China Stood For Pakistan

[Bane Blade]

China needs to really start talking for being a new Super Power I think that they should actually give their opinion more often.

 

[Solomon2]

tell me where Kashmir is. It's neighboring west China and two nuclear capable countries are fighting for it! Of course China wants it solved, but not by force

I am not so sure. Consider China's conduct during the U.S. conflict with North Vietnam. The U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Dr. Henry Kissinger, records in his memoirs that while China was publicly calling itself Hanoi's "reliable rear area", in private they were not so happy with the U.S. withdrawal from the conflict.

Four years after the U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia, China engaged in its own "punitive" war against Vietnam - a war that went very badly for the Chinese.

You see, while the U.S. and the Pakistani governments are engaged fighting Islamic terrorists, China can sit back quietly and collect accolades. If they stopped, the Chinese might really be worried!

I'll state it again, more plainly: if the Chinese government wanted the U.S. to stop its War on Terror in Afghanistan or Pakistan, the U.S. would do so; the Chinese simply have too much financial clout to be denied. The fact that the WOT is continuing can only mean it is happening with Chinese acquiescence, if not quiet encouragement.

 

[S-2]

Solomon2 has raised some good points about the PRC view of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan from behind the scene. It makes sense in light of their own Uighar issues. Too, WRT Kashmir, the PRC may not be eager to see this issue resolved for reasons relating to Tibet.

The PRC could hardly reject a J&K resolution but this-?

"Of course China wants it solved, but not by force..."

My answer to that is then why hasn't China led the diplomatic effort to see it so? Who has more invested in this region beside India and Pakistan than the PRC?

China has economic leverage but only so much. They're very much affixed within our economic influence and not otherwise. They've no internal markets of consequence, huge disparities in wealth, and a declining export market.

All of these issues have inter-related effects upon the others and virtually all nations are bound by the global trading system to assist one another. If the PRC tightens credit, from whom does America buy product? China?

I see the PRC's leverage as minimal and ignoring our own considerable cache. Should we fail to recover, that changes. If so, though, a lot of other matters change too that don't merit serious speculation for the moment.

 

[RedBaron]

...
My answer to that is then why hasn't China led the diplomatic effort to see it so? Who has more invested in this region beside India and Pakistan than the PRC?
...

Good point. Consider this: Kashmir being the core issue between India and Pakistan, let's assume the back-channel diplomacy resumes and an agreement is reached between GoP and GoI. This would most likely be a compromise agreement involving open borders similar to borders between EU nations, limited local autonomy by unifying Indian-held and Pakistan-held Kashmir with a single Kashmiri Assembly, and LOC converted to formal IB leading to de-militarization in Kashmir, etc.
The ramifications of the above are huge: there could be de-escalation along the entire Indo-Pak border from Siachen heights right down to Gujarat.

Three possible side-effects of the above:
- For GoP, it would mean less dependence on PRC as threat from India vanishes. Defence needs would be greatly reduced since it only worries about Afghan border, and Pakistan's risk profile would improve, meaning investors would flood in. Pakistan and China ideologically or culturally have nothing in common, hence the lovey-dovey relationship would cool down.
- For GoI, it would mean focusing on the only other major issue: the McMahon line with PRC. Freed from the western threat, GoI would then be inclined to be more assertive on the Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim issues. Almost all defence spending would be geared to meeting threats along this border.
- GoI would probably quit pussy-footing on the Tibet issue and be more vocal, hoping for a quid-pro-quo arrangement with respect to McMahon line.

So PRC would be happy to see the Ind/Pak pot simmering as long as it does not boil over. Cooling the pot is not in its interests...

 

[S-2]

You draw a picture of the string of inter-linked disputes that demand simultaneous or orchestrated satisfaction to achieve true regional harmony.

What's clear to me is that the mechanisms that extend to an India/Pakistan rapproachment in J&K would be available elsewhere in the region too. There is, therefore, a chance should a key be found to Kashmir that this same "principle" element may have value twice-fold.

I'm not certain that we'd see a decrease in relations between the PRC and Pakistan. There is a possibility an Indo-Pak rapproachment would (assuming Pakistan's survival) help Pakistan by reducing the need for a large standing army over time.

Yet there seems genuine warmth by the Pakistanis for the Chinese despite huge socio-cultural differences. I'd think this residue of good will won't immediately disappear, if ever.

One would think that a decrease in India-Pakistani tension opens opportunities for expanded business interests between the PRC and Pakistani markets that might offset a decline based upon shared defense views.

 

[Omar1984]

^ China and Pakistan have a relationship of mutual respect and looking out for mutual interst, something Obama promised the Muslim world but failed at it miserably by bombing our territory.

And you can make all the assumptions you want about Pakistan's survival, Pakistan is here to stay. Many countries thought that Pakistan wouldn;t last a few days during our independence in 1947, and we are still surviving today. If Pakistan survived partition of 1947 which left over a million people dead, Pakistan can survive with whats happening today.

Dont be like india and be an ill-wisher of Pakistan.

 

[S-2]

"China and Pakistan have a relationship of mutual respect and looking out for mutual interst, something Obama promised the Muslim world but failed at it miserably by bombing our territory."

Perhaps if you respected yourselves a bit better then a defeated taliban army of Afghanistan wouldn't have invaded your nation in the fall of 2001 and spring of 2002 to find succor and sanctuary from which to continue making war.

Show respect to your Afghan and Indian neighbors and those who help Afghanistan and America will have no need to use PREDATOR on the sovereign state of Pashtunistan.

One of the ways in which you might do so, Omar1984, is to oust these worthless humans from the land which you once claimed as yours. It's theirs' now and it is them whom we attack.

You should thank us. Meanwhile, educate yourself on the opinions of many in FATA about the efficacy of PREDATOR. You could damned sure use it-

DRONE Attacks- A Survey

It makes for interesting reading which suggests that the likes of you hardly have a lock on the correct narrative here.

I don't like being lectured. If so, you'd best know what you speak of and do so with eloquence and aplomb-neither of which are on display so mind your own business, butt out and quit trolling.

 

[RedBaron]

...
What's clear to me is that the mechanisms that extend to an India/Pakistan rapproachment in J&K would be available elsewhere in the region too. There is, therefore, a chance should a key be found to Kashmir that this same "principle" element may have value twice-fold.

Sure, but its harder IMO. The problem with the McMahon line is the absence of a face-saving solution for both countries. It's a zero-sum game. Unlike Kashmir, which is divided between the two countries, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim are entirely governed by India. GoI hence may not be eager for an open border solution with PRC, especially if there is thaw on the western front. But I do admit a post-Kashmir afterglow could defy expectations.

I'm not certain that we'd see a decrease in relations between the PRC and Pakistan. There is a possibility an Indo-Pak rapproachment would (assuming Pakistan's survival) help Pakistan by reducing the need for a large standing army over time.

Yet there seems genuine warmth by the Pakistanis for the Chinese despite huge socio-cultural differences. I'd think this residue of good will won't immediately disappear, if ever.

One would think that a decrease in India-Pakistani tension opens opportunities for expanded business interests between the PRC and Pakistani markets that might offset a decline based upon shared defense views.

Others may correct me if I'm wrong, but the relationship between PRC and Pakistan is similar to the USSR/India relationship during the Cold War, primarily based on defence-related purchases and joint ventures, and investment in areas where Western companies are unwilling to invest.
Today, India and Russia still share a great deal of good-will but Russian companies have to compete with Western companies in defence, power, infrastructure, heavy industry, etc.
Of course, this analogy may not apply here. I do agree that if the Pakistani economy does take off, the gains from the expanded market to Chinese companies could offset potential losses from reduced defence procurement.

 

[Omar1984]

TO S2:

Pakistan and Afghanistan always had a decent relationship before US made its prescence in Afghanistan, and I have no problems with Afghanistan and Afghanistan is not America's property. India is another story, you should read our history, read indian news, watch their media...the hate between the two countries existed for almost 62 years now.

FATA always belonged to the people of FATA, it was like that during British rule, it was like that when Pakistan gained independence in 1947, and its like that today....the people of FATA were happy with it and so was Pakistan. We never saw a serious problem in FATA befor US made its prescence in Afghanistan infact FATA was more peaceful than the areas bordering India.

You may think that an American life is more valuable than a non-American life but we Muslims are taught that all humans are equal.

 

[S-2]

"Pakistan and Afghanistan always had a decent relationship before US made its prescence in Afghanistan..."

I hope that you don't mean before 9/11? I found your relationship with the taliban to be pashtu-exclusive, designed for strategic depth, and with not a whit of civil concern displayed for the peoples of Afghanistan, particularly should they be uzbek, turkoman, tajik, or hazara.

You were no friend of Afghanistan by your actions. You might have mentored. You instead chose self-interested manipulation.

"FATA always belonged to the people of FATA..."

Not anymore it doesn't. And it doesn't belong to you either. It's the Islamic Republic of Pashtunistan and until the P.A. takes it away from the clawing, clutching fingers of the afghan taliban, A.Q. and their uzbek, chechen, arab, and uighar buddies, it'll remain that way.

"You may think that an American life is more valuable than a non-American life but we Muslims are taught that all humans are equal."

Stop your dissembling and self-righteous posturing. Those are muslims crossing your border to Afghanistan to kill muslims every damned day in the name of "strategic depth" for you.

Nobody happier in Pakistan than the likes of you for Bahadur, Mehsud, and Nazir's agreement. Nobody more pleased that they'll unite with Mullah Omar than the likes of you.

You've surrendered your western borders in 2001. I feel not one ounce of remorse for defending ourselves and the Afghanis from these men. I urge any FATA resident to fight these men on sight or run for the hills with their wives and kids.

THE MILITANTS ARE TARGETS and will be attacked one way or another.

 

[gpit]

I am not so sure. Consider China's conduct during the U.S. conflict with North Vietnam. The U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Dr. Henry Kissinger, records in his memoirs that while China was publicly calling itself Hanoi's "reliable rear area", in private they were not so happy with the U.S. withdrawal from the conflict.

...

I beg to refute your statement. And to provide facts for you and those who thanked you.

Quoting from page 386, Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume XVII, US department of state. I believe this is a private conversation.

“PM Chou: We can go to 11:00 p.m. tonight and if we don’t finish, we can continue tomorrow. The main thing is that our guests do not get tired.

Just before dinner and at the table, Dr. Kissinger said that we should look at things from a global point of view. This was also mentioned by President Nixon on his way to San Clemente on July 6 when he said that the U.S. should not concentrate its energies on the Indochina question.15 The U.S. had been tied down for ten years and had suffered a lot.

He said that world problems are very large. Indeed, former administrations had driven the U.S. into a dead alley and it couldn’t get out.

Since both the President and Your Excellency look at things in broad perspective, it should be easier for the U.S. to extricate itself. Of course, Your Excellency said that the U.S. must look after its honor, and an honorable peace. I think the greatest honor would be a glorious withdrawal. Because that is the call of the overwhelming majority of the people throughout the world, inside or outside the U.S. One can say in all frankness that if it were not for the help given the South Vietnamese puppets, the Saigon regime would have collapsed long ago.

Why must you want to leave a tail on this matter and be unwilling to give it up? As your President has said, you are tied down the last eight to ten years. Why do you not extricate yourselves? This is said by public opinion in the U.S. as well as the world.

So I cannot quite understand what you mean by wanting to leave a tail there, although you reaffirmed moments ago your complete withdrawal.

Dr. Kissinger: What do you mean by a tail?

PM Chou: One would be Thieu. In our view, you should just simply withdraw completely and never mind how. They might fight. We will not interfere. We believe they will solve their problems by themselves.

If you remain there, the fighting will continue and world opinion will not tolerate what you do.”

As far as Sino-Vietnam conflict is concerned, the main reason that China fought Vietnam in 1978 was that Vietname was trying to establish Indo-china Federation under the support of Soviet Union by invading Cambodia. That was a direct threat to Chinese security.

 

[S-2]

"As far as Sino-Vietnam conflict is concerned, the main reason that China fought Vietnam in 1978 was that Vietname was trying to establish Indo-china Federation under the support of Soviet Union by invading Cambodia. That was a direct threat to Chinese security."

More specifically, it was a direct threat to the Chinese-sponsored Khmer Rouge gov't (the world's "taliban" before the taliban and even more blood-crazed and anti-intellectual if such is possible).

All which trailed came as acts of opportunism by one or the other following America's departure. Chou is correct in identifying the American puppets in Thieu and the S.V.N. gov't as impediments to peace. The SVN was thoroughly corrupt and undermined any positive efforts made by our forces and allies.

Could we have won? It required the dismantling of the mandarin-colonial legacy of malgovernance from within at the same time as battling the NLF's political assaults and the corresponding V.C./NVA attacks from without.

Perhaps. It would have required co-option of the NLF and V.C. Whether that was possible given PRC/NVA cadres within both is difficult to say. Much would have depended there upon reforms we might have instituted within the SVN gov't.

Without it, we ran out of patience and money to transform what, under the defined circumstances, patently could not be done.

We may yet find the same limits in Afghanistan. I hope not.

 

[gpit]

...

My answer to that is then why hasn't China led the diplomatic effort to see it so? Who has more invested in this region beside India and Pakistan than the PRC?

...

A simple fact widely known to (nearly) everyone with an interest in knowing of kashmir problem: India has been refusing “external interferences” since the beginning, because India considers Kashmir as a whole an integral part of India.

India has also refused accepting UN resolution 47 (1948) for plebiscite, if I remember correctly.

 

[gpit]

...

Yet there seems genuine warmth by the Pakistanis for the Chinese despite huge socio-cultural differences. I'd think this residue of good will won't immediately disappear, if ever.

...

If you imply that huge socio-cultural differences are doomed for conflict, with due respect, mind you remember that infamous World Wars were all started by countries with similar socio-cultural?

In fact, Sino-Pak relationship has been praised as an excellent example of relationship between countries with different culture and social system.

 

[gpit]

"As far as Sino-Vietnam conflict is concerned, the main reason that China fought Vietnam in 1978 was that Vietname was trying to establish Indo-china Federation under the support of Soviet Union by invading Cambodia. That was a direct threat to Chinese security."

More specifically, it was a direct threat to the Chinese-sponsored Khmer Rouge gov't (the world's "taliban" before the taliban and even more blood-crazed and anti-intellectual if such is possible).

All which trailed came as acts of opportunism by one or the other following America's departure. Chou is correct in identifying the American puppets in Thieu and the S.V.N. gov't as impediments to peace. The SVN was thoroughly corrupt and undermined any positive efforts made by our forces and allies.

Could we have won? It required the dismantling of the mandarin-colonial legacy of malgovernance from within at the same time as battling the NLF's political assaults and the corresponding V.C./NVA attacks from without.

Perhaps. It would have required co-option of the NLF and V.C. Whether that was possible given PRC/NVA cadres within both is difficult to say. Much would have depended there upon reforms we might have instituted within the SVN gov't.

Without it, we ran out of patience and money to transform what, under the defined circumstances, patently could not be done.

We may yet find the same limits in Afghanistan. I hope not.

Chinese support of Khmer Rouge was in an effort to thaw US hegemony in Indochina.

As far as KR’s brutality against its own people is concerned, that’s their internal affaires that China never wants to meddle. On other side, USA has no short list of supporting brutal regimes as long as it is in US national interests. IMHO, better refrain from comment on that by US (should the desire to safe a vestige of respect in front of the world be still attempted smartly.)

There have been numerous studies that US war of Vietnam was doomed to fail at the beginning, irrespective of whether SVN was under Thieu or any otherwise more capable puppets. As this was in fact a continuation of NK War legacy.