Global power shift gives Pakistan options

[Indus Pakistan]

^^
Chinese Dragon.

No sir, I am not being sarcastic. I am not riding off on the wave of emotion that "Pakistan - China brother, brother, friendship higher than Himalyas and deeper than Oceans blah, blah" that you see often amongst Pakistani's. I am deadly serious and what I say is premised on what I know of China as a nation and it's people. At university I had the privilage of living with some Chinese students in our shared house. I still have contact with some.

Yes, indeed you are presently focussed on developing your country - I notice China avoids unnecessary tangles with the West. That is because you are now busy building your country up, not getting silly notions of ruling the world. Sadly that curse only applies to Pakistani's like Zaid Hamid and others in these forums.

You who could scare the hell out of the USA even now yet fastidously avoid that - We in Pakistan who are a international basketcase have people who think we ought have a tangle with USA and even nuke them.

Going back to what you said, yes you are building your economy. Once you do get developed power will fall in your lap - A developed China will be a monster that nobody dare disturb. As a corollary of that you will rule the world.

Only than will see how you exercise power differantly from US. I have no illusions. You are as machiavellian as the American's are. So you shall no doubt put 'self interest' [as you do indeed presently ] first. I don't expect China to run a international charity or model themselves on Mother Theresa.

 

[lem34]

As if Indians have never licked the *** of Russia & at present USA.

You could say that lol In recent media news

http://www.defence.pk/forums/iranian-defence/188191-india-us-doormat-into-asia.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/187309-us-unleashes-indian-poodle.html

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Only than will see how you exercise power differantly from US. I have no illusions. You are as machiavellian as the American's are. So you shall no doubt put 'self interest' [as you do indeed presently ] first. I don't expect China to run a international charity or model themselves on Mother Theresa.

Yes, that is correct.

As a corollary of that you will rule the world.

No, we will never rule the world, nor do we want to. That sounds like a nightmare more than anything else.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

[/QUOTE]No, we will never rule the world, nor do we want to. That sounds like a nightmare more than anything else.[/QUOTE]

I don't expect your going to do what the Roman's did and send your legions north, south, west, east. I don't think your going to do what the British did and colonize half the world with Union Jack atop most of the southern hemisphere.

What I mean is once you have are a developed country [ from what I know some parts are well on the way to that goal ] your economy will be so large, so dominant and that by your shear economic might you will dominate the world. As a extention of that without a you doubt will be forced to build up a navy to secure your economic interests. That means we will see Chinese Navy in all oceans of the world.

As it is your economic interests have spread and like tentacles of octopus they can be seen stretching to Africa. So your giant econony will impress some facts on the global discourse. That is ruling the world.

 

[Oldman1]

No.... we will never rule the world. That is the very LAST thing that we want.

What we want is to become a developed nation. That is all.

Hu Jintao: China still a developing country - Xinhua News

We are not even a developed nation yet, so talk of being a "superpower" is nonsense. Talk of "ruling the world" is so far removed from reality, I can only come to the conclusion that you were being sarcastic.

Yes you will never attempt to rule because we will never let it happen. China and its dynasties are over. This is the 21st century and acting all might against smaller weaker nations in Asia who are looking to U.S. for strength and leadership in Asia.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Yes you will never attempt to rule because we will never let it happen. China and its dynasties are over. This is the 21st century and acting all might against smaller weaker nations in Asia who are looking to U.S. for strength and leadership in Asia.

Who do you think is funding our economic expansion?

That's right, you.

And acting against smaller nations? Who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the span of two years?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Yes you will never attempt to rule because we will never let it happen. China and its dynasties are over. This is the 21st century and acting all might against smaller weaker nations in Asia who are looking to U.S. for strength and leadership in Asia.

Have you ever seen the rise and fall of Rome Empire? Did the British say in the late 19th Century we will vacate the top dog position? What is inevitable is inevitable.

And I expect in time all those smaller East Asian countries from Malaysia, Vietnam, Koreas to Japan to fall in line with the dragon because at some stage the law of returns will dictate this as Chinese economy becomes the dominant force in the world. This will be felt strongly particularly in East Asia where the gravitational pull generated by the massive Chinese economy will wean away one by one Far Eastern countries from the US.

No danger of you guy's losing Australia or NZ.

**
And I am not suggesting USA is going to wither away. No you will still be a regional power but your relative position will decline. Your policies are going to be modified to fit around China. At present as we know US power knows no restraint, because you are the superpower Your comment underscores that.

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

The more interest to rule the world the more enemies i country will get unless that ruling is in economic way and not miltary and also having the military might and detterence , only if Ottomans put some more value on economics would have lived 1000 years not 622 , having the might to threaten europeon existence did tire it out and wars in 3 fronts

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The more interest to rule the world the more enemies i country will get unless that ruling is in economic way and not miltary and also having the military might and detterence , only if Ottomans put some more value on economics would have lived 1000 years not 622 , having the might to threaten europeon existence did tire it out and wars in 3 fronts

You are right there. The trick is to build up a economy that can sustain your military. Having a strong economy will translate and feed into a strong military. Ignore this economic reality at your peril.

The Ottoman Empire without a shred of doubt possessed the finest army in the world particularly the Janissary corps. However somewhere along the way they ignored the economy and that set the rot. Conversly in north western European the Renaissance
caused a explosion in new ideas which sent European economies on a upwards trajectory resulting in the industrial age.

That assured the Europeans with large armies fuly equipped with new weapons against which the Ottomans struggled to cope and we know what that led to in the end. I believe Turkey has learnt valuable lessons from the sad demise of the Ottoman Empire is now on the right path.

**
I can't avoid the temptation of saying that the biggest lesson Turkey learnt was 'Don't trust the Arabs followed closely by 'self interest'.

 

[Pakistanisage]

I think we are all going round and round in circles here. China has no interest in ruling the World. That mindset belongs to Western / Zionist Aspirations. China will always protect its interest but that is not the same thing as ruling the World. Every nation in the world tries to protect its national interest. Even tiny island nation of Bahrain does that but that does not mean Bahrain wants to rule the World.

Israel does have that kind of inferiority complex and thus dreams of ruling the World. That is the dream of zionist state. Even in the US that kind of mindset is carried by the Zionist Neocons who want to project that kind of US power to afford Israel the opportunity to rule the World through the US Proxy.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

^^
No, I am afraid I disagree.Your assertion is entirely fallacious. This all boils down to your interpretation of a given fact and their interpretation of the same fact. To the American's they are merely advancing or securing their interests. American never says we rule they world.

It is the percieved interest of USA to stand by Isreal and secure. We all know that this reflex comes from US internal dynamics revolving around the AIPAC. When US attacked Iraq they were just advancing their interests. Of course the Iraqi's did not think so but that goes back to what I said about 'interpretation' of a given dynamic.

Every country no doubt wants to advance it's interest. The only problem is most of the time the ability to advance that interest does not exist or is limited. When I was at school I never saw any weak boys bully anybody but I saw plenty of strong boys bully. It is not that all the weak boys were good but that they were not in a position to bully. US is a superpwer and it can advance it's own interests more robustly than any other country can because it has the means to.

If Pakistan had the power US has the first thing I would want Pakistan do is arm twist the UN into sanctioning a peace mission to protect Kashmiri children. Of course it would involve flattening half of India and destroying the Indian Army. I doubt if the Indian's would appreciate this as peace mission or in advancing their interests.

Secondly I would sort out Afghanistan and finally under the guise of 'price gouging' I would annex Saudi oilfields so that consumers in Pakistan would not have to pay extortionate price for fuel. I know all the drivers in Pakistan would regard this as 'advancing their interests' although King Fahd might have to buy a small dingy instead of the largest Yacht in the world.

Moral of the story - You can only judge somebody when they hold the power over you. That applies to countries as well.


**
When Pakistani Army unleashed operation Searchlight in 1971 in Bengal what was that? At that time in the view of the Pakistani government that was advancing our interest. The thumping we gave the Bengali's is well known. Why not ask the Bengali's if they felt that was 'advancing their interest'?

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't wish America disintegrates like the SU. I just hope the Neocons are replaced with true patriots like Ron Paul. That day I will proclaim "God Bless America".

God Bless America even now , and yeah rest of the post i agree with.

 

[rubyjackass]

Options for what? chamchagiri?

Indians.

When will guy's realize we are almost 6-7 times smaller than you. India is in the same league as China as the only other country with billion plus people. So we have no choice but to ally with a superpower in hope of balancing the equation with India. Do you guy's realize that the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has more people than all of Pakistan?

You guy's are cozying up to USA because the threat you feel from rising China [ although they gave you a thrashing even when they were far from risen in 1962 ] yet you are in the same league as China. So what is wrong in small Pakistan cozying up to China?

I sympathize with what you are saying. It definitely makes sense for Pakistan to ally with China. After all, a smaller power cannot be expected to stand alone.

But if you look at history, 1947, 1965, 1999 when did Pakistan behave as a smaller power? Except Siachen, every time hostilities were initiated by Pakistan. It does not look like Pakistan is defending and insecure as you are saying. If not, then where does the bravado come from? Pakistanis may be able to explain it away saying that was because of military rule, bad leaders etc., But as far as India is concerned, you are all the same. Pakistan will try to attack India to change the status-quo if it can -plain and simple. Do you disagree with this?

So all this talk of Pakistan is smaller power hence needs China's support sounds unbelievable. Let us look at China-Pakistan relationship as such. China has not been, at least till very recently, a donor country. Most relationships China has are transactional. Except, when it comes to propping up chamchas like North Korea(I can't even name a second country). The details of Pak-China relationship are unclear. Is China giving aid to Pakistan? Or is it simply doing business? Let us look a both cases. If China is giving aid to Pakistan, then what does that say of China's intentions? Is it grooming another North Korea? On the other hand, if China is just doing business, then why are Pakistan's leaders acting like China has special bond with them and they can use China any time out of their pocket? Whatever the case may be, the facts boil down to this - India has to be prepared, which it is not.

And regarding India's relationship with USA, I think the exact opposite is true. I used to wonder for a long time, why the hell are USA and India not friends? Both have a lot to gain from the relationship even without China in the picture. I mean if the world's largest democracy was not friends with another democracy, there must be some thing seriously wrong and personal(bilateral). But all that there is to explain this anamoly is the cold war paranoia. The recent closeness between USA and India is just a correction. India makes independent decisions on foreign policy anyway. The tragedy of the situation is that USA tries to appear not too close to India so as to not pi** off Pakistan.

So if Pakistan want to carry the air of bravado, they are welcome to do it. They are also welcome to get close to China. India does not complain that Pakistan is cozying up to China. It is merely taking counter-measures. After all both countries are within their rights to play everything in the book.

 

[MilSpec]

The problem is:
Impotency of Puppet government, lack of social justice, 70's styled security apparatus and lack of industrialization. Change these and you will not need any big daddy to hang on to.

I am not suggesting India doesn't have it's share, there are enough threads on that already.

 

[Developereo]

# I am a strong advocate of ultra secularism - if I made my views known publicly in Pakistan I would be hung.

# I am neutral about USA and the West [possibly even partial] - 80% of Pakistani's are rabidly anti USA and the West.

# If I had it my way I would enforce Kemalism in toto even as far as adopting Roman characters.

So your using my mindset to explain why Pakistan has failed to reach it's potential? Your hopes and prayers have been answered because probably <5% Pakistani's think like me. My type are indeed a very tiny minority, either in the general population or the establishment. Time to look somewhere else for Pakistan's failure?

My comment had nothing to do with religion, secularism or being pro- or anti-West. You are reading your own agenda in my post. My aim was to point out your defeatest mindset which sees mere numbers as the dominant factor in a country's potential and condemns Pakistan to be subservient to other countries. That was why I gave the example of the current league of powers, most of which are in the same league, populationwise, as Pakistan. If you still insist on ignoring this fact, then so be it.

Is that so? So if China was 50 times smaller the gravitas it has in the world today would be the same? Or if UK was 5 or 50 times larger would it's position in geopolitics be the same? Simple maths - 1 person has power of 1. 100 people will be power of 100. You might try to match uneven numbers by increasing your productivity but at the end of the day mass carries it's own intertia.

India presently has begun to figure at the world stage. If it shrank to Pakistan's size or was like I said before just constituted of Uttar Pradesh state which has about if not slightly larger population than of Pakistan you think it would still carry the same punch?

Both Pakistan are more or less at similar levels of development and in this context size becomes very important.

Again, mere numbers are irrelevant. Speaking of the UK, need I remind you of the phrase "the sun never sets on the British Empire?"

A large population can be an asset in terms of talent and drive, or it can be a burden to emply and feed, and a waiting time bomb of social unrest. There is no inherent reason for the equation to balance out one way or the other.

Now more than ever, with the importance of technology, mere numbers matter less and less.

No they should not. They should add mass to counter extra mass by joining groups. Hint: NATO, EC, NAFTA. European countries realized post 1945 that they would not cope with bigger economies alone. Thus the establishment of European Community into which UK, France, Germany have subsumed their economic interests to create a huge aggregate.

On the defence side NATO is the aggregate. You can bet your life that NATO will increasingly shift attention to China. An example of this aggregate can be seen next door in Afghanistan where almost 30 flags fly over Kabul mostly western.

Once again, I disagree. The EU was formed to coordinate the political power of continental Europe to counter the US dominance. Economic benefits can be achieved through free trade agreements; political union is not needed.

As for NATO, the US doesn't need it for its military capability; the US is more than capable of defeating any other country on this planet singlehandedly -- and a good many combined alliances as well.

I have no idea how the first part of the above quote has relevance with the second so I will address them separately.

(1) So my mentioning about the well known oppression of Uighur Muslim's in Turkistan [Sinkiang ] is "gratuitous attack on China"? Is there some red line I crossed here? Is China sacred and beyond any criticism? I just mentioned facts and I have no idea how that calls for such a reaction from you. Of course you could always claim this Ughur thing is western propaganda.

China and the Uighurs: Q&A | World news | guardian.co.uk

(2) I am well aware of AIPAC and it's hold on US and by default most of the Western world but I don't frankly care. do sir, tell me how that has a bearing on Pakistan? We choose not to recognize Isreal and we invite the wrath of AIPAC.

Maybe I should have been more explicit. Your implication, in line with your obsession with "Islamists" and "Muslim brotherhood" was that China would be no friend of the Muslim world, and you mentioned the Uighur situation to make your point. My response was that China would do whatever was in China's national interests, unlike America whose foreign policy often runs counter to American interests because their whole system is utterly and completely dominated by Israeli interests.

There is no reason to conclude, a priori, that "Muslim" interests -- whatever that means -- can not be compatible with Chinese national interests. Restricting the discussion to Pakistan, the alignment of interests between Pakistan and China has been validated time and again. While it may be fashionable to dismiss this as just an "anti-India alliance", the reality is that the common interests go well beyond India.

Just let me make it clear when it comes to Pakistani official policy we should not give a rat's a*ss about the Uighur's and I actively support Pak government in scooping any Uighur 'terrorists' in Pakistan and sending them pronto our ally China. I am not happy at a personal level but the business of a state has to be run on cool, dispassionate grounds. Above all else self interest.

In the way I think official Pakistani policy towards Palestine should be informed by self interest and equally we should not give a rat's a*ss about the Palestinians. Accordingly we should recognize Isreal, why should Pakistan carry the burden of AIPAC's animosity? Again at private level I do feel for the Palestinians.

Morality and statecraft are mutually exclusive.

There are no absolutes. Every country strikes a balance between pragmatism and principle.