key officials.

The ambassador said OPIC was a very powerful tool for US investment in Pakistan. The OPIC President will brief Pakistani businesses on OPIC projects and highlight OPIC’s existing projects as well as those in the pipeline in Pakistan. Since 1975, OPIC has committed more than $1.3 billion in Pakistan in various investments, Olson said.

While talking about the OPIC, Olson said that it was currently completing due diligence on several projects amounting to $300 million that it wanted to finance in Pakistan. The OPIC was reviewing the possibility of providing insurance for construction of a biomass fueled power plant. It is also considering the possibility of financing wind generation power facilities and financing of an expansion plan of a local micro-finance bank’s mortgage lending portfolio for a housing project. In the agriculture sector too, the OPIC is conducting due diligence to support contract farming, processing, packaging and export of rice, the American ambassador told reporters.

Experts cite broader US strategy to consolidate gains made in Afghanistan to strengthen US grip on Central Asian resources to be used either by the Americans or preferred partners like India, as the motivation behind the New Silk Road. Much like the US, China is also eying to capture regional resources and sees strategically located deep-sea Gwadar port as an emerging hub of commercial activities in the region.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 13th, 2013.


Of course, US will say anything to shrug off in opposite way, it means, US is very concerned. .....so Stick together between two nations...

 

[Developereo]

Rebuttals to what? You still haven't answered my question in my earlier post. I'll repeat: What is it in the article that is not a fact? I don't find anything that is inaccurate.

So what exactly is there to 'rebut'? Can you please elucidate?

Answered several times. No one is disputing the facts of China; only the interpretation and conclusions.

- It is a FACT that China is not a Muslim country and has a different governance model.
- It is a FACT that Pakistan (like just about every other country) runs a trade deficit with China.
- It is a FACT that Pakistan has not exploited the Chinese market.

None of these are relevant or detrimental to

- the FACT that Pakistan and China share several strategic goals in the region and beyond, or
- the FACT that China has provided Pakistan with invaluable help over the years in a number of areas, from nuclear to civilian areas, or
- the FACT that the biggest culprit in not leveraging the relationship is the corrupt Pakistani politicians, or
- the FACT that China will eventually start to lose patience if Pakistan doesn't shape up.

Not one single thing in the OP is new which hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum here.

 

[Leader]

So what is this Pakistani intellectual saying about China and what is the point he is hoping to make : Obviously the purpose is to make the argument that China is not and cannot be a partner or ally of Pakistan. So what are the elements of this argument:

1. That China is not a constitutional Democracy
2. The PLA is dictatorial regimes storm troopers, and not nationalist guardians of China's borders and security
3. That the PLA is overstretched - it is a paper tiger and cannot help Pakistan even if it wanted to
4. Pakistan have nothing China wish to trade
5 China does not trade with Pakistan, it steals from Pakistan, as Pakistan has a huge deficit with China and this is not the fault of Pakistanis but of China

Chinese friends and those Pakistanis who wish to promote friendship between Pakistan and China should consider these Op/ED pieces as the opening of a new front

Pakistan offers strategic partnership and its more than enough for what China wants in Geo-Strategic relations of the region and world. and its because we are not China's competitor.

I do agree that if Pakistan has to benefit from it, it must not mess up like it did in America's case.

p.s. so far on the other hand, China has not tried to string Pakistan.. which is a good sign too.

 

[RazorMC]

Thanks for your understanding!

I cant understand why you are tolerating the drones killing your fellow citizens! I have seen many protests in Pakistan on our tv against the massacre of innocent people although the us claims they are targetting their enemies!

We don't like the strikes, bur government refused to even acknowledge that the strikes were happening with their consent. Some terrorists may have been killed, but my issue is with the targetting criteria.

Anyone with some facial hair or a full beard, with or without a gun, in a group or alone, with a turban or not are all potential terrorists for the US. That criteria is true for all males above 13 in that region. Carrying a gun and sporting facial hair is the culture there but the US considers all of them as terrorists.

The rage from these attacks creates hatred for the servile government and breeds anti-state elements.

It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

.....
- the FACT that China will eventually start to lose patience if Pakistan doesn't shape up.
.....

I've been saying the same thing. I feel that we are more of a burden on China rather than an active partner in the region. It is a credit to the Chinese for bearing with us fo so long but we should avoid hitting the limit at all costs.

 

[SQ8]

Essentially, what the Charge sheets says has some grounding in terms of economics. But China isn't behind a total closed wall anymore. It is inevitable that where there will be poverty there will be disgruntled people. It is also inevitable as we Pakistanis have experienced that where there is only one view allowed, one "Enlightened leader" or party... there will greater corruption, discontent and a false facade.
That being said, to argue that due to these fallacies; we Pakistanis are holier than thou in terms of China and hence should not be tainted by maintaining a relationship with them, Or that we are depending on a house of cards for shelter is a little too dramatic and crying wolf. China faces its own demons, however when it comes to military equipment and other systems.. they generally do not rip us off. Rather, it is Pakistanis who are actually more involved in ripping their country off. An oft repeated example I state was an upgrade of our Mirage fleet's Radar warning receiver and electronic identification systems in the early 80's. Against all pleading by the dedicated servicemen.. the PAF went ahead and purchased a Chinese system whose capabilities were somewhere in the 50's. These were purchased on the contrived argument that they were cheaper than their western counterparts.. It would make sense if that was true but where there was to be paid $50000 for a western system.. the leadership of the PAF approved a system that cost $5000 and budgeted it for £45000.. hence cheaper.. and more embezzlement/commission friendly.

Our economic imbalance with China is quite correct, but at the same time.. much of what we get from China is either prohibited for export to us or overly expensive and is simply a hobson's choice. Our bending over to them has to do more with desperation and regardless of whether we were Allies with China or not.. our other diplomatic and internal Choices have left us little dignity to request the same sort of attention that China DOES give us. Now how much of that is truly sincere and how much simply exploitative is to be deciphered in the result of many co-projects and promises.
Let us not absolve our own selves either, as we are without a shadow of the doubt(except to ourselves) the example of imbeciles for the human race. For only imbeciles would support a blasphemy case made by a lazy worker after he was fired and told to leave by his Chinese boss working on a development project FOR Pakistan.

In essence, the article seems to be more of a "hawai fire"(blind shot).. rather than an actual attempt to critically analyze.

 

[gpit]

So what does China not being a democracy and PLA not being a nationalistic Army have to do with that?

Love this germ question!

It can be related to many factors. In addition to envy and jealousy (how could their "backward system" fare better than us democracy), one of them is human (primitive) nature.

As mentioned in a research paper from a renowned US university (Harvard ?) that it is within human gene (inheritance) that a group of people don’t like, or bear hostility against, another group of people that appear and behave different.

This is because in ancient times, for millions of years, our ancestors felt safe living within a group of “us”. If they saw any foreign entity enter or approaching “us”, they started to alert for a good reason, as those foreign intruders would mostly indeed jeopardize “our” society, through either killing or looting. This has been deeply inscribed in our gene for survival.

So it is only natural to feel uneasy to see “they” come into contact of “us”.

Racism is one of the results from such an inheritance within the primitive nature of human being. That can be mitigated only via education as we become more a civilized society, the research paper pointed out.

So in primitive nature of many uneducated people, if they find someone who is different from them, they don’t like it.

Communist, authoritarian, no popular elected country’s leaders … those are among the most pronounced differences telling “they” from “us”.

So those uneducated and primitively inherited mindsets start to feel uneasy, feel fits of qualms from time to time, and even feel being threatened.

Their primitive mindsets forget to see there are more failed “us” than “they”, forget to notice far more prosper “they” achieve than “us”, forget to appreciate how “they” far outpace “us” on the road of human civilization. The end result is it is “us” that is left behind, that becomes final laughing stock of human advancement.

Education is the key!

BTW, edit to add:

"how could their "backward system" fare better than us" was exactly the same thinking the later Chinese Qing Dynasty officials thought of British barbarians!

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

A lot of people think we have a trade surplus with every country, and are therefore "ripping off" everyone in the world (this view is prevalent on this forum).

Firstly, no. We run large trade deficits to East Asian regions like Japan/Korea/Taiwan. Why? Because they have created a manufacturing base for themselves and all the infrastructure required, which makes them competitive enough that we actually import from them.

Not to mention that we are the 2nd largest IMPORTER in the world, and not just raw materials either, but finished products too.

Lastly, no one is forcing anyone to trade with China. People trade with us because they see a profit for themselves, it's that simple.

 

[Developereo]

For those who were sleeping, these issues were recently debated in this thread:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...qiang-hails-pakistan-chinas-iron-brother.html

The challenges of penetrating the Chinese market were already addressed.

Your analysis is accurate for China's trade with developing countries.

In the Chinese market, the low end is already handled by local suppliers, and the high (prestige) end is taken by established brands (i.e. Western, Japanese, etc.). This makes it very hard for developing countries to penetrate that market with anything other than raw materials.

Indians want to sell their pharma and IT into China. I don't know much about the pharma industry, but Indian IT has been having a hard time gaining significant share within China because it competes primarily on price. When your only competitive advantage is price, China will kill you at the starting line.

This may change as China advances up the income ladder.

 

[Skylinee]

Going a little off topic here but people need to stop blindly trusting China... They are taking advantage of PK because of the desperate and volatile situation..

Its very disturbing the fact that China has such influence and control over Pakistan.. They should not receive any access to Pakistan's Gwadar port or other key areas... its not worth giving up your dignity and autonomy for a few MW of electricity or highways..
and stop importing china junk, Pakistani made stuff is better in terms of quality and originality

 

[OrionHunter]

Pakistan offers strategic partnership and its more than enough for what China wants in Geo-Strategic relations of the region and world. and its because we are not China's competitor.

Thus, don't you get the feeling that China is using Pakistan for its own geostrategic imperatives? For one, it is using Pakistan as a diversion to keep India engaged. In other words using Pakistan as a proxy against India.

Second, it has its eyes firmly fixed on having an economic corridor from Xinjiang to Gwadar cutting across Pakistan administered Kashmir and Balochistan, as a cost effective option for its OWN trade in the Gulf region and beyond, cutting time and resources for transportation of goods to and from the region.

This no doubt will help, to a certain degree, Pakistan too where infrastructure is concerned, but who benefits in the long run? How is this corridor going to help Pakistan? What is Pakistan going to use this corridor for? What has it got to export to China along this corridor that China does not have already except what it is exporting to China at present? Will Pakistan impose transit tariffs on Chinese goods using the corridor? (The Chinese wouldn't like that considering that they would have spent billions of dollars in infrastructure development along the corridor!)

So, in a nut shell, what is in it for Pakistan? It therefore comes about that this one is a totally one sided relationship! Period!