Li Keqiang hails Pakistan as China's 'iron brother'
- Thread starter Edevelop
- Start date
shuttler
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 9,253
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Pakistan should have better relations with all countries -- BUT it must first decide WHY it ought to have better relations and WHAT is the substance of better relations
Pakistan has a nuclear program because of it's own compulsions, lets not misrepresent our history, and let us live up to the idea of good relations with all - we do not want to show our friendship by creating problems for our friends, do we??
Some of our "usual suspects" crowd have taken offense that anybody should ask Pakistanis to consider the substance of this relationship -- we have been pointing out for the last many years that Pakistan do not appear serious about developing a genuine and deep strategic relationship with China, and that this is evident in the volume of trade it does with China, it's almost absent promotion of cultural ties, of intellectual ties and worst of all, of it's disregard for the security interests of China and the security of Chinese citizens in Pakistan.
You can choose to play "offended" all you like, in the end, you know very well, that these issues raised have substance and that if you choose to ignore these, you only behave irresponsibly.
Even today, you will find that as far as trade and commercial ties are concerned, Pakistan refuses to engage meaningfully, opting instead for the photo-opportunity of signing MOU, instead of business deals
Now, don't get wrong, you can play your little game with the Indian, show him how deeply you care for China and vice versa, but India and China do $70 Billion in trade, that's greater than than the total volume of trade Pakistan does with the entire world [[ wake up from these silly games you imagine amuse you, think of where we are headed - yes, new election and all that, but what's really changed??
shuttler
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 9,253
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
they do look like bros...
Smiling faces all over! What a feeling!
MST
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2010
- Messages
- 1,505
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Thank you Sir. You posts are always grounded and honest. Saw this discussion and analysis hosted by Moeed Pirzada covering almost all the points you have talked above and more. Worth the watch. Though some Pakistanis may get mad at this.
Tonight With Moeed Pirzada - 22nd May 2013
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
As is this, you will noter Mr. Tirmizi is afflicted with the same Pakistani disease he complains about, he asks where is the free money? :
View from McLeod Road: Why the Sino-Pak alliance is economically worthless
By Farooq Tirmizi
Published: May 22, 2013
In the 12-year period between July 2000 and June 2012, net foreign investment in Pakistan amounted to about $29 billion, of that, just $0.8 billion came from China. CREATIVE COMMONS
KARACHI:
Pakistan’s leaders love using laughably outrageous metaphors in describing the country’s relationship with China, yet the truth is that this so-called alliance means almost nothing positive for the Pakistani economy.
All of Islamabad – indeed all of Pakistan – appears to be bending over backwards in laying out the red carpet to welcome Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. But the fact of the matter is that China will give Pakistan almost nothing, and this two-day trip is really only being made by the Chinese premier to avoid slapping Islamabad in the face completely, after having made his first trip abroad a three-day visit to India, in a key signal about the real shifts in Chinese foreign policy.
Pakistanis love to proclaim China as our “all-weather friend. In his last visit to China, former Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani described the relationship as “higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, stronger than steel and sweeter than honey.”
On this trip, Premier Li described the relationship as “a tree, now exuberant with abundant fruits”.
This was not him being poetic. It was delivering a message that nobody in Pakistan seems to have gotten: that China’s ties with Pakistan are not some eternal alliance of friends, but a strictly utilitarian relationship in which Beijing uses Islamabad occasionally to scare the living daylights out of the United States and India to get what it wants in its negotiations with Washington and New Delhi, and then abandons Pakistan once that transaction is completed.
A look at the numbers suggests that the Islamabad-Beijing relationship has had very little benefit for Pakistan as whole.
In the 12-year period between July 2000 and June 2012, net foreign investment in Pakistan amounted to about $29 billion, according to the State Bank of Pakistan. Of that, just $0.8 billion came from China, and nearly all of that was China Mobile’s investment in Zong.
China’s investment in Pakistan is less than that of tiny Netherlands, which invested $1.4 billion during that time. The supposed “Great Satan” – the United States – invested the most in Pakistan: $7.7 billion, or more than a quarter of all foreign investment in the country. There is only one major Chinese company with actual investments in Pakistan: China Mobile. The number of major US companies investing in Pakistan? More than 30.
In Pakistan’s terms of trade with China, the relationship is virtually colonial in nature. In 2012, China sold Pakistan about $6.6 billion worth of goods, mostly electronic equipment and machinery. Pakistan sold China about $2.6 billion worth of goods, nearly all of that cotton yarn. By contrast, Pakistan runs a trade surplus with both the United States and the European Union.
But what about Gwadar Port and its benefits to Pakistan, one might be tempted to ask. There is no denying that Gwadar – if developed properly – can deliver massive economic gains to Pakistan as a whole and especially the impoverished people of Balochistan. The problem is that this is exactly what we said when we handed over the Saindak copper and gold mines to China a decade ago. How’s that working out for us? Not very well, by the looks of the Balochistan and federal governments’ revenues, and the utter lack of development in that area.
What about other Chinese companies building infrastructure in Pakistan? They are simply contractors being paid for construction work on projects financed mostly by Pakistani taxpayers or donations from the US, EU or multilateral donors.
The truth is that China is much more serious about its economic relationship with India than with Pakistan. Here is how we know: in Islamabad, the Chinese premier will, at best, sign a few memoranda of understanding, essentially worthless pieces of paper that say nothing of substance. In India, the visit was marked by Chinese companies signing legally binding contracts with their Indian counterparts worth billions of dollars. China’s trade with India is worth $68 billion and the two countries are on track to take it to $100 billion in two years.
The sooner Pakistan wakes up from the “China is our friend” delusion, the sooner we will stop giving control of the country’s economic resources for almost nothing in return. The harsh reality is that Pakistan means almost nothing to China, and that is why the relationship with Beijing has yielded almost no tangible benefits for the Pakistani economy.
View from McLeod Road: Why the Sino-Pak alliance is economically worthless
By Farooq Tirmizi
Published: May 22, 2013
In the 12-year period between July 2000 and June 2012, net foreign investment in Pakistan amounted to about $29 billion, of that, just $0.8 billion came from China. CREATIVE COMMONS
KARACHI:
Pakistan’s leaders love using laughably outrageous metaphors in describing the country’s relationship with China, yet the truth is that this so-called alliance means almost nothing positive for the Pakistani economy.
All of Islamabad – indeed all of Pakistan – appears to be bending over backwards in laying out the red carpet to welcome Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. But the fact of the matter is that China will give Pakistan almost nothing, and this two-day trip is really only being made by the Chinese premier to avoid slapping Islamabad in the face completely, after having made his first trip abroad a three-day visit to India, in a key signal about the real shifts in Chinese foreign policy.
Pakistanis love to proclaim China as our “all-weather friend. In his last visit to China, former Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani described the relationship as “higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, stronger than steel and sweeter than honey.”
On this trip, Premier Li described the relationship as “a tree, now exuberant with abundant fruits”.
This was not him being poetic. It was delivering a message that nobody in Pakistan seems to have gotten: that China’s ties with Pakistan are not some eternal alliance of friends, but a strictly utilitarian relationship in which Beijing uses Islamabad occasionally to scare the living daylights out of the United States and India to get what it wants in its negotiations with Washington and New Delhi, and then abandons Pakistan once that transaction is completed.
A look at the numbers suggests that the Islamabad-Beijing relationship has had very little benefit for Pakistan as whole.
In the 12-year period between July 2000 and June 2012, net foreign investment in Pakistan amounted to about $29 billion, according to the State Bank of Pakistan. Of that, just $0.8 billion came from China, and nearly all of that was China Mobile’s investment in Zong.
China’s investment in Pakistan is less than that of tiny Netherlands, which invested $1.4 billion during that time. The supposed “Great Satan” – the United States – invested the most in Pakistan: $7.7 billion, or more than a quarter of all foreign investment in the country. There is only one major Chinese company with actual investments in Pakistan: China Mobile. The number of major US companies investing in Pakistan? More than 30.
In Pakistan’s terms of trade with China, the relationship is virtually colonial in nature. In 2012, China sold Pakistan about $6.6 billion worth of goods, mostly electronic equipment and machinery. Pakistan sold China about $2.6 billion worth of goods, nearly all of that cotton yarn. By contrast, Pakistan runs a trade surplus with both the United States and the European Union.
But what about Gwadar Port and its benefits to Pakistan, one might be tempted to ask. There is no denying that Gwadar – if developed properly – can deliver massive economic gains to Pakistan as a whole and especially the impoverished people of Balochistan. The problem is that this is exactly what we said when we handed over the Saindak copper and gold mines to China a decade ago. How’s that working out for us? Not very well, by the looks of the Balochistan and federal governments’ revenues, and the utter lack of development in that area.
What about other Chinese companies building infrastructure in Pakistan? They are simply contractors being paid for construction work on projects financed mostly by Pakistani taxpayers or donations from the US, EU or multilateral donors.
The truth is that China is much more serious about its economic relationship with India than with Pakistan. Here is how we know: in Islamabad, the Chinese premier will, at best, sign a few memoranda of understanding, essentially worthless pieces of paper that say nothing of substance. In India, the visit was marked by Chinese companies signing legally binding contracts with their Indian counterparts worth billions of dollars. China’s trade with India is worth $68 billion and the two countries are on track to take it to $100 billion in two years.
The sooner Pakistan wakes up from the “China is our friend” delusion, the sooner we will stop giving control of the country’s economic resources for almost nothing in return. The harsh reality is that Pakistan means almost nothing to China, and that is why the relationship with Beijing has yielded almost no tangible benefits for the Pakistani economy.
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
First, a reality check.
Express Tribune is allied with The New York Times and is the mouthpiece of American propaganda in Pakistan.
Now, to the intellectually dishonest claims in the article itself.
That particular time period is chosen by the author for a reason. What the Express Tribune American propaganda fails to mention is that a whole spate of Chinese investments, valued at tens of billions, were cancelled during that period because of the WoT and resulting instability in Baluchistan and FATA. We don't need to get into who was behind much of the militancy in Baluchistan.
China's Khyber Pass - Forbes.com
It's always a hoot when people, including Indians, tout the India-China trade figure compared to Pakistan's. The intellectually dishonest author of the Express Tribune propaganda piece didn't bother dissecting the India-China trade, like he did with Pakistan's.
The fact is that India-China trade is 70% in China's favor and the only things China buys from India are iron ore, cotton and similar "colonial" products.
It is the responsibility of Pakistan's government, not foreign investors, to provide security to investors and the develop infrastructure. Once again, we need not go into who are the foreign players behind insurgency in Baluchistan.
When you can't provide security for investors, the only money you will see will be high risk gamblers or with strings attached, as happens with US and GCC aid. China is not interested in running Pakistan by remote control through hired puppets.
The intellectually dishonest Express Tribune propaganda piece gets caught in its own lie. If China is not investing in Pakistan, then how is Pakistan "giving control" of its resources to China?
As such, it will sell well to its intended audience in India and the West.
sur
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,829
- Reaction score
- 4
This article is ridiculously delusional itself.
Having tangible expectations does NOT mean two are NOT sincere friends.
Even parents who make-babies have expectations from their children. They see their children as a support for them when they grow old. Two brothers do business mutually, having financial ambitions from mutual collaboration does NOT make them any less brotherly.
Writer of article utterly lacks the depth. More likely he's deliberately fabricating stuff. China's investment is less because corrupt governments like that of PPP were not conducive & were NOT welcoming. On the other hand so-called investment that US sends, we know never reaches down to masses & is intended to keep her control over corrupt politicians & to achieve political manipulation.
Where did writer see "great satan's" investment on ground??? I don't see anything.! Did writer's fluctuating memory lost hold of the cost Pakistan bore from being coerced in so-called WOT.? So-called investment by Dajjal-the-US doesn't even cover a fraction of that cost. Yet he they use the term "investment" for what should be called as "a-fraction-of-the-cost".
Absurd & delusional statements from writer, making up stuff from himself.
Window period that writer deliberately selected is when a US-sponsored most-corrupt-ever politicians were in place. Who were never serious about Pakistan. All they wanted was to gather as much money as possible bcoz they knew there was NO tomorrow for them(Mushy-The-Traitor & PPP). So expecting heavy Chinese investment during this time period is delusional.
& how much it is with 7 times smaller population Pakistan? Why won't writer specify that?
It was $7 billion in 2009... despite the-most-corrupt-ever-political setup being in place in Pakistan.
All we need is to make China sure that their investment would be protected & NOT become target of corruption, that's when we will see the thrust of investment coming from China.
Resorting back to parents-brothers analogy I used at beginning,, If I know my brother is involved in wasteful activity I despite being a brother a friend will restrict my financial contribution towards him until I'm certain he'd use money wisely. But all this time I would be a brother. An Iron brother..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
While I was compiling my reply, u already replied on similar lines.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Tirmizi a imperialist mouthpiece -- it's just propaganda -- Got it -- NYT is a partner with Express tribune, therefore what it says is suspect and ought not allow us to THINK - it's bad for our Pakistaniness
Chinese friends on the forum should be asking Pakistanis, Where are your success stories, What have you achieved?? -- WHY should they ask these questions? Because it shows you care and that you want to motivate -- teach them to fish is fine, but in some cases you have to first get them to understand why it is important
Anyway, here is something you lot can appreciate, lots of praise i it - lets see if we can learn something from it:
All-weather friends
Ikram Sehgal
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Visiting China is a never-ending revelation; the amazing 7.7 percent growth rate in a sluggish global economy is considered ‘disappointing’ there. Of China’s 31 provinces, Guangdong has the highest GDP – US$960 billion with a growth rate of 8.2 percent – while Tibet is lowest with 12 percent growth rate and a GDP of US$11 billion.
The Guizhou province has the highest growth rate (12 percent). Xinjiang, bordering Pakistan and vastly underdeveloped, is 25th with US$121 billion and a 12 percent growth rate. The expanse of the two bustling ever-growing mega cities of Beijing or Shanghai is truly outstanding with enormous public infrastructure delivering efficient services to its citizens.
An early morning (7:15am) extempore briefing by CH Tung at the EastWest Institute’s 2013 ‘spring’ board meeting in Beijing from May 15 to May 17 was a treat. The shipping magnate became Hong Kong’s chief executive in 1999 when the city was handed back to China by the UK. Born on July 8, 1937 – the day Japan and China went to war – Tung gave an insightful historical and cultural perspective into China describing the determined mindset influencing China’s drive to soon become the most prosperous country in the world.
Certainly important to peace and prosperity in the world, the US-China competition is presently peaceful but has ominous military overtones because of the growing number of flashpoints on China’s periphery. The US is mired in Cold War relationships that it cannot seem to shed. Of greater concern to us are Pakistan’s present and future ties with China.
China’s only opening to the world was symbolised best by Pakistan facilitating its first top-level contact with the US – Henry Kissinger’s famous secret trip to China in July 1971 changed the strategic dynamics of the world. Chinese PM Chou En-Lai reportedly told Kissinger, “Do not forget the bridge (meaning Pakistan) you have used, you may have to use it again.” Unfortunately our record with the US is spotty, every ten years or so Pakistan goes from being a ‘cornerstone’ to a ‘gravestone’.
The Chinese leaders from the 1970s are retired octogenarians now. However, China has not forgotten the ‘bridge’ that Pakistan is, at least at the strategic level. The proposed Pak-China economic corridor linking Gwadar Port with Xinjiang and other parts of China will involve both road and rail links, with both optic fibre and oil pipelines for boosting energy, trade and transport between the two countries. Initially investing over US$20 billion creating a ‘Special Economic Zone’ in Xinjiang, China’s keenness to have another trade outlet to the Indian Ocean is cementing its historic ties with Pakistan.
The transit time will be reduced from weeks and months to three to four days only, creating an economic windfall for Pakistan, particularly in less developed Balochistan. Pakistan’s salvation requires major investment in infrastructure. With the US pulling out of Afghanistan by 2014, the Afghan economy will go into a tailspin. Only an economic overdrive can contain the spill over of the desperate poverty. Militarily we will be hard-pressed, force-multiplied further if we fail to create economic opportunities for our people as well as the Afghans.
The high point of my current visit to China was meeting up with retired ambassador Zhang Chun Xiang. Four decades ago he was an interpreter with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) divisions constructing the tremendous Karakoram Highway (KKH) in the highest mountains in the world. Pakistan Army Aviation’s KKH Flight was in support with two Aloutte-3 helicopters.
Ambassador Zhang speaks fluent Urdu and is not averse to choice Punjabi expletives if and when the need arises. He served as the Chinese consul general in Houston, retiring as China’s ambassador to Hungary. His 23 years of service in Pakistan includes stints with the Chinese consulate general in Karachi and the Chinese embassy in Islamabad. His last posting in Pakistan was as ambassador. Now in an advisory capacity with major Chinese technological group Huawei, Zhang still advises on Chinese policies in South Asia.
The EastWest Institute honoured Ambassador Zhang by his brief presence at the EWI Board meeting. People like Zhang have kept the friendship alive not only between individuals but countries, our mutual association being highly symbolic of the continuing friendship between China and Pakistan. Emotions and feelings will always drive relationships between nations. And, more importantly, core interests must coincide – and better still, not diverge.
The disappointment in Pakistan that Chinese PM Li Keqiang chose India as his first stop as prime minister (with Islamabad to follow later) is more perception than fact. We should not be apprehensive of China-India relations; they will have no negative consequences for Pakistan. Similarly we cannot condition our ties with the US on its ties with India – the dynamics are different particularly given the economic connotations. Our ties with China will become stronger as mutual economic initiatives increasingly dovetail into their geo-political compulsions. Take India’s questioning of the Chinese policy of issuing stapled visas to residents of Indian-occupied Kashmir in contrast to giving normal visas to citizens of the Pakistan-administered side. India says China is taking Pakistan’s side in the dispute. That is true!
India’s trade with China exceeds US$66 billion but unresolved border disputes remain. Historically China is a restraining factor to India’s normal aggressive posture vis-à-vis Pakistan. India’s apprehensions about Gwadar are neither justified nor warranted. The Chinese PM will possibly underscore the port’s importance to China, not as a forward military base but an energy and trade junction providing a vital economic outlet for the country. Regional peace and stability requires we address contentious issues that bedevil relations, like Kashmir, between India and Pakistan. Given that we can never come to an agreement over Kashmir, what is stopping us from coming to an arrangement?
To quote Director Sun Shi-Lai of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences “Pakistan can cast great influence on Islamic countries and serve as a bridge between China and the Middle East.” Fortunately China’s self-interest and our national interest coincide, reinforcing mutual commitment as “all-weather” friends (to quote Chinese FM Wang Yi). Our friendship is definitely a ‘cornerstone’ of Chinese foreign policy. With over US$20 billion being invested in Xinjiang this year alone, China’s opening to the Indian Ocean is not only a dream of prosperity for China and Pakistan but a dire necessity.
The Chinese suffered many casualties during the construction of the KKH. As helicopter pilots it was our unpleasant duty to ferry the injured for medical aid – some of them with fatal injuries. For me personally at that time it was a road coming from nowhere and going nowhere. The proximity to blood and gore on a daily basis does get to you. After one particularly harrowing day I angrily asked Zhang, “What is with you Chinese? Why are you killing yourselves for this road?” His calm reply is forever etched in my memory, “You Pakistanis cannot think beyond 10 years, us Chinese dream beyond a 100 years!”
What stops us Pakistanis from dreaming too?
The writer is a defence and political analyst. Email: ikram.sehgal@wpplsms.com
Chinese friends on the forum should be asking Pakistanis, Where are your success stories, What have you achieved?? -- WHY should they ask these questions? Because it shows you care and that you want to motivate -- teach them to fish is fine, but in some cases you have to first get them to understand why it is important
Anyway, here is something you lot can appreciate, lots of praise i it - lets see if we can learn something from it:
All-weather friends
Ikram Sehgal
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Visiting China is a never-ending revelation; the amazing 7.7 percent growth rate in a sluggish global economy is considered ‘disappointing’ there. Of China’s 31 provinces, Guangdong has the highest GDP – US$960 billion with a growth rate of 8.2 percent – while Tibet is lowest with 12 percent growth rate and a GDP of US$11 billion.
The Guizhou province has the highest growth rate (12 percent). Xinjiang, bordering Pakistan and vastly underdeveloped, is 25th with US$121 billion and a 12 percent growth rate. The expanse of the two bustling ever-growing mega cities of Beijing or Shanghai is truly outstanding with enormous public infrastructure delivering efficient services to its citizens.
An early morning (7:15am) extempore briefing by CH Tung at the EastWest Institute’s 2013 ‘spring’ board meeting in Beijing from May 15 to May 17 was a treat. The shipping magnate became Hong Kong’s chief executive in 1999 when the city was handed back to China by the UK. Born on July 8, 1937 – the day Japan and China went to war – Tung gave an insightful historical and cultural perspective into China describing the determined mindset influencing China’s drive to soon become the most prosperous country in the world.
Certainly important to peace and prosperity in the world, the US-China competition is presently peaceful but has ominous military overtones because of the growing number of flashpoints on China’s periphery. The US is mired in Cold War relationships that it cannot seem to shed. Of greater concern to us are Pakistan’s present and future ties with China.
China’s only opening to the world was symbolised best by Pakistan facilitating its first top-level contact with the US – Henry Kissinger’s famous secret trip to China in July 1971 changed the strategic dynamics of the world. Chinese PM Chou En-Lai reportedly told Kissinger, “Do not forget the bridge (meaning Pakistan) you have used, you may have to use it again.” Unfortunately our record with the US is spotty, every ten years or so Pakistan goes from being a ‘cornerstone’ to a ‘gravestone’.
The Chinese leaders from the 1970s are retired octogenarians now. However, China has not forgotten the ‘bridge’ that Pakistan is, at least at the strategic level. The proposed Pak-China economic corridor linking Gwadar Port with Xinjiang and other parts of China will involve both road and rail links, with both optic fibre and oil pipelines for boosting energy, trade and transport between the two countries. Initially investing over US$20 billion creating a ‘Special Economic Zone’ in Xinjiang, China’s keenness to have another trade outlet to the Indian Ocean is cementing its historic ties with Pakistan.
The transit time will be reduced from weeks and months to three to four days only, creating an economic windfall for Pakistan, particularly in less developed Balochistan. Pakistan’s salvation requires major investment in infrastructure. With the US pulling out of Afghanistan by 2014, the Afghan economy will go into a tailspin. Only an economic overdrive can contain the spill over of the desperate poverty. Militarily we will be hard-pressed, force-multiplied further if we fail to create economic opportunities for our people as well as the Afghans.
The high point of my current visit to China was meeting up with retired ambassador Zhang Chun Xiang. Four decades ago he was an interpreter with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) divisions constructing the tremendous Karakoram Highway (KKH) in the highest mountains in the world. Pakistan Army Aviation’s KKH Flight was in support with two Aloutte-3 helicopters.
Ambassador Zhang speaks fluent Urdu and is not averse to choice Punjabi expletives if and when the need arises. He served as the Chinese consul general in Houston, retiring as China’s ambassador to Hungary. His 23 years of service in Pakistan includes stints with the Chinese consulate general in Karachi and the Chinese embassy in Islamabad. His last posting in Pakistan was as ambassador. Now in an advisory capacity with major Chinese technological group Huawei, Zhang still advises on Chinese policies in South Asia.
The EastWest Institute honoured Ambassador Zhang by his brief presence at the EWI Board meeting. People like Zhang have kept the friendship alive not only between individuals but countries, our mutual association being highly symbolic of the continuing friendship between China and Pakistan. Emotions and feelings will always drive relationships between nations. And, more importantly, core interests must coincide – and better still, not diverge.
The disappointment in Pakistan that Chinese PM Li Keqiang chose India as his first stop as prime minister (with Islamabad to follow later) is more perception than fact. We should not be apprehensive of China-India relations; they will have no negative consequences for Pakistan. Similarly we cannot condition our ties with the US on its ties with India – the dynamics are different particularly given the economic connotations. Our ties with China will become stronger as mutual economic initiatives increasingly dovetail into their geo-political compulsions. Take India’s questioning of the Chinese policy of issuing stapled visas to residents of Indian-occupied Kashmir in contrast to giving normal visas to citizens of the Pakistan-administered side. India says China is taking Pakistan’s side in the dispute. That is true!
India’s trade with China exceeds US$66 billion but unresolved border disputes remain. Historically China is a restraining factor to India’s normal aggressive posture vis-à-vis Pakistan. India’s apprehensions about Gwadar are neither justified nor warranted. The Chinese PM will possibly underscore the port’s importance to China, not as a forward military base but an energy and trade junction providing a vital economic outlet for the country. Regional peace and stability requires we address contentious issues that bedevil relations, like Kashmir, between India and Pakistan. Given that we can never come to an agreement over Kashmir, what is stopping us from coming to an arrangement?
To quote Director Sun Shi-Lai of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences “Pakistan can cast great influence on Islamic countries and serve as a bridge between China and the Middle East.” Fortunately China’s self-interest and our national interest coincide, reinforcing mutual commitment as “all-weather” friends (to quote Chinese FM Wang Yi). Our friendship is definitely a ‘cornerstone’ of Chinese foreign policy. With over US$20 billion being invested in Xinjiang this year alone, China’s opening to the Indian Ocean is not only a dream of prosperity for China and Pakistan but a dire necessity.
The Chinese suffered many casualties during the construction of the KKH. As helicopter pilots it was our unpleasant duty to ferry the injured for medical aid – some of them with fatal injuries. For me personally at that time it was a road coming from nowhere and going nowhere. The proximity to blood and gore on a daily basis does get to you. After one particularly harrowing day I angrily asked Zhang, “What is with you Chinese? Why are you killing yourselves for this road?” His calm reply is forever etched in my memory, “You Pakistanis cannot think beyond 10 years, us Chinese dream beyond a 100 years!”
What stops us Pakistanis from dreaming too?
The writer is a defence and political analyst. Email: ikram.sehgal@wpplsms.com
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
I notice you didn't -- or couldn't -- defend the intellectually dishonest claims in the propaganda piece itself.
It's easy to cut and paste. If you believe the claims, then defend them and refute our response.
Why should we blame the Chinese when it's the Pakistani government which has failed to provide security to investors?
Why should we not look at the causes -- and sponsors -- of instability in Baluchistan which is the primary reason for declining Chinese investments in Pakistan?
Why is it that a 70-30 trade imbalance in Pak-China trade and a "colonial" trade basket is bad for Pakistan, but a similar scenario is good for India?
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
I am tired of refuting such claims - after all, what you have done is claim intellectual dishonesty, not unveil it - you claim that Tirmizi and Express are suspect by their association, you did not prove any of that - so make claims, I'm fine it.
And while you are at it, focus - the focus is Pakistan China relations substance
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
WRONG.
I specifically disputed the dishonest claims in the article point by point by citing contrary evidence. I gave a link to Forbes and showed that, even as late as the middle 2000's, China was engaged in substantial investments in Baluchistan, most of which were cancelled because of the nosediving security situation there.
When a blatantly dishonest propaganda piece is provided, it behooves us to look at the motivation behind such intellectual dishonesty and outright propaganda.
Similar threads
