Developing Ties Between Pak, Russia, China, Iran & the CARS
- Thread starter 53fd
- Start date
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
So what portion of all the proposed lines will pass through Pakistan? For now it is zero, but I am sure you have data to tell us how many miles of lines are being built with whose fiances and what will be their capacities?
Let us take the IP line specifically. It is the most urgent one from Pakistan's PoV, given the strangulation of its economy by energy shortages. How many construction crew are working as of today, or may be planned for the coming year or two, to build this as quickly as possible?
Specifics please, if possible.
AZADPAKISTAN2009
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 37,669
- Reaction score
- 68
- Country
- Location
I think Russia has already begun assisting Pakistan with infrastructure projects and a military cooperation is a logical thing to do
China + Russia have wonderful relation , we are great friends with China and have no pending issues with Russia , which makes it great to move our relation to next level
Look at Iran how its oil and gas sector has benefited by working closely with Russians and Chinese.
Pakistan should work closely with China and Russia in that sector.
No doubt
Russia
China
Pakistan
Iran
Turkey
Major Economic Zone , I mean the man power and buying and purchasing power in this sector is Tremendous !!!
If India values its Russian connections than it could be a even strong cooperation and logical move
But lately India has been seduced by "lust" of uncle SAM
China + Russia have wonderful relation , we are great friends with China and have no pending issues with Russia , which makes it great to move our relation to next level
Look at Iran how its oil and gas sector has benefited by working closely with Russians and Chinese.
Pakistan should work closely with China and Russia in that sector.
No doubt
Russia
China
Pakistan
Iran
Turkey
Major Economic Zone , I mean the man power and buying and purchasing power in this sector is Tremendous !!!
If India values its Russian connections than it could be a even strong cooperation and logical move
But lately India has been seduced by "lust" of uncle SAM
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Could you please tell me how you can conclude that China and Russia have "wonderful" relations? Thanks.
Obambam
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,646
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Personally, I don't think we have a wonderful relationship as in one that is enjoyed by American and the Brits, but it is definitely a great one. Not only do we have strong bilateral trades, we are both are in BRICS, the SCO and we often does things in tandem i.e. shielding Syria against sanctions. So the possibility for the two nations to continue growing our relationships, providing we have enough common goals, is every bit probable.
Well well well, Vcheng spinning his propaganda wheel in reverse direction again. Reality in the region has just changed. US actions helped aligning all stakeholders wishes and ambitions. Finance and political will which had been held hostage until recently been freed. If no major obstacle comes through one can hope contractors and workers on the work sometime near future. You know all that already. So shouldn't you hold your breath to let project get going?
How do you concluded that they don't have one? China and Russia share same view on many strategic, energy and economic agenda. Russia and China are two main sponsor for SCO. Russia will be one of the major suppliers of gas and oil to China. Russia has extensive trade relation and currency swap deal with China. Russia and China had been coordinating on many global and strategic issue against US and NATO move. These are to name a few.
Lets see what is your list to say otherwise?
Chengs arguments on this thread have ulterior motives. there are only two shows in town one is an economic alliance as suggested by myself and others on this thread with most of the countries in the neighbourhood. That includes India if it should want to join. Cheng however prefers an alternative suggestion which has been put forward by the americans. His critisism of this proposal should be seen in that light. The american alternative suggests an economic alliance between america, india and pakistan, which relegates pakistan and in effect leaves India as a proxy in the region for american interests. the proposal put forward by the americans was first considerd by the americans in 2004 but was dismissed as unworkable. However in americas desperation at the mess its got itself into afghanistan it has no other plan b. In the turkish conference about afghanistan when the americans put their silk road proposal forward the response from the neighbouring countries was at best negative. Even the Indian govt who although supportive of the american proposal were silent. I will take some of the posts from the other thread and put them on here cos I believe them to be relevant. There are difficulties with both solutions but it is accepted by all that there is economic advantage to be gained by all participants. I would submit that that the proposal excluding the american corporations is allready becoming a reality. whatever america thinks or wants oil pipelines have started and some completed without the involvement of big american corporations. I will start by putting this article :
US sows discord in South Asia
By M K Bhadrakumar
Two templates in regional politics are seriously debilitating the United States's campaign to bring Pakistan down on its knees in the Afghan endgame. One is that Delhi has distanced itself from the US campaign and pursues an independent policy toward Islamabad.
The second factor frustrating US policies to isolate Pakistan is the South Asian nation's bonhomie with Iran. Pakistan would have been pretty much isolated had there been an acute rivalry with Iran over the Afghan endgame. The current level of cordiality in the relationship enables Islamabad to focus on the rift with the US and even draw encouragement from Tehran.
It's baloney
A recent statement by the Indian External Affairs Minister S M Krishna on the US-Pakistan rift underscored that India doesn't see eye-to-eye with the US approach. (See US puts the squeeze on Pakistan, Asia Times, October 22). It was carefully timed to signal to Washington (and Islamabad) that Delhi strongly disfavored any form of US military action against Pakistan.
There is a string of evidence to suggest that the Pakistani leadership appreciates the Indian stance. The general headquarters in Rawalpindi acted swiftly on Sunday to return to India within hours a helicopter with three senior military officers on board which strayed into Pakistani territory in bad weather in the highly sensitive Siachen sector. The official spokesman in Delhi went on record to convey India's appreciation of the Pakistani gesture. Such conciliatory gestures are rare (for both sides) in the chronicle of Pakistan-India relationship.
Again, last week, India voted for Pakistan's candidacy for the Asia-Pacific slot among the non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and the Pakistani ambassador promptly responded that he would work with his Indian counterpart in New York. Ironically, the UN has been a theater for India and Pakistan's frequent clashes over the Kashmir problem.
Looking ahead, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan are likely to meet on the sidelines of the South Asian Association For Regional Cooperation summit in Male on November 10-11. Washington would have been quick to insist that it acted as "facilitator" in fostering the improving climate in India-Pakistan relations. But the US is instead watching with a degree of discomfort that its complicated South Asian symphony is throwing up jarring notes. Calibrating India-Pakistan tensions traditionally constituted a key element of the US's regional diplomacy.
Washington has "retaliated" to Krishna's statement by issuing a travel advisory cautioning American nationals from visiting India because of heightened terrorist threats. Delhi, in turn, ticked off Washington saying it considered the US move "disproportionate" - a cute way of saying that the advisory is a load of baloney.
Jundallah in retreat
What is happening in Pakistan-Iran relations is even more galling for the US. There has been a spate of high-level visits between Islamabad and Tehran and the two capitals have reached mutual understandings on a range of security interests. Last week, Tehran acknowledged that there had not been a single attack by the terrorist group Jundallah from the Pakistani side of the border in the Balochistan region during the past 10 months.
Tehran has accused the US of masterminding the Jundallah terrorists to stage covert operations to destabilize Iran. However, since the detention of Central Intelligence Agency operative Raymond Davis in Lahore in January, Islamabad has clamped down on hundreds of US intelligence operatives functioning on Pakistani soil, seriously cramping the US's capacity to dispatch Jundallah terrorists into Iran.
Tehran is satisfied that the Pakistani security establishment is finally acting purposively to smash the US-backed Jundallah network. It reciprocates Pakistan's goodwill by trying to harmonize its Afghan policy and scrupulously avoided pointing fingers at Pakistan for the assassination of Afghan Peace Council head Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was closely allied with Tehran.
Essentially, Iran appreciates that Pakistan's "strategic defiance" of the US will be in the interest of regional stability, the bottom line being that Tehran is keen to force the American troops to leave the region.
Tehran succeeded in the pursuit of a similar objective in Iraq by prevailing on Shi'ite political elites in Baghdad not to accede to the desperate pleas by the US to allow US troops to continue even after the stipulated deadline of withdrawal in December 2011 under the Status of Forces agreement. But Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish and a common strategy with Pakistan will help.
Pakistan keeps an ambivalent stance on the issue of a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan, but it can count on the Taliban to robustly oppose the US plans apropos military bases. Unsurprisingly, Tehran purses a multi-pronged approach toward the Taliban.
Concerted effort
In sum, the overall regional scenario is becoming rather unfavorable to the US. The easing of tensions in Pakistan's relations with India and Iran undermine US strategy to get embedded in the region.
The US's travel advisory was intended to raise hackles in India about the imminent possibility of Pakistan-supported terrorist activities. Again, US-sponsored disinformation is reappearing with claims that China and Pakistan are conspiring against India by setting Chinese military bases in the northern areas of Pakistan, which form part of Kashmir.
This is coinciding with a distinct improvement in the security situation in the Kashmir Valley, to the point that chief minister Omar Abdullah openly advocated last week in Srinagar that decades-old emergency regulations should be progressively withdrawn and that Delhi should initiate a serious engagement of Pakistan to settle the Kashmir problem.
United States-backed propaganda about the prospect of Chinese military bases in the Pakistani part of Kashmir is intended to serve a dual purpose: namely, creating discord between Pakistan and India and in Sino-Indian relations, too.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a significant statement last week that he was "convinced" that the Chinese leadership wanted a peaceful resolution of all problems between India and China, including the long-running border dispute. Significantly, he expressed his "sincere hope [that] it is possible for us to find ways and means by which the two neighbors can live in peace and amity despite the persistence of the border problem".
Manmohan's remarks assumed significance since the two countries are to shortly hold the 15th round of talks on the border issue in New Delhi. In a meaningful move, the Chinese Foreign Ministry responded to Manmohan's political overture. Beijing said China was "ready to work with India to enhance the China-India strategic partnership". The statement said:
As important neighbors to each other, China and India have maintained sound momentum in the bilateral relationship. As for the border issue left over from history, the two sides have been seeking a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution through friendly consultations. Pending a final solution, the two sides are committed to maintaining peace and tranquility in border areas.
A season for propaganda
The speculative, unattributed - and unverifiable - reports regarding Chinese intentions to establish military bases in the upper reaches of the Kashmir region under Pakistani control are surging again at a formative point in regional security. Their labored thesis is that Delhi should be extremely wary about the "devious" intentions of China and Pakistan and should go slow on the normalization of relations with these "treacherous" neighbors.
Curiously, Delhi is also being bombarded at the same time with US propaganda that Washington is striking a "grand bargain" with Pakistan over the Afghan problem whereby there will be a mutual accommodation of each other's concerns, which may include US intervention to mediate the Kashmir problem and US pressure on Delhi to roll back its presence in Afghanistan.
In a motivated commentary in Foreign Policy magazine last week on the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Islamabad, two prominent US think-tankers wired to the Washington establishment actually tried to alternatively bait Islamabad and frighten Delhi by putting on the table the ingredients of the "grand bargain". Truly, this is all turning out to be a season for propaganda.
The heart of the matter is that the US is desperate to clinch a strategic agreement with the government of President Hamid Karzai in Kabul that would allow the establishment of a long-term American military presence in Afghanistan.
On Monday, hundreds of Afghans demonstrated in Kabul against US bases. The same day, the lower house of the Afghan parliament rejected terms guiding the operations of the Afghan government's existing agreement with the International Security Assistance Force as violating the country's sovereignty. The mood in the Afghan parliament seems hostile.
Karzai is convening a loya jirga (grand council) to seek endorsement for the US-Afghan pact. Matters will come to a head when it meets on November 16. Karzai promises that the US-Afghan pact will be sent to parliament for approval after being discussed in the jirga. Washington insists that the jirga approves the draft pact before the Bonn II conference convenes in December. Karzai's political future depends on whether he can deliver on the pact.
All sitting parliamentarians, some former members, one-third of the provincial council members, representatives of civil society and distinguished people, religious scholars and influential tribal leaders have been invited to the jirga. Two hundred and thirty representatives of Afghan refugee communities in Pakistan, Iran and Western countries will also be in attendance in the 2,030-strong jirga.
On September 13, Afghan National Security Advisor Dadfar Spanta told Afghan parliamentarians that the US might set up military bases in Afghanistan after the signing of the pact, but that the pact wouldn't be inked unless approved by parliament. Spanta added, "Concerns of our neighbors [over the US-Afghan pact] are genuine, but we will not allow our soil to be used against them."
The Afghan parliament fears, however, that Karzai might choose to bypass it after extracting endorsement from a pliant jirga and interpreting that as the collective opinion of the Afghan nation. Parliament directed the speaker on Monday to address an official communication to Karzai highlighting its constitutional prerogative to approve foreign policy issues.
The Afghan endgame is moving into a crucial phase; much will depend on regional politics. The worst-case scenario for the US is that subsuming the contradictions in the intra-regional relationships between and among Pakistan, Iran, India and China, these countries might have a convergent opinion on the issue of American military bases.
An accentuation of these contradictions, therefore, would serve the US's geopolitical interests at the present juncture, hence the US's "divide-and-rule" strategy.
US sows discord in South Asia
By M K Bhadrakumar
Two templates in regional politics are seriously debilitating the United States's campaign to bring Pakistan down on its knees in the Afghan endgame. One is that Delhi has distanced itself from the US campaign and pursues an independent policy toward Islamabad.
The second factor frustrating US policies to isolate Pakistan is the South Asian nation's bonhomie with Iran. Pakistan would have been pretty much isolated had there been an acute rivalry with Iran over the Afghan endgame. The current level of cordiality in the relationship enables Islamabad to focus on the rift with the US and even draw encouragement from Tehran.
It's baloney
A recent statement by the Indian External Affairs Minister S M Krishna on the US-Pakistan rift underscored that India doesn't see eye-to-eye with the US approach. (See US puts the squeeze on Pakistan, Asia Times, October 22). It was carefully timed to signal to Washington (and Islamabad) that Delhi strongly disfavored any form of US military action against Pakistan.
There is a string of evidence to suggest that the Pakistani leadership appreciates the Indian stance. The general headquarters in Rawalpindi acted swiftly on Sunday to return to India within hours a helicopter with three senior military officers on board which strayed into Pakistani territory in bad weather in the highly sensitive Siachen sector. The official spokesman in Delhi went on record to convey India's appreciation of the Pakistani gesture. Such conciliatory gestures are rare (for both sides) in the chronicle of Pakistan-India relationship.
Again, last week, India voted for Pakistan's candidacy for the Asia-Pacific slot among the non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and the Pakistani ambassador promptly responded that he would work with his Indian counterpart in New York. Ironically, the UN has been a theater for India and Pakistan's frequent clashes over the Kashmir problem.
Looking ahead, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan are likely to meet on the sidelines of the South Asian Association For Regional Cooperation summit in Male on November 10-11. Washington would have been quick to insist that it acted as "facilitator" in fostering the improving climate in India-Pakistan relations. But the US is instead watching with a degree of discomfort that its complicated South Asian symphony is throwing up jarring notes. Calibrating India-Pakistan tensions traditionally constituted a key element of the US's regional diplomacy.
Washington has "retaliated" to Krishna's statement by issuing a travel advisory cautioning American nationals from visiting India because of heightened terrorist threats. Delhi, in turn, ticked off Washington saying it considered the US move "disproportionate" - a cute way of saying that the advisory is a load of baloney.
Jundallah in retreat
What is happening in Pakistan-Iran relations is even more galling for the US. There has been a spate of high-level visits between Islamabad and Tehran and the two capitals have reached mutual understandings on a range of security interests. Last week, Tehran acknowledged that there had not been a single attack by the terrorist group Jundallah from the Pakistani side of the border in the Balochistan region during the past 10 months.
Tehran has accused the US of masterminding the Jundallah terrorists to stage covert operations to destabilize Iran. However, since the detention of Central Intelligence Agency operative Raymond Davis in Lahore in January, Islamabad has clamped down on hundreds of US intelligence operatives functioning on Pakistani soil, seriously cramping the US's capacity to dispatch Jundallah terrorists into Iran.
Tehran is satisfied that the Pakistani security establishment is finally acting purposively to smash the US-backed Jundallah network. It reciprocates Pakistan's goodwill by trying to harmonize its Afghan policy and scrupulously avoided pointing fingers at Pakistan for the assassination of Afghan Peace Council head Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was closely allied with Tehran.
Essentially, Iran appreciates that Pakistan's "strategic defiance" of the US will be in the interest of regional stability, the bottom line being that Tehran is keen to force the American troops to leave the region.
Tehran succeeded in the pursuit of a similar objective in Iraq by prevailing on Shi'ite political elites in Baghdad not to accede to the desperate pleas by the US to allow US troops to continue even after the stipulated deadline of withdrawal in December 2011 under the Status of Forces agreement. But Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish and a common strategy with Pakistan will help.
Pakistan keeps an ambivalent stance on the issue of a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan, but it can count on the Taliban to robustly oppose the US plans apropos military bases. Unsurprisingly, Tehran purses a multi-pronged approach toward the Taliban.
Concerted effort
In sum, the overall regional scenario is becoming rather unfavorable to the US. The easing of tensions in Pakistan's relations with India and Iran undermine US strategy to get embedded in the region.
The US's travel advisory was intended to raise hackles in India about the imminent possibility of Pakistan-supported terrorist activities. Again, US-sponsored disinformation is reappearing with claims that China and Pakistan are conspiring against India by setting Chinese military bases in the northern areas of Pakistan, which form part of Kashmir.
This is coinciding with a distinct improvement in the security situation in the Kashmir Valley, to the point that chief minister Omar Abdullah openly advocated last week in Srinagar that decades-old emergency regulations should be progressively withdrawn and that Delhi should initiate a serious engagement of Pakistan to settle the Kashmir problem.
United States-backed propaganda about the prospect of Chinese military bases in the Pakistani part of Kashmir is intended to serve a dual purpose: namely, creating discord between Pakistan and India and in Sino-Indian relations, too.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a significant statement last week that he was "convinced" that the Chinese leadership wanted a peaceful resolution of all problems between India and China, including the long-running border dispute. Significantly, he expressed his "sincere hope [that] it is possible for us to find ways and means by which the two neighbors can live in peace and amity despite the persistence of the border problem".
Manmohan's remarks assumed significance since the two countries are to shortly hold the 15th round of talks on the border issue in New Delhi. In a meaningful move, the Chinese Foreign Ministry responded to Manmohan's political overture. Beijing said China was "ready to work with India to enhance the China-India strategic partnership". The statement said:
As important neighbors to each other, China and India have maintained sound momentum in the bilateral relationship. As for the border issue left over from history, the two sides have been seeking a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution through friendly consultations. Pending a final solution, the two sides are committed to maintaining peace and tranquility in border areas.
A season for propaganda
The speculative, unattributed - and unverifiable - reports regarding Chinese intentions to establish military bases in the upper reaches of the Kashmir region under Pakistani control are surging again at a formative point in regional security. Their labored thesis is that Delhi should be extremely wary about the "devious" intentions of China and Pakistan and should go slow on the normalization of relations with these "treacherous" neighbors.
Curiously, Delhi is also being bombarded at the same time with US propaganda that Washington is striking a "grand bargain" with Pakistan over the Afghan problem whereby there will be a mutual accommodation of each other's concerns, which may include US intervention to mediate the Kashmir problem and US pressure on Delhi to roll back its presence in Afghanistan.
In a motivated commentary in Foreign Policy magazine last week on the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Islamabad, two prominent US think-tankers wired to the Washington establishment actually tried to alternatively bait Islamabad and frighten Delhi by putting on the table the ingredients of the "grand bargain". Truly, this is all turning out to be a season for propaganda.
The heart of the matter is that the US is desperate to clinch a strategic agreement with the government of President Hamid Karzai in Kabul that would allow the establishment of a long-term American military presence in Afghanistan.
On Monday, hundreds of Afghans demonstrated in Kabul against US bases. The same day, the lower house of the Afghan parliament rejected terms guiding the operations of the Afghan government's existing agreement with the International Security Assistance Force as violating the country's sovereignty. The mood in the Afghan parliament seems hostile.
Karzai is convening a loya jirga (grand council) to seek endorsement for the US-Afghan pact. Matters will come to a head when it meets on November 16. Karzai promises that the US-Afghan pact will be sent to parliament for approval after being discussed in the jirga. Washington insists that the jirga approves the draft pact before the Bonn II conference convenes in December. Karzai's political future depends on whether he can deliver on the pact.
All sitting parliamentarians, some former members, one-third of the provincial council members, representatives of civil society and distinguished people, religious scholars and influential tribal leaders have been invited to the jirga. Two hundred and thirty representatives of Afghan refugee communities in Pakistan, Iran and Western countries will also be in attendance in the 2,030-strong jirga.
On September 13, Afghan National Security Advisor Dadfar Spanta told Afghan parliamentarians that the US might set up military bases in Afghanistan after the signing of the pact, but that the pact wouldn't be inked unless approved by parliament. Spanta added, "Concerns of our neighbors [over the US-Afghan pact] are genuine, but we will not allow our soil to be used against them."
The Afghan parliament fears, however, that Karzai might choose to bypass it after extracting endorsement from a pliant jirga and interpreting that as the collective opinion of the Afghan nation. Parliament directed the speaker on Monday to address an official communication to Karzai highlighting its constitutional prerogative to approve foreign policy issues.
The Afghan endgame is moving into a crucial phase; much will depend on regional politics. The worst-case scenario for the US is that subsuming the contradictions in the intra-regional relationships between and among Pakistan, Iran, India and China, these countries might have a convergent opinion on the issue of American military bases.
An accentuation of these contradictions, therefore, would serve the US's geopolitical interests at the present juncture, hence the US's "divide-and-rule" strategy.
on post 77 of the thread below cheng had this to say:
Default Re: Def.pk op-ed: Mutual Blackmail, ETO for Afg, Pak and Ind
I will respond in detail later, but the discussion so far makes two points that I find interesting enough to explore further:
1. It is recognized that a mutual co-operative path forward is beneficial, no matter what one's list of interested parties is; some have longer lists than other, and some exclude parties that in reality cannot be excluded.
2. There is a clear under-current of wanting to exclude USA, based on various motivations, depending on one's view.
The reasons I support the role of USA as the underwriter of any future co-operative agreements are manifold, but I would like to ask this question of others before I explain my contention further:
Regardless of the number of regional parties in any possible co-operative arrangement in addition to the three core countries, what positive role can the US play, keeping in mind that it would be unrealistic to expect it to just get up and leave the region completely?
It would appear that cheng doesnt care what happens in our neighbourhood as long as white americans from a long long way are involved even if all the countries in the neighbourhood dont want americans cheng seems to say he knows better
Default Re: Def.pk op-ed: Mutual Blackmail, ETO for Afg, Pak and Ind
I will respond in detail later, but the discussion so far makes two points that I find interesting enough to explore further:
1. It is recognized that a mutual co-operative path forward is beneficial, no matter what one's list of interested parties is; some have longer lists than other, and some exclude parties that in reality cannot be excluded.
2. There is a clear under-current of wanting to exclude USA, based on various motivations, depending on one's view.
The reasons I support the role of USA as the underwriter of any future co-operative agreements are manifold, but I would like to ask this question of others before I explain my contention further:
Regardless of the number of regional parties in any possible co-operative arrangement in addition to the three core countries, what positive role can the US play, keeping in mind that it would be unrealistic to expect it to just get up and leave the region completely?
It would appear that cheng doesnt care what happens in our neighbourhood as long as white americans from a long long way are involved even if all the countries in the neighbourhood dont want americans cheng seems to say he knows better
The first option is between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, under the the stewardship (benign colonialism) of the US is a net plus for all ---- It has been argued that such a construct is a non-starter because other important layers, and none more important than Iran, are not included and indeed that this is indicative of what may be ins store for others - America does not like it when you don't treat him with deference he feels is due to him cause he threw money at you.
the idea that for the promise of a free Asia to be realized it has to be an Asia that is led by Asians, not default Asians such as the US, but for this to be realized India must fix her border problems -- However, we must ask, will the anti indian opinion be willing to accord India support for recognition as a permanent seat on the security council? Will they then open their hearts to India as they do to our great neighbor and brother, for indeed, brothers are those who are with you in every struggle, and whose counsel you value deeply, even as their counsel will leave a bitter unpalatable taste of a difficult truth ?
The issue to keep your focus on is the US - not India - India may sek to align her interests with those of the US and who can blame them for their judgment - Lets be very clear, the day Pakistan and India and China and India are normalized, there will be a great wailing and sorrow in the West and particularly in the US.
America may feel it harsh and undeserving - but is not the path to hell laid with good intentions - It does not matter what the US will touch. even if it's gold, it will turn to fecal matter in Muslim majority countries - and really the time for "stewardship" is past .
So what will ameica do? america wants a SOFA with their favorite Afghan mayor and is bound and determined to get it - our Indian friends see much merit in this approach and indeed some in Pakistan are arguing that it is the lesser of two evils -- should we buy into this line of reasoning? After all, if a reduced US military presence is a good, then zero US military presence must be better , hain ji?
See, so long as US military presence persists, commercial ambitions will not succeed - Stewardship is over, kaput! But the US remains unpersuaded.
this post draws its substance from a post by muse on another thread
the idea that for the promise of a free Asia to be realized it has to be an Asia that is led by Asians, not default Asians such as the US, but for this to be realized India must fix her border problems -- However, we must ask, will the anti indian opinion be willing to accord India support for recognition as a permanent seat on the security council? Will they then open their hearts to India as they do to our great neighbor and brother, for indeed, brothers are those who are with you in every struggle, and whose counsel you value deeply, even as their counsel will leave a bitter unpalatable taste of a difficult truth ?
The issue to keep your focus on is the US - not India - India may sek to align her interests with those of the US and who can blame them for their judgment - Lets be very clear, the day Pakistan and India and China and India are normalized, there will be a great wailing and sorrow in the West and particularly in the US.
America may feel it harsh and undeserving - but is not the path to hell laid with good intentions - It does not matter what the US will touch. even if it's gold, it will turn to fecal matter in Muslim majority countries - and really the time for "stewardship" is past .
So what will ameica do? america wants a SOFA with their favorite Afghan mayor and is bound and determined to get it - our Indian friends see much merit in this approach and indeed some in Pakistan are arguing that it is the lesser of two evils -- should we buy into this line of reasoning? After all, if a reduced US military presence is a good, then zero US military presence must be better , hain ji?
See, so long as US military presence persists, commercial ambitions will not succeed - Stewardship is over, kaput! But the US remains unpersuaded.
this post draws its substance from a post by muse on another thread
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Is the "white" americans phrase really needed? What happens in and around Pakistan is of interest not only to USA but the entire world given the situation that a nuclear power that is being increasingly radicalized finds itself in, and does not require any ulterior motives on my part.
China Steps Up Investment In Afghanistan
China Afghanistan
CHRISTOPHER BODEEN 03/24/10 01:13 PM ET AP
BEIJING Facing criticism in the West over corruption and electoral fraud, Afghan President Hamid Karzai found a receptive audience in Beijing on Wednesday, overseeing the signing of economic pacts and reaffirming warm traditional ties.
The trip to Beijing comes as Karzai seeks to establish himself as a regional political figure with stature and independence, partly in response to new criticism of his leadership from the U.S., Britain and other foreign partners.
Such issues aren't likely to be raised in his talks with Chinese leaders, who oversee a one-party Communist state that brooks no internal dissent or outside criticism.
While China has no troops in Afghanistan where Karzai relies on U.S. and NATO forces to prop up his weak government against Taliban insurgents its proximity and booming economy make it a valuable partner for the war-battered country.
In their meeting Wednesday at the hulking Great Hall of the People, Chinese President Hu Jintao congratulated Karzai on his reelection in an August poll seen by the United Nations as deeply flawed.
"Your visit will definitely help promote practical cooperation between China and Afghanistan, and take our comprehensive and cooperative partnership to a new level," Hu said in opening remarks.
After their talks, the presidents then presided over the signing of new agreements covering economic cooperation, technical training and preferential tariffs for some Afghan exports to China.
Karzai's visit comes as he looks to burnish his international standing. Since he first took power after the Taliban regime's ouster in 2001, his government has been tainted by inefficiency and persistent allegations of corruption that Western officials say have only boosted support for the insurgency. Last year's electoral fraud further hurt his profile.
The Afghan leader although mocked by some opponents as a puppet of the West now appears eager to strike a more independent stance on the foreign stage.
"Karzai is seeking to strike a balance among foreign powers and is pretty much emulating the 'multi-vector diplomacy' of the neighboring Central Asian states, for example Kazakhstan," said Nicklas Norling of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program in Sweden.
"By playing foreign powers against each other it can maximize leverage on each and thereby strengthen its sovereignty," said Norling.
Karzai has participated as an observer in summits of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a grouping of Central Asian nations dominated by China and Russia that aims to challenge U.S. dominance. He has also cemented ties with India to balance the influence of neighboring Pakistan, with which Afghanistan has an acrimonious relationship.
And earlier this month, Karzai hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who used his brief visit to lob insults at the United States and argue that international forces in Afghanistan would only lead to more civilian deaths.
Karzai called Iran with which Afghanistan shares a long land border "our brother nation" with whom it had excellent relations.
China, which professes to have a noninterventionist foreign policy, is not known to have interposed itself in U.S. relations with Afghanistan. It has limited its involvement in the country to diplomatic and humanitarian support, some trade, and investment in the minerals sector.
Still, Afghanistan's woes incorporate issues that Beijing considers direct threats to its stability: Islamist extremism spreading to China's Muslim region of Xinjiang, the long-term presence of U.S. and NATO forces on its borders, cross-border drug smuggling, and the deepening involvement of India, with which China shares a disputed border and a sharpening rivalry.
It is China's growing economic clout could prove most telling in its relations with Afghanistan. It is already a major source of consumer goods for Afghanistan and two-way trade totaled $155 million in 2008, according to Chinese figures.
In what could be a major boon to Afghan government coffers, a Chinese company has pledged $3 billion to tap one of the world's largest unexploited copper reserves at Aynak in Afghanistan, and is favored to win the rights to iron deposits at Hajigak when bids are considered this year.
Those projects have lagged because of the insurgency. American officials have alleged that Karzai's former minister of mines accepted a $20 million bribe to award the Aynak contract in late 2007 to China Metallurgical Group Corp.
---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------
Pak-Iran gas pipeline to be complete by 2013
By Qamar Zaman / Zahid Gishkori
Published: October 28, 2011
ISLAMABAD: Dispelling impressions of external pressure to shelve the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project, Petroleum Minister Dr Asim Hussain informed the Senate that it would be completed by 2013, one year ahead of schedule.
Hussain said, First gas flow is targeted by the end of 2014. The estimated cost is $1.5 billion, but it will be firmed up after completion of a bankable feasibility study. Initial information for financing the project has been exchanged with international investors from China, Russia and the Middle East, he added. The Turkmenistan gas pipeline project has also taken a great leap forward after nearly a decade and the gas supply and purchase agreement will be signed on November 15. Major components of the project including tender for pipes and compressors will be floated this month, said the petroleum minister.
He said the government would introduce a new petroleum exploration and production policy to provide additional incentives to investors for exploration of oil and gas in the country. These incentives, he added, would compensate for risk taken by companies for doing business in the present environment.
Government introduces money bills
The government has tabled the Petroleum Levy Amendment Bill, 2011 and Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Bill, 2011 in the Senate amid criticism from the opposition on the imposition of gas surcharge on consumers. The petroleum levy was introduced in the National Assembly when the Senate was not in session.
According to an explanatory statement, the Iran-Pakistan and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline projects were being pursued to increase supply and a surcharge was necessary to develop the required infrastructure. The government would otherwise be forced to import liquid fuels which are more expensive than gas. PML-Ns parliamentary leader in the Senate and former finance minister Ishaq Dar said the bills should not have been introduced as money bills, since they read like a mini-budget.
The bill on petroleum levy states that the levy is payable as mentioned in the fifth schedule along with the applicable rates, but keeping in view the need to revise the rates in line with international prices and other relevant considerations, it is necessary to revive section 7 in its original form, and omit the fifth schedule from the constitution.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 28th, 2011.
China Afghanistan
CHRISTOPHER BODEEN 03/24/10 01:13 PM ET AP
BEIJING Facing criticism in the West over corruption and electoral fraud, Afghan President Hamid Karzai found a receptive audience in Beijing on Wednesday, overseeing the signing of economic pacts and reaffirming warm traditional ties.
The trip to Beijing comes as Karzai seeks to establish himself as a regional political figure with stature and independence, partly in response to new criticism of his leadership from the U.S., Britain and other foreign partners.
Such issues aren't likely to be raised in his talks with Chinese leaders, who oversee a one-party Communist state that brooks no internal dissent or outside criticism.
While China has no troops in Afghanistan where Karzai relies on U.S. and NATO forces to prop up his weak government against Taliban insurgents its proximity and booming economy make it a valuable partner for the war-battered country.
In their meeting Wednesday at the hulking Great Hall of the People, Chinese President Hu Jintao congratulated Karzai on his reelection in an August poll seen by the United Nations as deeply flawed.
"Your visit will definitely help promote practical cooperation between China and Afghanistan, and take our comprehensive and cooperative partnership to a new level," Hu said in opening remarks.
After their talks, the presidents then presided over the signing of new agreements covering economic cooperation, technical training and preferential tariffs for some Afghan exports to China.
Karzai's visit comes as he looks to burnish his international standing. Since he first took power after the Taliban regime's ouster in 2001, his government has been tainted by inefficiency and persistent allegations of corruption that Western officials say have only boosted support for the insurgency. Last year's electoral fraud further hurt his profile.
The Afghan leader although mocked by some opponents as a puppet of the West now appears eager to strike a more independent stance on the foreign stage.
"Karzai is seeking to strike a balance among foreign powers and is pretty much emulating the 'multi-vector diplomacy' of the neighboring Central Asian states, for example Kazakhstan," said Nicklas Norling of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program in Sweden.
"By playing foreign powers against each other it can maximize leverage on each and thereby strengthen its sovereignty," said Norling.
Karzai has participated as an observer in summits of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a grouping of Central Asian nations dominated by China and Russia that aims to challenge U.S. dominance. He has also cemented ties with India to balance the influence of neighboring Pakistan, with which Afghanistan has an acrimonious relationship.
And earlier this month, Karzai hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who used his brief visit to lob insults at the United States and argue that international forces in Afghanistan would only lead to more civilian deaths.
Karzai called Iran with which Afghanistan shares a long land border "our brother nation" with whom it had excellent relations.
China, which professes to have a noninterventionist foreign policy, is not known to have interposed itself in U.S. relations with Afghanistan. It has limited its involvement in the country to diplomatic and humanitarian support, some trade, and investment in the minerals sector.
Still, Afghanistan's woes incorporate issues that Beijing considers direct threats to its stability: Islamist extremism spreading to China's Muslim region of Xinjiang, the long-term presence of U.S. and NATO forces on its borders, cross-border drug smuggling, and the deepening involvement of India, with which China shares a disputed border and a sharpening rivalry.
It is China's growing economic clout could prove most telling in its relations with Afghanistan. It is already a major source of consumer goods for Afghanistan and two-way trade totaled $155 million in 2008, according to Chinese figures.
In what could be a major boon to Afghan government coffers, a Chinese company has pledged $3 billion to tap one of the world's largest unexploited copper reserves at Aynak in Afghanistan, and is favored to win the rights to iron deposits at Hajigak when bids are considered this year.
Those projects have lagged because of the insurgency. American officials have alleged that Karzai's former minister of mines accepted a $20 million bribe to award the Aynak contract in late 2007 to China Metallurgical Group Corp.
---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------
Pak-Iran gas pipeline to be complete by 2013
By Qamar Zaman / Zahid Gishkori
Published: October 28, 2011
ISLAMABAD: Dispelling impressions of external pressure to shelve the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project, Petroleum Minister Dr Asim Hussain informed the Senate that it would be completed by 2013, one year ahead of schedule.
Hussain said, First gas flow is targeted by the end of 2014. The estimated cost is $1.5 billion, but it will be firmed up after completion of a bankable feasibility study. Initial information for financing the project has been exchanged with international investors from China, Russia and the Middle East, he added. The Turkmenistan gas pipeline project has also taken a great leap forward after nearly a decade and the gas supply and purchase agreement will be signed on November 15. Major components of the project including tender for pipes and compressors will be floated this month, said the petroleum minister.
He said the government would introduce a new petroleum exploration and production policy to provide additional incentives to investors for exploration of oil and gas in the country. These incentives, he added, would compensate for risk taken by companies for doing business in the present environment.
Government introduces money bills
The government has tabled the Petroleum Levy Amendment Bill, 2011 and Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Bill, 2011 in the Senate amid criticism from the opposition on the imposition of gas surcharge on consumers. The petroleum levy was introduced in the National Assembly when the Senate was not in session.
According to an explanatory statement, the Iran-Pakistan and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline projects were being pursued to increase supply and a surcharge was necessary to develop the required infrastructure. The government would otherwise be forced to import liquid fuels which are more expensive than gas. PML-Ns parliamentary leader in the Senate and former finance minister Ishaq Dar said the bills should not have been introduced as money bills, since they read like a mini-budget.
The bill on petroleum levy states that the levy is payable as mentioned in the fifth schedule along with the applicable rates, but keeping in view the need to revise the rates in line with international prices and other relevant considerations, it is necessary to revive section 7 in its original form, and omit the fifth schedule from the constitution.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 28th, 2011.
the following draws from a post put up by develop but is relevant
Looking at this proposal purely from a business point of view, what are the indispensable benefits provided to either party? In other words, what does India bring to the table that Pakistan can't get elsewhere, and vice versa?
As I see it, there is absolutely nothing that India adds to the equation that cannot be provided by substituting China or any other country. India provides a market. Big deal. There are plenty of markets, and China will suck up all the energy we can transit.
Now, looking at a map, Pakistan provides a huge benefit to India. India can go around Pakistan to get to the CARs, but that's the long way round and possibly using an underwater pipeline, all of which add costs. It will also involve cosying up to Iran, which will strain its relationship with the US.
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
Looking at this proposal purely from a business point of view, what are the indispensable benefits provided to either party? In other words, what does India bring to the table that Pakistan can't get elsewhere, and vice versa?
As I see it, there is absolutely nothing that India adds to the equation that cannot be provided by substituting China or any other country. India provides a market. Big deal. There are plenty of markets, and China will suck up all the energy we can transit.
Now, looking at a map, Pakistan provides a huge benefit to India. India can go around Pakistan to get to the CARs, but that's the long way round and possibly using an underwater pipeline, all of which add costs. It will also involve cosying up to Iran, which will strain its relationship with the US.
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
Similar threads
