Rush Doshi: Head of China policy at NSC

[peagle]

Pakistan will have a population of 400 million by 2050. Lets hope Pakistan can stabilize much earlier than that.

Main focus should be on economic development and education for the next 3 decades. The goal should be that by the middle of this century Pakistan should be a great power. With 400 million people that is a realistic goal.

Very much so, Pakistan has achieved far more then is recognised, people forget where we were in 1947.
Pakistan only has one shortcoming, that's the politicians, they have to grow up and start acting in a mature manner, once they do that I strongly believe the army will set aside. The political leadership holds the key.
I love Imran khan but I do not like his approach, he has to show them that is is better them, by meeting them and standing his ground, he cannot continue to refuse to met them, it is just wrong, because it makes the situation worse.
Politicians, politicians, politicians, they have to step forward with a mature approach.

 

[nahtanbob]

Very much so, Pakistan has achieved far more then is recognised, people forget where we were in 1947.
Pakistan only has one shortcoming, that's the politicians, they have to grow up and start acting in a mature manner, once they do that I strongly believe the army will set aside. The political leadership holds the key.
I love Imran khan but I do not like his approach, he has to show them that is is better them, by meeting them and standing his ground, he cannot continue to refuse to met them, it is just wrong, because it makes the situation worse.
Politicians, politicians, politicians, they have to step forward with a mature approach.

politicians reflect the overall population. you are free to disagree

 

[peagle]

politicians reflect the overall population. you are free to disagree

It's rather an empty statement, because there is nothing to agree or disagree.

Whilst all leaders are part of their society, that being true, it is also a falsehood.
In the UK, we've had nothing but jokers for the past decade, grown ups seem to have left the building but it is the same society, population does not radically change in 1 decade. They are part of the same population.

The causes of poor leadership can vary from country to country, with varying factors. The fact that politicians reflect the overall population is one of those weak statements that are designed to ignore real issues. Hence, there is a great fallacy in the said statement.


In the case of Pakistan, the constant regional wars since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, combined with military rule has created weak leadership.
The Afghan wars have saturated the energy of the state, forcing short-term decision making, which has effected policy making mechanisms, it goes deeper but in essence that's the effect.

The military takeovers have allowed politicians to hide their failures by making excuses that its someone else's fault, or saying we have not had enough time to prove ourselves, excuses after excuses. The people have been unable to judge their worth.

These are the core reasons for poor leadership in Pakistan, it has nothing to do with the population but the circumstance that have exited in the country for the previous decades.

 

[nahtanbob]

It's rather an empty statement, because there is nothing to agree or disagree.

Whilst all leaders are part of their society, that being true, it is also a falsehood.
In the UK, we've had nothing but jokers for the past decade, grown ups seem to have left the building but it is the same society, population does not radically change in 1 decade. They are part of the same population.

The causes of poor leadership can vary from country to country, with varying factors. The fact that politicians reflect the overall population is one of those weak statements that are designed to ignore real issues. Hence, there is a great fallacy in the said statement.


In the case of Pakistan, the constant regional wars since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, combined with military rule has created weak leadership.
The Afghan wars have saturated the energy of the state, forcing short-term decision making, which has effected policy making mechanisms, it goes deeper but in essence that's the effect.

The military takeovers have allowed politicians to hide their failures by making excuses that its someone else's fault, or saying we have not had enough time to prove ourselves, excuses after excuses. The people have been unable to judge their worth.

These are the core reasons for poor leadership in Pakistan, it has nothing to do with the population but the circumstance that have exited in the country for the previous decades.

given a few election cycles most people figure out what works and what does not

 

[nahtanbob]

The world can see the difficulties India is going through as well as what other nations have done to keep investment in their countries (including western countries trying to reverse some globalization and on shore industries), which is why Indian strategies to attract FDI will be tough and make it harder for India to get “its act together”. But that is a topic for another thread.

In an earlier post you said, you mentioned the suez. BRI is not an alternative to routes like suez (the maritime road in OBOR/BRI extends to the Chinese port in Greece), but a way for China to get around the entire info-pacific dilemma. A route, that shift some trade, through china’s west and into Western Asia will circumvent most nations that hope to contain it. The goal is to reach Africa and Europe. The route through Russia is meant for Europe, and could be re-routed through Central Asia, Iran, and Turkey.

While the route to Africa could go through Pakistan to Karachi and Gwadar, and by ship to the East African ports China runs, As well as a route to Persian Gulf and the Red Sea and beyond if necessary. Potentially vital for oil and gas supplies in the future.

Building up the Pakistan navy for example would be to support a joint mission to guard these SLOCs (and not having to deploy any Chinese warships to Pakistani ports). Building up the army and economy would be to guard the GLOCs through Pakistan. So it’s really an economic insurance policy for China that benefits both countries.

It is never a given that India can succeed. The competitive threat to China will always remain.

 

[peagle]

given a few election cycles most people figure out what works and what does not

Yes, very much so, and that was my point.
Usually that logic should apply, and it normally does.
This is the situation Pakistan finds itself in right now, the people have awoken, but the politicians have yet to mature.

Hence my original point that it's the politicians who need to step forward, as soon as they do, I am certain the army will gradually step backwards.

 

[nahtanbob]

Yes, very much so, and that was my point.
Usually that logic should apply, and it normally does.
This is the situation Pakistan finds itself in right now, the people have awoken, but the politicians have yet to mature.

Hence my original point that it's the politicians who need to step forward, as soon as they do, I am certain the army will gradually step backwards.

except that the army generals want to control things

 

[peagle]

except that the army generals want to control things

Again, the answer to that is more complicated then simple soundbites, I appreciate these are not your soundbites, they are widely held beliefs, but truth is never decided by the majority, it stands on its own.

Everything is relative to your history and your situation. You cannot castigate your parents for not sending you to Oxford, or any other institution that you desired, or turning you into a capable astronaut so you could have reached space, something that is achievable. The point being issues must be understood and accepted in their correct context, otherwise we are guilty of peddling in lies.

History of Pakistan is such that the army did get involved, it really wasn't their fault. I will try to keep this condensed, please feel free to ask me to expand on any aspect you wish.
their involvement in politics was a result of multiple factors, none of their own making. In every country power is occupied by various actors, power never exists in a vacuum, it is with that logic that the army became gradually but increasingly involved in politics.

They have served the nation well, but they have also made mistakes, to only remember the mistakes and ignore all the good is just being ignorant.

Right now, by traditional measures, martial law would have been declared multiple times over the previous decade, by traditional measures, the politicians have provided plenty of excuses. But the army has held back, it has repeatedly resisted the temptation to take over, their are other factors but ultimately the choice lies with the army, and they have not done so.

Old habits die hard, plus the politicians have not been able to deliver on their own, and as power does not operate in a vacuum, the army is still more involved then it would actually like, so during the previous decade of behind the scene army involvement is the fault of both sides.

Ultimately, it is time for the politicians to step forward, adopt a mature approach, and watch the army step back. This is precisely what happened in Turkiye and Indonesia. Their militaries were far more involved in governance then Pakistan army ever was.

 

[nahtanbob]

Again, the answer to that is more complicated then simple soundbites, I appreciate these are not your soundbites, they are widely held beliefs, but truth is never decided by the majority, it stands on its own.

Everything is relative to your history and your situation. You cannot castigate your parents for not sending you to Oxford, or any other institution that you desired, or turning you into a capable astronaut so you could have reached space, something that is achievable. The point being issues must be understood and accepted in their correct context, otherwise we are guilty of peddling in lies.

History of Pakistan is such that the army did get involved, it really wasn't their fault. I will try to keep this condensed, please feel free to ask me to expand on any aspect you wish.
their involvement in politics was a result of multiple factors, none of their own making. In every country power is occupied by various actors, power never exists in a vacuum, it is with that logic that the army became gradually but increasingly involved in politics.

They have served the nation well, but they have also made mistakes, to only remember the mistakes and ignore all the good is just being ignorant.

Right now, by traditional measures, martial law would have been declared multiple times over the previous decade, by traditional measures, the politicians have provided plenty of excuses. But the army has held back, it has repeatedly resisted the temptation to take over, their are other factors but ultimately the choice lies with the army, and they have not done so.

Old habits die hard, plus the politicians have not been able to deliver on their own, and as power does not operate in a vacuum, the army is still more involved then it would actually like, so during the previous decade of behind the scene army involvement is the fault of both sides.

Ultimately, it is time for the politicians to step forward, adopt a mature approach, and watch the army step back. This is precisely what happened in Turkiye and Indonesia. Their militaries were far more involved in governance then Pakistan army ever was.

It does not matter whose fault it is and what the circumstances are. The army interventions has skewed the political process for the worse. Whatever short terms benefits gained have been negated by the long term damage. I am fine with direct army rule. But they do not want any accountability. They have resorted to indirect rule. But behind the scene manipulations serves no one.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Yes it is possible in the future IF AND WHEN that rivalry is subdued by India having narrowed the gap with China.
China and India ARE rational powers.

Currently CCP China is anything but rational. Its policies and global outlook are a cheap copy of Western/Eastern/Russian Imperialism that China was at the receiving end of during the century of humiliation.

China would never do that EVER. Remember my words. China is more than happy to see Pakistan allied in its endeavor to slow down the rise of India but it CANNOT create another powerful state that holds ISLAM central to its raison detre .
It is trying its best to bring inhabitants of Xinyang into line via mass imprisonment torture reeducation and teaching a Islam approved by the communist party.

Correct, China will never support growth its so called "allies"
Chinese prefer to have its "allies" limited to being dependent depraved proxies like North Korea and Khmer Rouge Cambodia

Some former Chinese allies like Vietnam have not liked this and responded in kind

Sino-Vietnamese War

 

[peagle]

It does not matter whose fault it is and what the circumstances are. The army interventions has skewed the political process for the worse. Whatever short terms benefits gained have been negated by the long term damage. I am fine with direct army rule. But they do not want any accountability. They have resorted to indirect rule. But behind the scene manipulations serves no one.

Acknowledging the causes always matters, my point wasn't about laying blame, so I don't know where you got that objection from.
Acknowledging is not the same as blaming. I also did not mention any benefits, short term or otherwise, so I fail to see why you are using such a term. Benefits do not come into it, they did good, but also made mistakes. and one doesn't negate the other, the issue of negation does not arise. That's just hollow thinking, divorced from reality.

The point is, due to circumstance Pakistan found itself in situation where military involvement ensued. There's nothing to cry about.
No nation is born complete, each and every nation has gone through their development process, as has Pakistan, it is still evolving, other countries are also evolving. The only difference being each country faces different challenges, and different environment.


No military in the world wants accountability, it's nothing special about Pakistan military, the accountability of militaries differs from country to country, even then complete accountability of any military in the world doesn't exits. Has America accounted for the $2.5 trillion it spent in Afghanistan, that's no short change, it's the most open nation on earth, but still faces accountability issues. Pakistan is facing it's share of problems, like other countries, but there is a constant habit of presenting Pakistan as a special case, which it isn't.

I would rather have indirect rule then direct rule, it is part of evolution. I gave you the example of Turkiye and Indonesia, their militaries were far more involved in direct and indirect politics. Throwing baseless criticism serves no purpose, other then blowing steam.

In Pakistan, I see a system that is evolving, as long as military does not attempt a takeover, it will play itself out and settle in its own time, there is nothing wrong with that. Pakistan has achieved a lot since independent in 1947, that was done by the military, politicians, bureaucracy and the civil society, despite the grave challenges not faced by other nations.

This drama will be done soon, I'm sure further challenges will come forward, but that is how nations evolve and reach maturity.

 

[nahtanbob]

Acknowledging the causes always matters, my point wasn't about laying blame, so I don't know where you got that objection from.
Acknowledging is not the same as blaming. I also did not mention any benefits, short term or otherwise, so I fail to see why you are using such a term. Benefits do not come into it, they did good, but also made mistakes. and one doesn't negate the other, the issue of negation does not arise. That's just hollow thinking, divorced from reality.

The point is, due to circumstance Pakistan found itself in situation where military involvement ensued. There's nothing to cry about.
No nation is born complete, each and every nation has gone through their development process, as has Pakistan, it is still evolving, other countries are also evolving. The only difference being each country faces different challenges, and different environment.


No military in the world wants accountability, it's nothing special about Pakistan military, the accountability of militaries differs from country to country, even then complete accountability of any military in the world doesn't exits. Has America accounted for the $2.5 trillion it spent in Afghanistan, that's no short change, it's the most open nation on earth, but still faces accountability issues. Pakistan is facing it's share of problems, like other countries, but there is a constant habit of presenting Pakistan as a special case, which it isn't.

I would rather have indirect rule then direct rule, it is part of evolution. I gave you the example of Turkiye and Indonesia, their militaries were far more involved in direct and indirect politics. Throwing baseless criticism serves no purpose, other then blowing steam.

In Pakistan, I see a system that is evolving, as long as military does not attempt a takeover, it will play itself out and settle in its own time, there is nothing wrong with that. Pakistan has achieved a lot since independent in 1947, that was done by the military, politicians, bureaucracy and the civil society, despite the grave challenges not faced by other nations.

This drama will be done soon, I'm sure further challenges will come forward, but that is how nations evolve and reach maturity.

Militaries take absolute control. Look at Myanmar. I do not think any Pakistani military general took charge after the cold war ended.

In Indonesia Suharto was absolute despot for a long time. There is little involvement by military after Suharto's ouster. You do not see Indonesian politicians complaining about military involvement. Turkey is interesting case being a NATO member and a modern Muslim state with secular institutions. South Korea is another interesting test case. Every country is unique. You cannot any of these states as a template for Pakistan.

On Afghanistan it is not the US military that wanted the war. They followed the politician class. Sure they might not have questioned dubious strategies. They complied with Trump and Biden's directives. In their defense they are trained to fight Russian and Chinese militaries not the Iraqi or Afghan rebels.

In any case the indirect control is the cause of all political drama not some musings of low level American diplomat

 

[peagle]

Militaries take absolute control. Look at Myanmar. I do not think any Pakistani military general took charge after the cold war ended.

In Indonesia Suharto was absolute despot for a long time. There is little involvement by military after Suharto's ouster. You do not see Indonesian politicians complaining about military involvement. Turkey is interesting case being a NATO member and a modern Muslim state with secular institutions. South Korea is another interesting test case. Every country is unique. You cannot any of these states as a template for Pakistan.

On Afghanistan it is not the US military that wanted the war. They followed the politician class. Sure they might not have questioned dubious strategies. They complied with Trump and Biden's directives. In their defense they are trained to fight Russian and Chinese militaries not the Iraqi or Afghan rebels.

In any case the indirect control is the cause of all political drama not some musings of low level American diplomat

Your message is very confusing. I'm sorry but it just doesn't make sense, and you clearly are not aware of Pakistan's history, neither are you registering what I am saying. I'll explain why.

Militaries do take total control, but not in the case of Pakistan, it would require a detailed answer, but whatever the level of control, it is not relevant to the discussion.

The cold war ended in 1990, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Musharraf took over in 1999, that's after the cold war, but whether before or after, it isn't relevant to the discussion.

Indonesians don't cry about the military involvement now, because it is over, the point was that they went through a process, the politicians stepped forward, acted maturely, which resulted in the military stepping back.
The same process happened in Turkiye, it wasn't an overnight thing. It was a process whereby the civilians started to deliver and it resulted in the military stepping back. In the case of Pakistan, the politicians have not matured, they need to mature, and the military will step back. That's the point.

The Afghanistan example wasn't about how or why it started, or what the strategy was, it was in answer to the accountability point you had raised.


You can't be repetitive whilst ignoring the points I have put forward. It is the politicians who need to act in a mature manner, start delivering, and the army will step back in totality.

 

[nahtanbob]

Your message is very confusing. I'm sorry but it just doesn't make sense, and you clearly are not aware of Pakistan's history, neither are you registering what I am saying. I'll explain why.

Militaries do take total control, but not in the case of Pakistan, it would require a detailed answer, but whatever the level of control, it is not relevant to the discussion.

The cold war ended in 1990, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Musharraf took over in 1999, that's after the cold war, but whether before or after, it isn't relevant to the discussion.

Indonesians don't cry about the military involvement now, because it is over, the point was that they went through a process, the politicians stepped forward, acted maturely, which resulted in the military stepping back.
The same process happened in Turkiye, it wasn't an overnight thing. It was a process whereby the civilians started to deliver and it resulted in the military stepping back. In the case of Pakistan, the politicians have not matured, they need to mature, and the military will step back. That's the point.

The Afghanistan example wasn't about how or why it started, or what the strategy was, it was in answer to the accountability point you had raised.


You can't be repetitive whilst ignoring the points I have put forward. It is the politicians who need to act in a mature manner, start delivering, and the army will step back in totality.

Suharto is the only Indonesian military officer to rule. He ruled for 30+ years. For all practical purposes he was a civilian in the later part of his rule. There is no history before or after him of undue interference from the military

 

[peagle]

Suharto is the only Indonesian military officer to rule. He ruled for 30+ years. For all practical purposes he was a civilian in the later part of his rule. There is no history before or after him of undue interference from the military

What are you on about?
Sorry but you're not making sense.

The example was relating to transition, not how many rulers there were or not. There was military rule, military was deeply involved in Indonesian politics, and it stepped back once civilians showed maturity.
Please don't divert the issues, anyway this discussion is complete.