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

[VCheng]

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

Hey Muse what do you reckon. China will speak and will not be bullied by america nor desert pakistan. I have seen past articles when chinese say reconciliation in afghanistan they mean all parties including taleban. Hope those tossers realise they have to fall in line

I would love to hear what Muse says here; I do hope he keeps in mind all the effectiveness China recently had in preventing the division of Sudan that left their huge oil refinery project in limbo or change of government in Libya denying it effective access to that oil resource too. (no smiley face here.)

 

[lem34]

Cheng you gotta be kidding me you compare sudan with pakistan? You see no difference lol

 

[VCheng]

Cheng you gotta be kidding me you compare sudan with pakistan? You see no difference lol

No, you are missing my point.

I am referring to China's effectiveness in preventing its strategy falling apart in Sudan, or actually the lack thereof.

 

[lem34]

No, you are missing my point.

I am referring to China's effectiveness in preventing its strategy falling apart in Sudan, or actually the lack thereof.

if pakistan is not a core interest of china it must be the nearest thing that it has to a core issue. Anyway seeing those two articles suggests that two UN sec seat holders who are in the neighbourhood dont buy ameircas vision for afghanistan so option 1 aint going anywhere quickly

 

[VCheng]

if pakistan is not a core interest of china it must be the nearest thing that it has to a core issue. Anyway seeing those two articles suggests that two UN sec seat holders who are in the neighbourhood dont buy ameircas vision for afghanistan so option 1 aint going anywhere quickly

You are overestimating Pakistan's importance to China; it is important, but not to the extent that you seem to be implying. The UNSC will heed only a Chinese veto, should it be allowed to ever come to that, which will not be the case.

 

[Developereo]

Rather than quote each post individually, I will combine all my answers into this one post. Hope that's OK.

Nobody's suggesting that India and the US are 'friends', but it's hard to deny that they share some common interests in containing China and emasculating Pakistan's army.

As for India being the darling of the West, of course we know it's a recent phenomenon. The point was that India is brimming with self-confidence and has America's backing; this is precisely the wrong time to negotiate with India -- and certainly not with American involvement! Contrary to Indian belief, this self-assertiveness is not a one way street and will be tempered with time. As India's energy needs get more acute, let mainstream Indian businesses be forced to chose between Kashmir and their own business interests. They will make sure the Indian media -- and consequently the government -- sings the right tune on being 'pragmatic'. All Pakistan needs to do is to stand its ground and focus on Iran, Afghanistan, China, etc. to improve its economy. India is not a priority.

Finally, I still haven't seen anyone address the two central points:

A- What does India bring to this deal that Pakistan can't get elsewhere? We know Pakistan brings its unique geographical location.

B- Since this proposal is specifically designed to undermine China's interests in the region, why should Pakistan be a part of it?

 

[Developereo]

You are overestimating Pakistan's importance to China

True, and our focus should be on strengthening our importance to China and everyone else in the region.

Again, I have nothing against India but, as long as Kashmir remains unresolved, India remains our enemy. Our strategy should be to build strength and alliances to position ourselves to a position of maximum advantage wrt India.

Once Kashmir is resolved, the dynamics could change.

 

[VCheng]

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

Nobody's suggesting that India and the US are 'friends', but it's hard to deny that they share some common interests in containing China and emasculating Pakistan's army.

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

This is an outdated view. Both China and India, as well as other emerging economic powers are concentrating on participating in global trade. Why would India invest $80 billion in China so far, and aim to increase mutual trade to over $100 billion annually by 2015, if it wants to help USA "contain" it?

Another thing: Pakistan Army, important as it is, is not important from most other ascendant points of view.

A- What does India bring to this deal that Pakistan can't get elsewhere? We know Pakistan brings its unique geographical location.

A huge peace dividend and accelerated economic progress for both, for starters. Think about it for a moment.

B- Since this proposal is specifically designed to undermine China's interests in the region, why should Pakistan be a part of it?

Again, incorrect thinking. Let China think about its national interests, and let Pakistan take care of its first and foremost. The suggested ETO does not undermine China in anyway, but provides dividends for Pakistan.

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------

True, and our focus should be on strengthening our importance to China and everyone else in the region.

Again, I have nothing against India but, as long as Kashmir remains unresolved, India remains our enemy. Our strategy should be to build strength and alliances to position ourselves to a position of maximum advantage wrt India.

Once Kashmir is resolved, the dynamics could change.

Good points.

What I am suggesting is creating mutual economic opportunities to the point where Kashmir no longer is a central issue first, and then resolving Kashmir amicably when neither country thinks of the other as the "enemy".

 

[Developereo]

This is an outdated view. Both China and India, as well as other emerging economic powers are concentrating on participating in global trade. Why would India invest $80 billion in China so far, and aim to increase mutual trade to over $100 billion annually by 2015, if it wants to help USA "contain" it?

Oh, please, not that line again! This is what the Indians trot out to deflect attention from all the confrontatinal activities carried out by both sides.

The US and China also have significant commerce, but that doesn't change the reality of American 'concerns' about China's rise. The economic furphy is for the gullible; let's discuss the real world of dual-track policy.

Another thing: Pakistan Army, important as it is, is not important from most other ascendant points of view.

A powerful security establishment is a core national interest. Pakistan can achieve its economic objects elsewhere; India is not needed. Not when it undermines our existing alliances and core national interests.

A huge peace dividend and accelerated economic progress for both, for starters. Think about it for a moment.

You are begging the question. The whole objection to this proposal is that its got nothing to do with 'peace'. It is only 'Plan B' for US-India. Since military force to install India as the regional hegemon and encircle Pakistan/China didn't quite work out, this is the new kinder, gentler track to achieve that same objective.

Again, incorrect thinking. Let China think about its national interests, and let Pakistan take care of its first and foremost. The suggested ETO does not undermine China in anyway, but provides dividends for Pakistan.

As El Presidente and others have pointed out, this proposal does presicely that (to undermine China). Like I wrote, Pakistan should not sacrifice its national interests for China, but it should also not support a deal that does nothing for it at China's expense.

Pakistan does not need this deal at all; it can achieve its economic objectives just fine by concentrating on Iran, Afghanistan and China. If India wants access to CAR resources, let it get them the long way round until it is ready to be more 'pragmatic' regarding Pakistan's interests.

What I am suggesting is creating mutual economic opportunities to the point where Kashmir no longer is a central issue first, and then resolving Kashmir amicably when neither country thinks of the other as the "enemy".

I will refer again to my comment above about peace. This deal has nothing to do with 'peace'; its all about achieving the twin objectives shared by India and the US vis-a-vis Pak army and China.

 

[VCheng]

...................
A powerful security establishment is a core national interest. Pakistan can achieve its economic objects elsewhere; India is not needed. Not when it undermines our existing alliances and core national interests.

Pakistan must have a strong defense establishment, yes, but where and how will Pakistan achieve its economic objectives?

The whole objection to this proposal is that its got nothing to do with 'peace'. It is only 'Plan B' for US-India. Since military force to install India as the regional hegemon and encircle Pakistan/China didn't quite work out, this is the new kinder, gentler track to achieve that same objective.

As El Presidente and others have pointed out, this proposal does presicely that (to undermine China). Like I wrote, Pakistan should not sacrifice its national interests for China, but it should also not support a deal that does nothing for it at China's expense.

How does having a strong economic relationship with Pakistan establish India as a "regional hegemon"?

Pakistan does not need this deal at all; it can achieve its economic objectives just fine by concentrating on Iran, Afghanistan and China. If India wants access to CAR resources, let it get them the long way round until it is ready to be more 'pragmatic' regarding Pakistan's interests..................

So what type of trade and its volume do you see between Iran, Afghanistan, China, and Pakistan, given Iran's sanctions, Afghanistan security challenges including the US presence there, and China's global aspirations, not just in this region?

 

[Developereo]

Pakistan must have a strong defense establishment, yes, but where and how will Pakistan achieve its economic objectives?

Look west and north. There's a whole world out there.

How does having a strong economic relationship with Pakistan establish India as a "regional hegemon"?

It facilitates Indian access to Iranian/CAR resources. China, Russia and India are in a tussle to exert influence over this region. Why should Pakistan facilitate India in this matter over China?

So what type of trade and its volume do you see between Iran, Afghanistan, China, and Pakistan, given Iran's sanctions, Afghanistan security challenges including the US presence there, and China's global aspirations, not just in this region?

Whatever Pakistan wants to export to India can just as easily be marketed in these other countries. Whatever oil/gas we may transit for India will be sucked up by China instead.

Afghanistan's security challenges are inversely proportional to NATO presence. Once NATO leaves, all Pakistan has to do is to make sure not to repeat the mistake of backing Arab influence in Afghanistan. If we can keep Iran's concerns in mind, it (and Turkey) will work with us and influence the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras to form a stable coalition government with the Pakhtuns.

As for Iran's sanctions, we need to grow a pair and follow India's example. Work with Iran for our national interests instead of letting America (and Arabs) dictate our relationships.

As for global aspirations, we have no problems with China's aspirations since we have no issues with them; we do have a problem with India's aspirations since we have some unfinished business. If India wants to play on the global stage, let it sort out its regional issues first in good faith. Like I wrote, when Indian businesses see the impact on their bottom line of having to go to CAR the long way round, they will do the needful to put pressure on the Indian government to be more pragmatic. Kashmir will be a far away province in the mist compared to their immediate bottom line.

 

[President Camacho]

The US and China also have significant commerce, but that doesn't change the reality of American 'concerns' about China's rise. The economic furphy is for the gullible; let's discuss the real world of dual-track policy.



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



As El Presidente and others have pointed out, this proposal does presicely that (to undermine China). Like I wrote, Pakistan should not sacrifice its national interests for China, but it should also not support a deal that does nothing for it at China's expense.

See Developereo, that first line... that's exactly the point I would like everyone to understand in this forum. It is taken with all the narrow negativity, and few focus at the situation in a holistic manner.

If China has grown so big as to threaten the presence of the US in the pacific, then it is because of massive trade with... none but the US itself. Both have benefited! Secondly, and most important of all - the US, if it ever wants to attack or bully China, will have to think many times over because loss of China will mean an insurmountable loss of economic sustenance to the US. It is simply unaffordable for the US that China goes down. Very similarly, it becomes unaffordable for China if the US goes bankrupt.

Not easy to decide, to what degree are they enemies, and to what degree are they partners, right?

Both the countries are too entangled to come out with a simple hit and run strategy. They may always be at war, say for 1000 years, but probability decreases. Poor countries like India and Pakistan will keep getting into all sorts of wars simply because they don't have much to lose.

Secondly, the point you are crediting me with - while there are no saints (neither India, nor US, not even China or Pakistan), this complicated situation will make way for everyone's gain simply because encirclement of China may prove too costly for the US as well as for India. Russia may feel threatened, Central Asian Countries may demand lifting of the sanctions, and China is not just a next door kid. Please do not portray this ETO as a produce of India+US alliance borne out of some sort of imperialistic design meant to contain China.

All the countries are participating there, and India and China both have a history of joining hands at the slightest sign of western powers' intimidation. Please take it as a complex affair where all the parties will have to give in to the demands of every other party, that is why it is called a negotiation.

Pakistan does not need this deal at all; it can achieve its economic objectives just fine by concentrating on Iran, Afghanistan and China. If India wants access to CAR resources, let it get them the long way round until it is ready to be more 'pragmatic' regarding Pakistan's interests.

My friend, Pakistan is not the country in question here. The country is Afghanistan.

And at the moment, Pakistan is not in the position to dictate the terms of the deal; fortunately, or unfortunately, the one 10,000 mile away is.

While Pakistan at most can not offer the transit/pipeline to India, it will be a bigger loss to Pakistan itself. I am one of the naivest ones in this forum, and yet I noticed the signs of economy affecting all the sectors in Pakistan. There is an urgent need for Pakistan to engage any and all parties on every forum in all sorts of trades. Well, in simpler terms, it is a need of Pakistan, more than of anyone else.

 

[Developereo]

If China has grown so big as to threaten the presence of the US in the pacific, then it is because of massive trade with... none but the US itself.

That was partly America's short-sightedness driven by consumerism and focus on the quarterly balance sheets. More importantly, there has always been debate within the US administration about how to 'manage' China: one camp prefers military containment, while the other prefers engagement (read: conversion of the masses and internal revolt against the CCP). Both these camps agree on one thing: to maintain American hegemony and to 'neutralize' the Chinese threat.

Both have benefited! Secondly, and most important of all - the US, if it ever wants to attack or bully China, will have to think many times over because loss of China will mean an insurmountable loss of economic sustenance to the US. It is simply unaffordable for the US that China goes down. Very similarly, it becomes unaffordable for China if the US goes bankrupt.

Sorry, I don't buy that.

US exports form about 5% of China's GDP, and China is working to reduce that number. If the US collapses, China will be affected far more by its impact on the global economy than any direct trade. If China's core interests are threatened by the US (Taiwan), there is no doubt how China will react.

Similarly, the US would like nothing better than to put the brakes on China's power. Not least before the RMB becomes a credible challenger to the USD's hegemony. That wish is tempered by the impact it would have on the USD should China start dumping its USD holdings.

Dual-track politics.

Secondly, the point you are crediting me with - while there are no saints (neither India, nor US, not even China or Pakistan), this complicated situation will make way for everyone's gain simply because encirclement of China may prove too costly for the US as well as for India. Russia may feel threatened, Central Asian Countries may demand lifting of the sanctions, and China is not just a next door kid. Please do not portray this ETO as a produce of India+US alliance borne out of some sort of imperialistic design meant to contain China.

Again, a lot of things may happen. None of which changes the fact that this proposal is designed to facilitate India's involvement in the CARs. Given that resources are a zero-sum game, this facilitation comes at China's expense.

All the countries are participating there, and India and China both have a history of joining hands at the slightest sign of western powers' intimidation. Please take it as a complex affair where all the parties will have to give in to the demands of every other party, that is why it is called a negotiation.

Absolutely. India and China share common interests in many areas, and conflict in others. It doesn't change the reality of the CAR tussle.

My friend, Pakistan is not the country in question here. The country is Afghanistan.

Afghanistan and India have already signed strategic agreements. I thought the debate here is whether Pakistan should join the party.

And at the moment, Pakistan is not in the position to dictate the terms of the deal; fortunately, or unfortunately, the one 10,000 mile away is.

Yes, you are right. This MFN status happened right after Clinton's visit. It's not hard to connect the dots here.

While Pakistan at most can not offer the transit/pipeline to India, it will be a bigger loss to Pakistan itself. I am one of the naivest ones in this forum, and yet I noticed the signs of economy affecting all the sectors in Pakistan. There is an urgent need for Pakistan to engage any and all parties on every forum in all sorts of trades. Well, in simpler terms, it is a need of Pakistan, more than of anyone else.

Yes, Pakistan needs to improve its economy but, like I wrote, everything India provides can be gotten elsewhere -- without affecting our existing relationships.

 

[President Camacho]

That was partly America's short-sightedness driven by consumerism and focus on the quarterly balance sheets. More importantly, there has always been debate within the US administration about how to 'manage' China: one camp prefers military containment, while the other prefers engagement (read: conversion of the masses and internal revolt against the CCP). Both these camps agree on one thing: to maintain American hegemony and to 'neutralize' the Chinese threat.



Sorry, I don't buy that.

US exports form about 5% of China's GDP, and China is working to reduce that number. If the US collapses, China will be affected far more by its impact on the global economy than any direct trade. If China's core interests are threatened by the US (Taiwan), there is no doubt how China will react.

Similarly, the US would like nothing better than to put the brakes on China's power. Not least before the RMB becomes a credible challenger to the USD's hegemony. That wish is tempered by the impact it would have on the USD should China start dumping its USD holdings.

Isn't that exactly what I am trying to say?

I never said the US and China are friends. Yes, they both are more like adversaries than anything, and per what you say - they both want to pull each other down.

So now if you look at it from my point of view, you will see that your arguments rather reinforce my contention that huge amount of bilateral trade has actually prevented a violent engagement of both the nations.

The bold part: -

What you call US's myopia, resulted from engagement in trade activities. It has helped China to hold a firm position in US's market.

If the US collapses, China will be affected far more by its impact on the global economy than any direct trade. No, China will incur losses in 100s of billions of dollars if inflation hits the US currency. And the magnitude of direct trade between both the countries cannot be matched by other parties.

Not least before the RMB becomes a credible challenger to the USD's hegemony. First, China has too many dollars to just "dump" them. That will immediately bring the currency's value down, and China will again incur losses to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars.

Again, is it not the huge bilateral trade between the US, and adversary China, or the EU and competitor China, that has today brought China to the position where it can challenge (a bit far fetched still though) the hegemony of dollar?

All I want you to understand is, no matter how much of enemy they may be, today's position of a powerful China became possible only after heavily engaging itself in trade with all the nations, irrespective of their status as enemy or friend. I hope you do understand that China is more of an export oriented economy, than a domestic one.

Why would it be so difficult for Pakistan to follow the same line?

Again, a lot of things may happen. None of which changes the fact that this proposal is designed to facilitate India's involvement in the CARs. Given that resources are a zero-sum game, this facilitation comes at China's expense.

Yes, the proposal will indeed involve India in the region with respect to trade and development related activities, and China too. But can you please elaborate a little on how is it going to turn into a tussle?

 

[Vinod2070]

Much of my gripe with Pakistani policy comes down to this point. We are trying to fight head on against a nation that is rapidly leaving us behind. Every day we don't negotiate and find a solution to our problems, the less leverage we have. The solution we could have accomplished in the 80s would've been far more beneficial than what we'll get today and tomorrow paints an even bleaker picture of Pakistan's standing in world politics, in relation to India.
India is on an inevitable rise to a prominent player on the world stage, Pakistan will be hard pressed to get any of its issues resolved in a world where India can easily influence international opinion in its favor. I am leaving out the military side of things, because, even at this point, our position is defensive...it completely contradicts the reason we have a large military in the first place. The idea was to liberate Kashmir, well at this point, our military is totally defensive in strength...is it not time for peace or compromise, simply because our goal is now impossible to accomplish?

You are totally right.

PA realized as early as in 1965 that militarily "liberating Kashmir" was impossible. It has never tried the military option since.

It tried the Jihadi option in the heady days after the "Afghan Jihad". Even that failed.

So we are back to square one with no credible option to change the status quo, all possibilities having been exhausted.

The only sensible option is to recognize that the current borders are unchangeable and what we should look for is to avoid the suffering of Kashmiris.

The Musharraf-India solution was the only realistic one and it didn't entail change of borders.