Def.pk op-ed: Mutual Blackmail, ETO for Afg, Pak and Ind

[lem34]

So, bottom line, Pakistan is in no hurry to sign up. It should focus on strengthening ties with Iran, Afghanistan and China. Once India is sealed off from the CARs, and as its energy needs put pressure on the government, it will be much more amenable to dialog on Kashmir and other matters. Pakistan will be able to deal with India from a position of much greater leverage.

I didnt want to hurt indian sensibilities president earlier when i said that what role india plays would be decided later. What I meant was what Develop says above but didnt want to use the word K or blackmail but then the title of this thread seems apt lol

 

[lem34]

I will tell you about a very serious concern dwelling the mind of all involved international players: Iran's promises of such outstanding deliverance are viewed with strong doubts.

People like to say India opted out under the US pressure, but that is not so true. The fact is, Iran's promised supplies are not so guaranteed as they should be. And then, Iran kept changing the price.

These are the main reasons, along with a volatile Pakistan that made India opt out of the pipeline. And to check the feasibility all the parties, including a cordially invited China are just waiting and watching whether such a pipeline and the supplies inside can really be a long term reality.

Both the parties, China and India, would be more than happy to cooperate on the pipeline and make good use of it, there is no rivalry on that matter, unlike what you appear to suggest or desire. Both are simply waiting for the pipeline to reach Pakistan and check out its feasibility, after which, the oil and gas and even electricity can be passed through.

sad fact of life it will come down to price iran charges. It will be tricky. Iran can play india and china off but at the same time china and india can and will play sanction card ie ask for price reduction. But a deal is there to be done. Iran can not afford to not do a deal. China and India will with certain guarantees in place want to do a deal.

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

a) China & India will always be rivals. They are the world's 1st & 2nd largest countries (by population), & will always be competing with one another for natural resources & geopolitical strategic influences.

b) India opting out of the Iran pipeline has nothing to do with Pakistan. Pakistan has become a lot more stable than over a past few years, & it is getting better & better in that respect. In fact, there was a proposal of an underwater Iran-India gas pipeline that would bypass Pakistan, but that project never got started either.

Bilal you say they are rivals and they are but with a bit of fine tuning solving of borders a lot of china pakistan interests are similar. This is wests nightmare India pakistan and china alliance

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------

Let China come forward and state their interest in the media. In my opinion their interest lies in keeping neighbours fighting each other who are joined at hip. We two neighbours who have more in common with each other than with China. It is up to leadership of Pakistan to realize the potential of peaceful living with your neighbours. Let us not get carried away with religious rhetorics from the fanatics and concentrate on national development in the region.

I think that suits america. why cant china india and pakistan live peacefully

---------- Post added at 10:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------

I have the same thought and my reason is that why would Chinese help India in quenching its energy thirst, and put themselves at risk in future too.

Guys if you look at europes history they had border problems, they had wars, We have to sort out our problems rather than say we cant imagine this. my dream would be no american interference and a pipeline from Iran pakistan china and even to bangladesh

 

[VCheng]

This excerpt is relevant to this discussion I think:

from: Regional countries to play supportive role in Afghanistan: FM | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

............



The minister said it should be for the Afghans themselves to decide their future. Being an important neighbour, Pakistan would support its efforts in this regard, she added.

Replying to a question about the inclusion of India in the Regional Conference, the foreign minister said all countries that could help promote peace in Afghanistan were welcome and that Pakistan had no problem with any country.

She said, “Pakistan is an important and responsible state committed to peace and security in Afghanistan.”

About the inclusion of the Afghan resistance forces in the peace process, she said it was for Afghanistan and the Afghan people and government to decide on this issue.

 

[lem34]

^^^^^^^ Cheng you taking the mick again mate. Americans have gone to afghanistan. At great cost to them they have introduced their way of life and democracy and values. That has resulted in fair democratic representation for afghanis we have Karzai who represnts afgahanis. What more does an avarage pathan want? They have kaarzai and americans as the occupying force they have more than enough representations. Lets just concentrate on what Indians and americans can get out of it. After all Americans are on the same planet as afghanistan and as such they deserve a piece of the action, and india although no border with afghanistan their needs and interests must be taken into account because america says so.

Dont bring what those afghanis want again on this thread. They want what america and india want after all three countries have democracy and respect and american way of life

 

[VCheng]

^^^^^^^ Cheng you taking the mick again mate. Americans have gone to afghanistan. At great cost to them they have introduced their way of life and democracy and values. That has resulted in fair democratic representation for afghanis we have Karzai who represnts afgahanis. What more does an avarage pathan want? They have kaarzai and americans as the occupying force they have more than enough representations. Lets just concentrate on what Indians and americans can get out of it. After all Americans are on the same planet as afghanistan and as such they deserve a piece of the action, and india although no border with afghanistan their needs and interests must be taken into account because america says so.

Dont bring what those afghanis want again on this thread

^^^ I merely quoted Pakistan's FM without adding anything of my own. What did I do that qualifies as taking the "mick"(ey)?

 

[lem34]

^^^ I merely quoted Pakistan's FM without adding anything of my own. What did I do that qualifies as taking the "mick"(ey)?

cheng i was taking the mick? I was joking it was english colloquialism. My not so funny sense of humour lol in future i will say are you taking the cheng?

 

[fd24]

Funny how all the think tanks of the world unite and try to decifer what the USA want or the Pakistanis want or what the Indians should get or the Iranians. I note very little of what potentially Afghanis want?

 

[lem34]

Funny how all the think tanks of the world unite and try to decifer what the USA want or the Pakistanis want or what the Indians should get or the Iranians. I note very little of what potentially Afghanis want?

My dear little brother SK are you taking the cheng out of me? as I said what more can afghanis ask for the americans went in to afghanistan and introduced democracy and their way of life and they have Karzai, I dont accept what the trolls who come on here and say Karzai an american stooge. He is a pattan, he is afghani, he went straight back to afghanistan when it was liberated from eh eh eh eh outside interference

 

[Vinod2070]

"No hurry" argument works as long as our benchmarks are too low. Probably limited to the subcontinent.

The rest of the world is passing by even if we show "no hurry". We have shown "no hurry" all these decades and the world has passed us by, leaving us languishing with some of the worst indicators in the world as far as human development goes.

We should be in a tearing hurry to sort out the mess. Waiting for the other side to "yield" (when all experience tells us otherwise) will not be a step in that direction.

I think India has at least no intention to benchmark with only South Asia and feel good about it. I hope others also do the same.

If South Asia feels the need to come out of this orbit of low achievement, it will also need to stop doing more of the same.

"Stupidity is doing the same things and expecting different results" - Einstein.

 

[Vinod2070]

The following charts (a bit old) will explain why hurrying up is so important. These graphs are reflecting data from that Goldman Sachs report. the actual results have been far superior to that report.

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7328/trendpercapitajg1.gif

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/9776/trendbh8.jpg

What we see before 1975-80 is when we were not "hurrying up".

Once we changed course, the results are again for all to see.

 

[Developereo]

Signed up to the forum coz of this post! Agree 100%!

Uh, gee, no pressure!

"No hurry" argument works as long as our benchmarks are too low. Probably limited to the subcontinent.

I make it clear in my post that the "no hurry" admonition applies only to this proposed ETO. Pakistan should be in a massive hurry to sort out its relations with Iran and Afghanistan.

As regards India, I already noted that any economic measures are premature until the security situation is addressed. We can have all the economic deals in the world, but they will fall apart if there is an incident and there is not sufficient mutual trust on the security front.

Secondly, this is a business proposition and Pakistan should view it dispassionately from that perpective. Some people are influenced by notions of Asian brotherhood against "amreeka", but India will not sacrifice an iota of its interests with the West for Pakistan's sake. More so if BJP comes in power. As Narendra Modi would say, "it's nothing personal; just business".

Leaving aside notions of brotherhood, the question remains: What does India bring to this deal that Pakistan can't get elsewhere?

 

[Vinod2070]

I make it clear in my post that the "no hurry" admonition applies only to this proposed ETO. Pakistan should be in a massive hurry to sort out its relations with Iran and Afghanistan.

Apparently your Afghan issues are because of the policy of "strategic depth" (or whatever else you want to call it). The policy of wanting a pliant Afghanistan (against all history) is because you apparently can't afford hostile neighbor on two fronts.

If hostility with India reduces significantly, so does your need to control Afghanistan internally. You would know better than me how much that quest has already cost you.

With Iran again, many of your issues are due to your Afghanistan policy as also your dependence on the Arabs (again fueled or exacerbated by hostility to India).

So let's see how you propose to sort out the mess with Afghanistan and Iran without also sorting out issues with India.

As regards India, I already noted that any economic measures are premature until the security situation is addressed. We can have all the economic deals in the world, but they will fall apart if there is an incident and there is not sufficient mutual trust on the security front.

I think the whole point of the article was that economic measures can help in better overall perceptions and thus improve the security outlook.

Secondly, this is a business proposition and Pakistan should view it dispassionately from that perpective. Some people are influenced by notions of Asian brotherhood against "amreeka", but India will not sacrifice an iota of its interests with the West for Pakistan's sake. More so if BJP comes in power. As Narendra Modi would say, "it's nothing personal; just business".

Leaving aside notions of brotherhood, the question remains: What does India bring to this deal that Pakistan can't get elsewhere?

I agree with you. Brotherhood should not be a basis. A hard nosed calculation of benefits should be.

A rapprochement with India through economic collaboration helps you reap the fruits which has not been possible so far.

 

[Developereo]

Apparently your Afghan issues are because of the policy of "strategic depth" (or whatever else you want to call it). The policy of wanting a pliant Afghanistan (against all history) is because you apparently can't afford hostile neighbor on two fronts.

If hostility with India reduces significantly, so does your need to control Afghanistan internally. You would know better than me how much that quest has already cost you.

With Iran again, many of your issues are due to your Afghanistan policy as also your dependence on the Arabs (again fueled or exacerbated by hostility to India).

So let's see how you propose to sort out the mess with Afghanistan and Iran without also sorting out issues with India.

I agree with part of your thesis. Yes, Afghanistan mess was created because of Indian concerns and Iran was alienated because of Arab encirclement through Afghanistan. That is a gift of the genius Zia that we desperately need to discard (along with his gift of radicalization within the country).

I am not sure that the sellout to Arabs was done to counter India. A handful of Kashmir fighters hardly justifies all that. In any case, the important point is that normalization with Iran and Afghanistan have nothing to do with India. Iran and Pakistan will deal on a bilateral basis; same with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I think the whole point of the article was that economic measures can help in better overall perceptions and thus improve the security outlook.

Yes, I appreciate that, but I disagree with that premise. To me, that's putting the cart before the horse.

Keep in mind that this has been India's position all along: no dialog until 26/11 is addressed.

I don't know if the BJP agrees with this (presumably Congress) stance.

A rapprochement with India through economic collaboration helps you reap the fruits which has not been possible so far.

Except that, as President Comacho acknowledged so eloquently, a not-so-accidental consequence of this deal is to weaken China's position vis-a-vis the region's resources. Now I am not saying Pakistan should sacrifice its interests for China but, given that China is a trusted friend, Pakistan has to see what overwhelming benefit it receives from this deal to justify being party to such an arrangement.

If the benefits can be quantified, then, certainly, Pakistan should go for it but, as I wrote, other than a pittance of a transit fee, there is not much in it for Pakistan.

 

[Vinod2070]

I agree with part of your thesis. Yes, Afghanistan mess was created because of Indian concerns and Iran was alienated because of Arab encirclement through Afghanistan. That is a gift of the genius Zia that we desperately need to discard (along with his gift of radicalization within the country).

I am not sure that the sellout to Arabs was done to counter India. A handful of Kashmir fighters hardly justifies all that. In any case, the important point is that normalization with Iran and Afghanistan have nothing to do with India. Iran and Pakistan will deal on a bilateral basis; same with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I am not sure you addressed how you would have the bilateral normalization with Afghanistan without addressing the concerns with India. Why has it not happened for all these decades and what would change now?

Same for Iran. Your Afghanistan policies drives a wedge with Iran and take you closer to Arabs.

Yes, I appreciate that, but I disagree with that premise. To me, that's putting the cart before the horse.

Keep in mind that this has been India's position all along: no dialog until 26/11 is addressed.

I don't know if the BJP agrees with this (presumably Congress) stance.

BJP and Musharraf (the two hawks on both sides) actually gave rise to the best relations in decades. No one could accuse them of being sellouts.

BJP would not want a hostile Pakistan to slow down India. Even marginally.

Except that, as President Comacho acknowledged so eloquently, a not-so-accidental consequence of this deal is to weaken China's position vis-a-vis the region's resources. Now I am not saying Pakistan should sacrifice its interests for China but, given that China is a trusted friend, Pakistan has to see what overwhelming benefit it receives from this deal to justify being party to such an arrangement.

If the benefits can be quantified, then, certainly, Pakistan should go for it but, as I wrote, other than a pittance of a transit fee, there is not much in it for Pakistan.

There is a lot in terms of increasing your leverage even with China.

Putting all your eggs in the China basket may not help in the long term.

 

[Developereo]

I am not sure you addressed how you would have the bilateral normalization with Afghanistan without addressing the concerns with India. Why has it not happened for all these decades and what would change now?

Same for Iran. Your Afghanistan policies drives a wedge with Iran and take you closer to Arabs.

Hmm, I thought I did. I can expand on it.

The offer on the table, both with Iran and Afghanistan, is better bilateral relations. Relations with India is not a prerequisite for either dialog: Iran will never ask it and Afghanistan is in no position to demand it. The only country that can force that as a prerequisite is the US, which is precisely the reason to keep it out of the talks.

In any case, regardless of relations with India, Pakistan will make it a priority to make sure that no one causes trouble into Pakistan from Afghanistan. How it does that is a matter between Pakistan and Afghanistan. As Reagan said about the Russians, "trust but verify". Even if India and Pakistan start economic relations, it will be a long while before either country lets its guard down.