The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Feb 2011 07:33

I am not writing a treatise - but will merely put down opinions to spark debate. I will try not to be judgemental about one or the other.

First a few postulates:

If we assume that Pakistan is fundamentally anti-India it follows that any aid given to Pakistan could also be against Indian interests.
For any given country - (US or China) we (Indians) can view the aid given to Pakistan in two ways:
1) The paranoid view where we claim that the aid is aimed against India
2) The "self interest" view where we say that aid given to Pakistan is in the self interest of the aid giving nation and not specifically aimed at anyone

In practice it makes no difference except as a complicating factor in debate. Typically we may have an Indian who takes the "paranoid" view ("US is anti-sanatana dharma, anti Hindu") and the debate shifts from the impact of the aid to whether the aid is really of the "egregious anti-India" variety or the "benign self interest" variety. Since discussions about the impact of aid only get complicated by sidetracking in this way I suggest that no effort be put into resolving whether anti-India aid to Pakistan is "against India" or "For the aiding nation". To India it makes no difference.
Aid to Pakistan from China and the US can be "cooperative"/"reinforcing" or it can be "competitive"/"destructive"

Cooperative or reinforcing aid is when aid given to Pakistan is designed to achieve the same end result in Pakistan. For example aid given to Pakistan to fight India achieves the same end result in Pakistan whether China gives the aid or the US. Perhaps both countries are anti-India or both countries are doing it in their self interest to "keep India in check". It hardly makes a difference. The aid is complementary. As someone pointed out flood aid to Pakistan from China and the US were complementary, not competitive.

There are of course some cases in which aid to Pakistan is competitive where the aid serves the self interest of either China or the US but not necessarily that of Pakistan. A road or railway through PoK serves China more than the US. Drones and surveillance technology serves the US more than China. A Chinese port in Gwadar could possibly be only in Chinese interest - but could benefit the US as well.
One type of aid that is difficult to quantify is diplomatic aid in the form of UN security council vetoes or the playing down/refusal to accept an offensive act for what it is. Here again both China and the US have played a cooperative or competitive role in aiding Pakistan. These need to be documented as they occurred over many decades.
One last type of aid that I want to mention is "negative aid". This is just a variant of diplomatic aid in which Pakistan's role has been shielded or protected for some reason or the other. The description of Islamist terrorism in Kashmir as "war for freedom" but calling 9-11 and act of terrorism falls in that genre. No matter what terms are used to explain this type of aid - it needs to be recorded as a mechanism that can be used to apply pressure or ease pressure on some country or another.

I do not accept a blind argument that the US is better than China or that the US is worse than China. Unless we can see them both together and ask if their aid to Pakistan has been opportunistically cooperative or self-servingly competitive we might not be able to see where we can leverage China against the US and vice versa.

I hope some non-competitive and wholly cooperative, pro-India contributions can be made to this thread - avoiding the acrimony and ego tussles that are sparked by semantics and innuendo of which I admit to being as guilty of as anyone else. I will, in due course (this can only be a long term effort because it is huge), dig up what I know about aid to Pakistan from both these nations that impacted India adversely.

In my view the question "What can India do about Pakistan" cannot be adequately answered without asking "What can India do about the US" and "What can India do about China". I could be accused of failing to add Saudi Arabia, the UK and Japan as important aid givers to Pakistan. It is merely my view that the US and China have been the most important, but I have no objection to anyone putting down what he can about nations other than the US or China

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Feb 2011 07:38

I will x-post hnair and others posts.

hnair wrote:Comparing China vs US help to pakis is like asking to decide between two bowls of steaming sh!t. Not much differs except the smell. So I go with the decision based on "floater characteristics" - the one that is not going down after multiple flushes over 60 years is of course US.

shiv wrote: I don't think American presidents give a sh1t about what might happen after their watch as long as the appearance is like they managed things well. If they manage things well "who would argue" is a perfect expression to explain how they can go around doing absurd things like supplying nuclear delivery vehicles to Pakistan.
amen. All they care about is a second term and that "Presidential library" grant at the end of their term. So they pay off the wildest lot or sacrifice the harmless bunch to the most harmful, as an offering of peace. A "keep off my yard. Please?" hafta.

So pakis are safe from any POTUS. But POTUS finally approves all arms sales to pakis and that hurts India directly. All the arms sales they do to pakis are not just stuff that makes numbers go up, but enabler tech. Eg: no one really cares beyond a point about an airframe called F16. But add AMRAAMS, new radar sets, EW, Sniper ATP pod, JDAMs, spare engines and you got to be kidding me if anyone still asks Shiv-saar about what has US done for Pakis!!! Same for the 3 TPS-77s, Hawkeye 2000s, tons of APCs, tons of SPH, a frigate or two with land-attack VLS retrofit options, sneaky harpoon LACM upgrade blessings. Am not going into NVG, drone tech etc. All at bargain rates or free.

Take the above list and the US literally checkmated ColdStart on behalf of the pakis. What is the consequence for India? We, the citizens, get killed with impunity as the military threat is blunted

Compared to that, China let pakis test physics packages acquired with european tech and frigates/fighters of questionable technical merits or value. Third string stuff as per PAF's own preferences (khan and oiropeans being 1 and 2nd grade in their own ratings). But then compared to US, China atleast made pakis kill their own and Pashtun children in Lal Masjid. Just for targeting a piddly massage parlour. Sorry to say this, but to an Indian, the China's leadership comes across as more no-nonsense to the string of namby pamby POTUS. Basing a drone after paying off a local corpse commander and flying only at night to not awaken Kiyani is not equal to getting pakis themselves to assault Lal Masjid. US has yet to show that kind of resolve, despite loading them with dangerous heavy armaments that are targeted only at India's armed forces.

The "Chinese hurts us the most with nuke tech to pakis" is a dubious argument, as it completely masks US' role in the whole sordid saga. I heard no noise like what US makes of North Korea-China games, back in the 80s or even nowadays. No noises by US against the proliferating europeans too, other than some Global warming type complaints about "too much photocopy paper being used". Nor are they making noises now, when pakis are building questionable reactors and enrichment buildings like crazy. The US aided and abetted international nuke-proliferation's best documented First Degree murder. All for pakis. The chinese joined later, when they helped fine tune the crude weapons of the Pakis to fit the missiles they sold via NoKo and directly. That is the only time the pakis did not get what they wanted from US directly - because US has basic racist reasons for not handing over nukes to non-Anglos. Else I am 400% sure pakis would be threatening us with a W87 ("old compared to W88, wont upset India's supremacy") that got handed over as FMS from PANTEX's little barn in Amarillo.

There is another aspect to recent bunch of POTUS. Thanks to the "pre-existing senile" Reagan*'s (his Alzheimer's was hidden during his terms, as was stated by his own family) long brown skidmarks on the Presidential bedsheets at the white-house, everyone wants to stand like a prick on top of a broken berlin wall in their term and act out hammy speeches. Trouble is there are not enough Berlin walls and Israel ain't budging So they improvise. They look around for tinpots that got rusty with too many previous POTUS peeing on it. They dont touch anyone that can willingly cause causalities above 100 US people at a time, in their own terms, but like Dick Cheney or Al Gore, will thump their chests after their term. Obama and Biden will do the same.

But they are very selective in picking up targets. Eg: to the current POTUS, that freakish gandoo Gaddafi must be like what, those multi-colored halwa they sell at Calicut railway station does to my sanity. a bit washed up compared to the olden days, but still squishy and tantalizing. Yet the train stops only for a few mins!!

Pakis, of course know POTUS fears, because every POTUS has called in pakis for "turning tricks" of roleplay kind for more then sixty years. As long as khan keeps doing this crappy bargain (they are doing it as we speak with Senor Raimundo), pakis are safe and Indians remain at danger. I blame this mainly to US voters being denied information that makes them ask common sense questions.

The only way forward for the world is for Pakis to be pakis and let the talibanization increase pace, that it finally results in mass non-Indian casualties. A sad and bitter conclusion, thanks to US.

____________
* OT, but Reagan is like a magical Dev Gowda, in whose term Pakistan imploded and China had a genuine democratic revolution that freed Tibet after a national rapprochement phase!!! If that happened, Shree Gowda would have been stuff of legends in India too, am sure. I would have been lighting agarbathis in front of technicolor portraits of a snoozing Shree Gowda, right next to Mammootty, Mohanlal and some item girl that came with the wallet

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Feb 2011 15:24

I don't believe that any discussion of the role of the US and China in Pakistan can occur without an attempt to ask what the US and China are individually doing inside Pakistan.

First, the US interest in Pakistan.

The USA got into Pakistan in the early 1950s IIRC when Pakistan was roped in as an ally in the cold war. Ayub Khan is quoetd in a book as folows: “In the quest for US support, Ayub Khan went so far as to tell a US official, `Our army can beyour army if you want.” Dennis Kux . United States and Pakistan, 1947-2000.

Literally overnight Pakistan received a brand new Air Force of F-86 Sabres and an army of Pattons. The timeline of those aircraft deliveries is quoted in John Fricker's "Fizaya a history of the PAF". In addition Pakistan offered bases for U-2 flights and even Pakistani pilots undertook U-2 flights over the Soviet Union. For India, the 1965 war was "touch and go" - Ayub Khan was smart in making the assessment that India would be relatively weak for a few years after the 1962 debacle, but not for long.

Sanctions kicked in after the 1965 war until the pressures of the cold war and mounting losses in Vietnam caused the US to try and woo China. Pakistan had approached China for arms immediately after thee 1965 war and was getting closer to China. Pakistan served as a go-between for a US-China detente starting IIRC with "Ping Pong diplomacy" when the US and China exchanged Table tennis teams ending an otherwise cold relationship. So starting with the Nixon administration was a phase of "cooperation" between the US and China in which Pakistan could do no wrong. Nixon was loath to upset Pakistan in the 1971 war, encouraged Mao to put pressure on India - which, significantly Mao did not do and finally sent the 7th fleet to intimidate India.

Indira's "Peaceful Nuclear Explosion" of 1974 really put India in the doghouse as far as the US was concerned. But Pakistan's importance too waned until the Soviets entered Afghanistan in 1979. At that time Pakistan became the hub of Reagan's plan to fight a proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Pakistan army was key to the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan and once again the US, busy supplying arms and money to Pakistan without any bookkeeping also turned away when nuclear material was transferred from Europe and China to Pakistan.

When war had looked inevitable, India had signed a 10 year treaty of "Peace friendship and cooperation" with the USSR in August 1971 which was still in effect in 1979. As a de facto Soviet ally India has no traction on US arms supply and aid to Pakistan. But into the 1980s - India entered a phase of turmoil. In fact the world was in turmoil in many ways. The US, along with Pakistan on its side and the USSR on the other side was actually fighting a hot proxy war. Britain got busy with the Falklands. Israel fought a short sharp war in 1982. For India, internal political strife led to Operation Blue Star and the assassination of India Gandhi. It also allowed an opening for the ISI, freshly trained by the CIA in international covert ops, to try its hand at supporting the Khalistan insurgency in Punjab. The 1981 hijack of an India Airline flight to Lahore by Khalistani terrorists was sponsored by Pakistan, The plane IIRC was destroyed in Pakistan. Clearly the US at this time was not going to tell its munna anything that might cause upset. Later in the 1980s - as the war in Afghanistan progressed the covert transfer of nuclear material to Pakistan took place and went unremarked and unreported because of Pakistan's importance in the cold war.

By the time the Soviet Union broke up, the US had pulled out of Pakistan and India had more or less crushed the Khalistan insurgency. That was when Pakistan's "War of a thousand cuts" against India started. I have summed up a detailed analysis of what happened in the subsequent years in my ebook. One hypothesis in the book may not be accpetable to some because it has no "proof" other than circumstantial evidence. Basically the US pulled out of the region after the Soviets pulled out after which Pakistan was left with control of the militias who fought the Afghan war. The Pakistanis used those militias to gain "strategic depth" in Afghanistan and that "strategic depth" in turn was used to train terrorists and insurgents to fight in Kashmir. Coming to my hypothesis - I noticed that during the decade 1990 to 2000 India's response to terrorism due to infiltration from Pakistan across the Kashmir border became ever more robust, leading, in effect, to a backlog of terrorists within Pakistan and Afghainstan who then spread out and started creating mayhem in faraway places like the Philippines, Russia and Bosnia until 9-11 happened. In fact the IC 814 hijack to Kandahar may have been a dress rehearsal for 9-11 and a key 9-11 conspirator was released in the IC 814 hijack. he point I want to make is that India's robust upgradation of border defences may have had an indirect role in 9-11. The yahoos who could not even cross the border into India were spreading out to greener pastures. True or not - its just a hypothesis.

What is the current US interest in Pakistan?

In 2001 the US under Dubya started off with Pakistan as a reluctant ally needed only for logistics. Gradually the importance of Pakistan has morphed from 2001 from logistics alone, to act as an "anvil" against which the US could hammer the Al Qaeda. Then Pakistan became a safe haven for the Al Qaeda and Taliban. Now Pakistan is so unstable that the US wants to talk top the Taliban and preserve Pakistan.

It appears to me that the US sees Pakistan as "Pakistan army" as it has always done, although the US has certainly (and half heartedly) put on a show of supporting "democracy" in Pakistan as long as Pakistani democracy meant a US puppet in power. The US is most concerned about the possibility of break up of the Pakistan army. As far as I can tell the US is:

Not trying to build roadways and pipelines through Pakistan
Not interested in the form of government in Pakistan as long as it is pliable
Not looking at Pakistan as a trade corridor outside its role as a logistics hub for the US
To an extent, the US desires to "do good" in Pakistan and "be liked" but only so far as to keep the Pakistan army in good humor
The US does not see Pakistan as an important link it any effort to check China. On the contrary it probably looks to China for help in stabilizing Pakistan.
The US sees India as a factor that aggravates Pakistan and is unable to impress on Pakistanis that other attitudes are possible. So the US merely tries to reason with India and request India for concessions and tries extra hard not to appear pro-India to Pakistanis

Will write about China in another post. Sometime.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 26 Feb 2011 17:57

Before we try to understand what Pakistan is and what Pakistan is not to US and China, we have to have to see what Pakistan is.

After World War II, as Indian independence grew nearer in time, the British and the western nations realized that an independent India under congress would have no part in containment of Soviet Union. In fact we would have a very close and beneficial relationship with the Soviets. The high point was the 1971 Treaty which Indira Gandhi entered with the Soviets. This posed a dilemma to the north Atlantic nations. You see by giving India independence as it stood, would have left the Soviets underbelly of central Asia totally invulnerable. Also the soviets would have got via Indian Baluchistan or Sindh a deep water port in the Arabian sea and by extension to the Persian Gulf. This was loath to the north-Atlantic nations.
US and Germany went to war in WWI due to sinking of an american liner in 1917. That is half the truth. The real reason was the support that Germans were giving to the Mexican authorities. And why was Mexico important to US and Britian? Because British Royal Navy had converted its ships from coal to oil. A significant part of the oil came from Mexico. The Royal Navy remained the reason that Britain survived the WWI and WWII.

It is with this background that Pakistan was created. A country which would safe guard Western Oil Interests of Persian gulf. That is why after getting all the current 4 provinces of Pakistan when Jinnah wanted more, specifically the whole of punjab (present day Indian Punjab, Haryana and Parts of Himachal) and Indian Northeast, the Britishers, specifically Churchill, told Jinnah that the 4 provinces would all that he would get. After all they did not want a Pakistan which could stand on its own feet. A Pakistan dependent on the west would be amiable to its interests and pressure.
Just as it takes two hands to clap, there was a willingness on the Pakistan side too to serve the western interests. And Pakistan did an admirable job on this. It has provided armed personnel to the west asian nations for their internal security and for defense against external aggression. It is also provided nuclear umberlla to KSA and other gulf sheikdoms.

There was another very long term interest. Pakistan remains the only country which can significantly pose a threat to North-Western, Central and Western India. Due to the peninsular nature of India, a naval blockade of India would require massive resources and would most likely fail. Unlike the germans in WWI and WWII who could be bottled up, by just closing the north sea. India cannot be bottled up like that in a naval fashion. Also unlike China which has a longer coast line than India, Chinese coast line is 14,500 ksm long vs 7517 kms for India, China can still be bottled up by the so called first island chain and the second island chain. The only way to invade India and its vast gangetic plain would be via Pakistan. If Pakistan did not exist then the enemy would have to come via central Asia and/or Iran. An unappealing prospectus to say the least.

Let me digress a bit and tell you a short story. This is a fictional story and it is featured in the novel "Fall of the Giants" by Ken Follet. In 1917 Britain, A young boy by the name of Billy joined the British Army by faking his age. He was actually underage but he still wanted to go and fight the krauts. His father David was not inclined to see his son go and destroy himself. On eve of Billys departure this short conversation took place
David (Billy's Father): "Why do you want to go to fight this war?"
Billy: "The Germans have got to be Stopped. They think think they are entitled to rule the world. "
David (Billy's Father): "Billy Boy it is not the Germans who think they should rule the world - its us"

US and China main goal is to see that Pakistan does not go under. It is one of the main convergence point for both of them. For the sake of so called Balance of Power. They will fight to be the top dog in Islamabad, but they have the same aim. And they have divided the responsibility beautifully among them. US will provide the economic and civilian assistance, which China is unable to provide. China will provide the military assistance, which US and/or west is unwilling to provide. US and China will use Pakistan to fight islamic terrorist that each other faced today. Tomorrow they will use it to fight India. Just as the Nazis were used to fight the soviets or the white Russians to fight the Bolsheviks.
It is in this context that the statement made by Obama in China should be seen. I am copying the relevant portion below

The two sides (i.e. China and US) welcomed all efforts conducive to peace, stability and development in South Asia. They support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan. The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.

We in India got all worked up about this statement, never realizing that they were stating the obvious point.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Feb 2011 19:37

What is china's relationship with Pakistan?

Pakistan approached China for help against India in an era when China was still an international pariah. American planes had landed in India during the 1962 war as the IAF went unutilized. Three years later Pakistan was begging China. Also at a time when anything that came out of China was considered junk, Pakistan gratefully accepted and bought modifies up MiG 19s from China in the form of A-5s that I believe have only recently been withdrawn from PAF disservice. For these China has been grateful. Later Pakistan mediated in reducing tensions with the US and China - upset by India's 1974 nuclear test, proliferated to Pakistan in an era when the US was firmly backing China. This was a reactive anti-India act.

China's initial relation ship with Pakistan as decidedly anti-India. The idea that Pakistan could be a conduit for Chinese goods and oil for China came only after Deng Xiaoping and China's economic turnaround. More recently China has found that it is under pressure from he US in a way that only the US can apply on any nation and has desperately sought ways and means of bypassing the trump cards the US holds against China militarily. I would not be fooled by the fear and respect that is being shown to China by US sources nowadays. The US is not top dog for nothing. All nations that the US seeks to dominate are first hyped up as an entity to be feared. Right no China is getting that treatment.

The Chinese know that if push comes to shove, the USN navy will dominate China. Hence China's desperate if late attempts to acquire carriers and carrier killing capability. But I digress.

Pakistan's role in the Chinese game plan is to serve as a land route to the Indian ocean through which oil can flow in and goods can flow out with less risk of domination by the US. From 1990 until 9-11 Pakistan was "open territory" where China could make plans. The JF-17 Thundaaar - the pride and joy of Pakistan is a case in point where US, Chinese and Pakistani interests merged. The JF 17 project has its origins in 1991 when China approached Grumman corp in the US to provided a design for a fighter to replace the Mig 21 clones of the PLAAF. Grumman puled out but the plans went ahead and Pakistan joined in 199 looking for a new fighter to replace the Mirages. Eventually the JF-17 came out. The Al Khalid tank is anopther example of Pakistan-Chinese cooperation in which Pakistani requirements and technical inputs were given to China for co-development. In both cases the level of industrial development require for manufacture was kept simple enough for manufacture in Pakistan.

Clearly Pakistan has done more to help develop and export Chinese arms than they could possibly do for the US. China has developed deep links with the Pakistani military and those links are not likely to vanish anytime soon. In the meantime China attempted to do something for itself. China has attempted to reach agreements to build the infrastructure for roadways and the Gwadar port in Pakistan.

But 9-11 came in the way. 9-11 put America back inside Pakistan. This may not have gone against Chinese plans, but i believe it did, because almost overnight the Pakistani military acquired a new look from an infusion of new equipment. Pakistan was always accustomed to Western levels of technology and their cooperation with the Chinese has always sought to improve the level of Chinese technology to suit Pakistan's superior expectations. The US provided a flood of aid virtually transforming the Pakistani army. China perhaps lost some business from US aid, but nothing would have mattered if China could have continued its job of making inroads into Pakistan with a view to developing one jewel in the mythical "string of pearls".

But the events after 9-11 have led to a destabilization of Pakistani society that is currently unprecedented putting a spoke in Chinese plans to build the infrastructure it needs in Pakistan.

China is interested in

A stable Pakistan that China can do business with and utilize as a link to the Indian ocean
As an ally in subcontinental or global dominance
China, like the US, does not worry about Pakistan;s system of governance
China like the US, backs the same horse, the Pakistani army

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Feb 2011 20:03

PRC China does not have any friends. The only friends that can be considered are NK which is truly a client. Pakistan is the closest mil buddy

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Feb 2011 20:05

i think that whilst american and chinese interests had coincided in the past over pakistan, currently they have diverged. they are vying for dominance in the region, unkil overtly, dragon covertly. americas interest in containing india has waned, it is now more intersted in containing china. incidentally, i think previous policy towards india was seen through soviet tinted lenses - india per se was irrelevant to them
the great game over oil continues, just that some of the players have changed. pakistan remains geopolitically significant, but not for the reasons they think. keeping india down is a by-product of the game (for unkil) not a main objective. vice versa for china.
i imagine that poeple in DC are scratching their heads wondering why india does not snap up the opportunity to become a poodle... this must be causing the americans quite a lot of takleef... afterall, far mightier nations have already accepted and knelt down to kiss the ring
its all mafia wars in the end...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Feb 2011 20:10

shiv saar,

I commend you on your dedicated efforts on this thread and elsewhere to dive into the subject matter in a constructive and structured manner.

In the end, the aim is to get Indian domination over the region covered by Pakistan/AfPak, and to throw out both USA and PRC. It is the path to this goal that occupies us.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Feb 2011 20:18

Lalmohan wrote: americas interest in containing india has waned, it is now more intersted in containing china. incidentally, i think previous policy towards india was seen through soviet tinted lenses - india per se was irrelevant to them

Soviet was just an excuse.
India was and is still demographic threat for US and the west.
It has mainly to do with the different racial stock.

Indian geo graphy is another area for control and dominance due to proximity to ME gulf oil.
This makes India for containment or for coption

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Feb 2011 20:24

i dont agree acharya-ji, we were largely irrelevant to them (the US), we were has beens like all the historical asian powers, the european order that had replaced us had been dismantled, the future would be an american one, balanced by the evil soviets who had to be overcome by any means necessary
they just weren't that into us from 1945 to 1985
(sometimes it sucks to learn that someone couldnt be bothered to care about you... )

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Feb 2011 20:29

Lalmohan wrote:i dont agree acharya-ji, we were largely irrelevant to them (the US),

This is b cus india was contained for many decades and after partition India had to take care of regional issues. By containment India was not to be bothered and could be even neglected by the developed world for many decades and not invited to any global platform

(sometimes it sucks to learn that someone couldnt be bothered to care about you... )

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Feb 2011 20:33

John Garver wrote in 2002 (this is in a collection called Asia 2020)
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Libr ... &id=101060

1) Chinese support for Pakistani initiatives directed against India.
Regarding Chinese support for Pakistanís anti-Indian initiatives, including Kashmir, Beijing has clearly distanced itself from Pakistan as Sino-Indian rapprochement progressed. Beijing has attempted to disentangle itself from the India-Pakistan conflict. Beijing apparently concluded that close alignment with Pakistan against India would severely constrain the development of Chinese-Indian ties. Conse- quently, Beijing moved toward neutrality in important areas of the India-Pakistan conflict. Beijingís objective became development of cooperative, friendly ties with both India and Pakistan, and this precluded supporting one side against the other on several issues.

This shift was manifested first and foremost in a shift in Beijingís position on the litmus-test issue of Kashmir. During the 1990 crisis over Kashmir and ìKalistanî/Punjab, Beijing responded to strong Indian pressure by dropping its long-time endorsement of a plebiscite in the Kashmir region in accord with United Nations resolutions of 1948-1949. Demand for such a plebiscite had long been and continued to be Pakistanís position regarding Kashmir. Between 1964 and 1990 it was also Chinaís position. In 1990, however, Beijing shifted course: it stopped referring to the United Nations and its resolutions in the context of Kashmir (except when Beijing wanted to needle New Delhi, as, for example, in the aftermath of Indiaís ìChina threatî justification of its May 1998 nuclear tests) . Beijing instead began extolling peaceful settlement of the issue via talks between India and Pakistan.

With the onset of Sino-Indian rapprochement, Beijing also began expressing private disapproval and public non-endorsement of some of Islamabadís more assertive efforts to challenge India. During the 1990 crisis, militants in Pakistan attempted to force their way across the border into India, and Indian forces responded by firing on them. Tension spiraled rapidly. In this situation, China urged moderation and abstention from violence on all sides. Beijing also declined to support Pakistani efforts to bring the Kashmir issue before the United Nations. Nine years later, in 1999, during the crisis created by Pakistanís seizure of mountain peaks on the Indian side of the Kashmir Line of Control and overlooking vital Indian road links
with Leh in Ladakh, Beijing once again rejected Pakistanís efforts to bring the Kashmir issue before international fora. And again Beijing urged both Pakistan and India to abstain from using force, to de- escalate the confrontation, and to resolve their disputes peacefully via discussions.

During roughly the same timeóbetween 1997 and 2001óBeijing also refused to support Islamabadís effort to create ìstrategic depthî in Afghanistan by supporting Taliban rule over that country. Beijing refused endorsement of and maintained a discrete distance from Pakistani actions in Afghanistan. While Beijing discretely explored the possibility of relations with the Pakistan-supported Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2000 and early 2001, it declined to move forward with those relations. When September 11 came, Beijing still hosted an embassy of the Islamic State of Afghanistan headed by Burhanuddin Rabbani of the Northern Alliance.

These post-Cold War shifts in Chinese policy came in the context of the continuation of several pre-existing Chinese steps toward disengagement from the Indo-Pakistani conflict. As Deng Xiaoping consolidated control over Chinese foreign policy in 1979, Beijing began urging improvement of India-Pakistan ties. Rather than taking Pakistanís side in that countryís disputes with India, as Beijing had done under Mao Zedong, Beijing began urging moderation on both sides. The rationale for this shift in 1979 was fear of Soviet encirclement via closer Indian association with Moscow, plus Dengís desire to create a stable environment for economic development by reducing tensions with all of Chinaís neighbors. But the policy of neutrality in Indo-Pakistani disputes continued with new meaning as Sino-Indian rapprochement gained steam after 1988. Yet another of Deng Xiaopingís post-1978 changes was to end the polemical war against India that Mao Zedong had ordered. Under Deng, Chinese references to Indian ìregional hegemonyî became far scarceró although, again, Beijing still trundled out these rhetorical blasts when it was particularly unhappy with New Delhi.

In sum, in terms of Chinese support for Pakistani political efforts against India in the South Asian regionówhether Kashmir, the achievement of ìstrategic depthî in Afghanistan, or the struggle against Indian ìhegemonismîóChina did, in fact, back away from Pakistan as Chinese-Indian rapprochement unfolded

.

After much further discussion he concludes:

What general conclusions are we then to draw from this survey of the several operational dimensions of the Sino-Pakistani entente listed at the beginning of this chapter? In terms of Chinaís support for Pakistani initiatives against India, Chinese policy shifted fundamentally, and Beijing adopted a neutral position toward such efforts. Military-to-military exchanges were somewhat reduced after the onset of Sino-Indian rapprochement, but were still robust. High- level exchanges of civilian leaders continued unreduced. Transfers of critical, strategic technologiesónuclear and missileócontinued unimpeded, and perhaps at an even higher level and with an even greater level of trust deriving from the increasingly long record of cooperation in covering up these covert transfers. Chinese support for Pakistanís efforts to develop its military industrial base did not diminish, but increased. Chinese support for Pakistani efforts to expand its regional links increased (as the thrice-promised discussion of Gwadar will soon show). Sales of conventional weapons continuedóand probably increased as the United States
bowed out of arms sales to Pakistan after 1990. Chinese deterrent support for Pakistan against foreign threats became more subtle, but continued in essence. Only in the areas of Chinese support for Pakistanís position on Kashmir and support for other Pakistani political-diplomatic initiatives against India does there seem to have been fundamental change. The conclusions drawn from these facts by analysts may vary. The conclusion drawn by this analyst is that China attempted to adopt a more neutral position in Indo-Pakistani conflicts, but remained solid in its support of Pakistanís efforts to defend its national security and sovereignty. In other words, the evidence, on balance, leads to a rejection of the hypothesis that Sino- Indian rapprochement has led to a weakening of the Sino-Pakistani entente.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Feb 2011 20:59

Lalmohan wrote:i think that whilst american and chinese interests had coincided in the past over pakistan, currently they have diverged. they are vying for dominance in the region, unkil overtly, dragon covertly.

Lalmullah - as I see it, the US and China's interests may diverge but in Pakistan there is only one group that has allied with both the US and China and only one group that has delivered anything to both nations - the Pakistani army. So both are rooting for and supporting the Pakistani army for that reason.

The Islamists of Pakistan, as represented by the Taliban on the one hand and the mango Abdul led by mullahs are all uniformly anti-American. Some of them are pro Chinese while the more radical ones have been anti-Chinese. In any case they do not enjoy the power and organization of the army to allow China to "do business" with them. The Islamists are less concerned about foreign policy (apart from India) and more concerned about local issues which they blame on foreign agents. Since the Islamists are barking up the wrong tree anyway there is no way they can be coopted as allies. The politicians of Pakistan have long ago been castrated by the army. They are fit for talking only to India and that is what they do.

So the condition and power of the Pakistani army is of utmost importance to both the US and China and neither of them is able to help the army with anything other than making it more powerful against India. Both have done that consistently - perhaps for want of anything else to do. For the first time it appears that the Pakistan army cannot ride roughshod over everyone else in Pakistan. The army after years of getting wealthier and more militarily powerful and influential has allowed governance to slip so far in Pakistan that it is unable to dominate. Both China and the US stand to lose if the Pakistan army shows signs of disintegrating into factions. Both countries in my opinion are helpless. They cannot bring stability to Pakistan via the army and the army is all they have any relations with.

JMT

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Feb 2011 09:55

Sometimes one wonders why one has to worry about such a stupid country as China:
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/141 ... atest.html

China has blocked a microblog search of the Chinese name of the US ambassador after he was seen near a pro-democracy gathering, the latest in a series of run-ins between a possible US presidential candidate and the Communist Party.
...

Ambassador Jon Huntsman, a fluent Mandarin speaker tipped as a Republican US presidential candidate, was spotted in a crowd at a pro-democracy gathering outside a McDonald’s on Beijing’s Wangfujing shopping street on Sunday.

US officials later said he accidentally came across the gathering while out shopping.

....

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Feb 2011 13:07

shiv wrote:For the first time it appears that the Pakistan army cannot ride roughshod over everyone else in Pakistan. The army after years of getting wealthier and more militarily powerful and influential has allowed governance to slip so far in Pakistan that it is unable to dominate. Both China and the US stand to lose if the Pakistan army shows signs of disintegrating into factions. Both countries in my opinion are helpless. They cannot bring stability to Pakistan via the army and the army is all they have any relations with.

The present tensions within the Army and between the Army and TTP/Punjabi Taliban are the result of TSPA's need to do America's bidding in the AfPak region, to escape both itself becoming a target of the American firepower, but also to get good military hardware and earn some billions.

After AfPak and Iraq, USA has been sucked dry of any appetite for further military adventures, so the fear amongst the TSPA of an American retaliation has also diminished. An increased nuclear arsenal and a more consolidated strategic forces, also mean America would be wary of attacking Pakistan.

In parallel to this, Pakistan sees China as having improved its capacity to deliver the weaponry that Pakistan was trying to procure from the West. China's huge foreign currency reserves, also give Pakistan the confidence that America can be replaced.

So if TSPA breaks off with US, the rift between TSPA and TTP/Punjabi Taliban can also be healed. It is not permanent. The current instability in Pakistan could just be a short chapter in Pakistan's history.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2011 15:53

VikramS wrote:[

While the Pakjabi's may be dictating to the US, I see no signs of the same happening with China. And if Lal Masjid was truly carried out on the orders from PRC, then I see that as a strong sign of TSPA willing to go all out to please its new masters.

Vikram - it is clear that the Pakistani army will take orders from various masters. That is what everyone knows and that is what I am saying. The real problem that the army faces is making others in Pakistan folow its orders.

The consequence of that is that anyone (such as the US or China) who must get something done via the Pakistan army has his job held hostage to the army's ability or inability to do something, not just the army's willingness.

If the army is unable or unwilling to do something that job will not be done. So neither the US nor China can make the Pakistani army do something that it is unable to do although unwillingness my be overcome by bibery. Inability to force its control over various groups in Pakistan is an insurmountable problem. But I think it would be simplistic to look at examples like Lal Masjid or Davis while talking about what the Pakistani army cannot or will not do. One needs to go beyond symbolic newsmakers to see where the Pakistani army stands in Pakistan.

Pakistan is a nation. At least many Pakistanis call it a nation - as does Zaid Hamid. The UN recognizes it as a nation. It is to be expected from the government of a nation that the nation develops an economy that aids in nation building, production and transport of essential items and internal security in addition to external defence against enemies.

The Pakistani "government" has been the army for at least half the time. For much of the other half the army has dominated the civilian "politician" and has essentially castrated the political system. This need not be a problem provided the army has the leadership to actually fix problems that affect the country. If you leave out the past 60 years when governments have ignored education, birth control, tax collection and safety of minorities, you are still left with the here and now - the 2010-11 period in which the internal security situation in Pakistan is frightening. Law and order is all but absent over many areas. It is the duty of the government to maintain law and order in the country. The army, which has played "government" for half of Pakistan's life can clearly see that law and order is bad. In fact - for the first time in decades the army is under direct attack. Yet nothing, they are either doing nothing, or more likely - they are unable to stop those attacks. Apart from distribution, taxation, education etc, internal law and order too is slipping out of control and the Pakistani army which eagerly runs errands for the Chinese and Americans in exchange for toys to fight India cannot stop attacks against itself.

But the security situation in Pakistan is used as an excuse by the Pakistani army and establishment to say that terrorism in India is natural and justified and that the entire subcontinent will go that way. In fact this was this very argument that the Pakistani army started with to get concessions from the US. It was expected (hoped) that the Pakistani army would be able to get on top of the internal security situation as long as it was mollycoddled and bribed with sops against its prime enemy, India. But the Americans are learning that the Pakistani army has limits and that no amount of funding or arming will enable it to control internal security even if it is able to make spectacular one-off gestures like Lal Masjid.

That is a dilemma that the US currently faces more than China. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Chinese are already hampered by lack of security in Pakistan. Pakistan is facing what is essentially a civil war like situation. It will become civil war if the army steps in and the Pakistani army, sensibly, is keeping away from fighting the very Islamists who form its power base. Since the Pakistan army won't fight the war, anyone who wants to use Pakistan will have to be willing to fight that war against the Islamists. This is the possibility that the US is now struggling with - having fought that war by with Bredator djinns and by trying to get a reluctant Paki army to do the fighting.

But I don't see the Chinese succeeding where the Americans failed by using American methods. The Chinese may learn from American mistakes, but it may be too late to close the barn door. Even using its "good offices" China may be unable to stop Pakistan from spinning out of control.

What the Chinese could do is a different topic and I will probably get to that later.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2011 17:20

Since I am an Indian tying to think like a Chinese strategist about what to do in Pakistan, i will make certain assumptions about what I (China) want:

1) At all costs I want India to be opposed, hampered, thwarted, subdued, sidelined, troubled. I may sell stuff to India but I do not want to see any peace between Pakistan and India. Conveniently, the Pakjabi army, with whom I maintain a close relationship has this same wish regarding India.

2) I want Pakistan to serve as my land route to the Indian ocean. I am willing to invest the money to build roadways and railways and a port, but I will look at cost and efficiency. I will need a reasonable guarantee of security from Pakistan. About 50,000 Chinese workers will have to live in various parts of Pakistan for this work. Some will be families. They will need housing, shopping centers, entertainment and a reasonable quality of life to do this work. Pakistan will have to ensure that over the 2000 plus km route.

3) After the work is done - the route will have to work and be trouble free in shipping tens of thousands of tons of oil and minerals to China and finished products the other way.

The Pakistani army can currently guarantee number 1 above, but has not managed to achieve number 2 and as such 3 remains hypothetical. The Pakistani army is willing, but unable to provide the security. Can I grand poobah of the PLA do what the Pakistan army cannot do?

I think that China will have to learn where the Americans failed. After all the Americans paid the Pakistan army handsomely - but they are now being kicked out mainly because they are trying to fight Islamists in a country whose official religion is Islam and whose army refuses to fight the Islamists on behalf of the Americans.

Why would the Pakistani army fight the Islamists of Pakistan on behalf of China?

The statements I have heard on the forum is that Islamists in Pakistan have a special hatred for the US but will be happy to follow China. So if the Pakistani army switched its source of support from the US to China, the Islamists would drop their fight against the Pakistan army since the US would have been sent packing. Then China can have its way in Pakistan since there would be a dramatic shift in the internal security situation in Pakistan. Attacks on the army would stop and the Chinese would be welcome to set up industries and roads in Pakistan and treated as special guests who need have no fear in Pakistan.

To me this sounds like a specious argument with no supporting facts other than Pakistani obsequiousness and a tendency to make wild promises to anyone handy. The Americans have become inconvenient because of a very very Islamic reason. The Chinese have every reason to be wary of Islamists. Xinjiang remains a tinderbox. China has shown the resolve that it takes to crush an Islamist rebellion in Xinjiang. On the other hand, other than a token action in one Islamabad mosque, the Pakistani army is showing reluctance to oppose Islamists to such a degree that they want the generous Americans out, rather than opposing those islamists. It sounds very very far fetched to expect the same Pakistanis to crack down on any Islamists, should they start kicking up a ruckus on behalf of Islamic Bilathels in Xinjiang. It is in the interest of the Pakistani army to express deep and unstinting support to China. But their willingness to crush an Islamist rebellion if push comes to shove would be suspect at best. At the very least this is not a bet that one could place confidently and expect to win.

So China should not make the error of picking a fight against islamists in Pakistan. China would do well to support Pakistani Islamists and support the Pakistani army. Do you see where this is going?

1) China must support, and not fight the Islamists. China must not do what the Americans did
2) The Americans originally did not want to pick a fight with the islamists. The coopted the islamists to do their bidding and the Pakistan army used its influence to make the Islamists do America's bidding.
3) But China can support the Pakistani Islamists and nothing will go wrong...
4) But that is exactly what the Americans thought
5) And China must not do what the Americans did
6) Therefore the Chinese cannot support the Islamists
7) Go to 1

This business of supporting/not supporting Islamists etc looks bad. China could think of something original - and that "original thing" may be unsavory for China and unimplementable by the Pakistan army. That would involve a reduction of tension with India. But that goes against the basic premise of China's relationship with Pakistan as stated at the top of this post.

catch 22

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Feb 2011 18:21

Published on Sep 19, 2010
The story of two Kashmirs: Organiser

Now, on to how China handled Xinjiang, its Kashmir and integrated it with its mainland. Xinjiang has a population of 20 million plus. The Uighur Muslim constitute 45 per cent, other Muslims 12 per cent and Han Chinese 41 per cent. What was the Han population in Xinjiang in 1949? Just six per cent. In six decades it has risen by seven times. This change did not occur by itself. China did not just trust army or administrative control of its territory in Xinjiang. It trusted only its people. It ensured that the Han Chinese slowly began populating Xinjiang. The result is self-evident. But the 41 per cent Han Chinese population does not included defence personnel and families, and unregistered migrant Chinese workers.

The reason, I've posted this article is to show that the Chinese have a strategy on how to get control over Xinjiang (East Turkestan) and its Uyghur minority.

Demographic Reengineering in East Turkestan
Strategic Relationship with Turkey
Patronage of the TSPA/Islamists in Pakistan
Keep the Uyghur Conflict under the radar of the Ummah

There are several reasons why the bonhomie of the Americans and the Islamists could not last, and they had a fall-out!

Historical baggage - Crusades, Colonialism by West
American support to dictators in Middle East
American boots in Saudi Arabia
American support to Israel
American cultural invasion of the conservative Muslim societies
Afghanistan Invasion and Occupation
Iraq Invasion and Occupation

Can the Chinese also show a similar CV?

What can be a point of conflict is if too many Chinese workers in Pakistan follow "decadent Western" lifestyles in Pakistan, e.g. putting up massage parlors open to Pakistanis, etc, which in fact led to the Red Mosque crisis. Another scenario for possible conflict is if gangs, Islamist groups, which are at variance with the Government in Pakistan, which too can be fully Islamist, so it is no certainty that such conflict should exist, decide to kidnap Chinese workers to put pressure on the "Islamist" authorities.

In an anti-American Islamist Pakistani political setup, the conflict between the Government and other Islamist groups "should decrease", decreasing also the possibility of too much internal instability. Also the Chinese can be asked to restrict their "decadent values" footprint in Pakistan, and they do not lose much by complying.

I don't see why the Pakistani Islamists and the Chinese cannot lead a happy married life?!

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 27 Feb 2011 19:05

To Assess the respective roles of the US and China vis a vis Pakistan, We have to look at their strengths, weaknesses and necessities respectively .We then have to see what’s in it for the Paki Jarnails ,Politicians, Mango Abduls and mullahs with regards to what Chipanda and Amir Khan can give to the above named people.

USA ;-

Strengths :-

1) They have a lot military assets in Afghanistan and Pakistan (drones... whatever else).
2) Most of the politicians in Pakisatan are their clients or clients of US friendly states.(UK, Saudi Arabia)
3) Over the years, they may have good sources of informations in the RAPE class & Army.
4) They bring in the moolah(aid,baksheesh) & weapon systems that the jarnails want. Heck, without US Aid, the jarnails might not be able to pay the mango abdul soldiers.

Weaknesses :-

1) The mullahs and pakjabi Taliban are against them. Alkeeda sponge off these cockroaches.
2) Pakisatan are playing “choli ke peeche kya hain” with chipanda.
3) The huge 14 trillion dollar deficit means they don’t have money to throw around
4) Pakisatan may be a very strategic piece of land for mir Khan as if they lose pakisatan, unkil has no foot hold from Israel to South Korea(barring minor gulf sheikhdoms) & pakijarnails know this.
5) India is claiming its pound of flesh. Unkil can’t hunt with the hounds and run with the hares any more. Increasingly, India will become more assertive and demanding.
6) The anti immigration “tea partiers” of the Palin/Glen Beck/Limbaugh/bachman/Rand Paul arising in the old confederate states will result in aging US population with a gradually reducing tax base with concomitant increase in entitlement programs. This will happen over a 20- 30 year period.

Necessity :-

Pakisatan may be a very strategic piece of land for mir Khan as if they lose pakisatan, unkil has no foot hold from Israel to South Korea(barring minor gulf sheikhdoms) & pakijarnails know this. As a French Cable released by wikileaks confirms that “the west” have to prepare for these(India/Panda) to arrive in 10 years time”.If Amir Khan loses Pakisatan, they have no toe hold in apowerful neighbourhood.

Chipanda :-

Strengths :-

1) They have significantly assisted Pakisatan jarnails with strategic weapons like mijjiles and newclear bums. Pakisatan needs them for more reactors.
2) They share a land border and are investing in gwadar port are atleast contemplating development of KKH
3) They are flush with cash.Any one flush with cash, pakisatan will lift its lehenga. Everyone knows that!

Weaknesses :-

1) They have not cultivated the paksatani political class so much. Does it matter... Time will tell.
2) The mullahs and pakjabi Taliban are not entirely with them too. The uighurs may find sympathies with the mullah-pakjabi Taliban types.
3) They don’t have many friends in the region apart from NoKo.
4) They are trying to compete with Amir khan in trying to provide the jarnails with weapons platforms like JF-Bandar types.
5) Is Chipanda willing to invest oooops sorry, put money down the toilet called pakisatan? Money,aid,baksheesh,back handers,weapons systems, strategic assets, cultivate their political class etc.... They have resources, but do they have the will? Is this cheaper than making peace with India? More and more, this will become a pertinent point for discussion within Chinese Strategic circles, in my view.

Neccessity :-

If they want to avoid the choke points of SLOC/Malacca Straits then they need to develop KKH/Gwadar and therefore need Pakijarnails.

Pakisatan :-

Strengths :-

To every other nation, these would be weaknesses, but curiously in this shit hole, it is perceived as a strength!

1) They are adept at placing the nuclear gun to their head. Pay Baksheesh or the new clear bum in a suitcase scenario in any of your cities. Is a thread.
2) Plausible deniability :- with their several LeT/JuD/TTP/LeJ.. sir ji they are non state actors onlee. Please help us find them.
3) Pakisatan is a snake that was/is and will be given milk by UAE,KSA and other Sunni Gulf Countries. Dus percenti is in Kuwait in the next few days to request ooooops beg for free oil onlee!
4) They are prepared to be your Bitch/Randi/Condom if enough baksheesh is given.

Weaknesses :-

There are many, but I will name a few.

1) The Paki Jarnails don’t control huge swates of their own country like Balochistan, NWF Provinces and perhaps Karachi. This means the jarnails can’t deliver their end of the bargain
2) The country’s economic problems are such that this snake needs HUGE baksheesh on a consistent basis.
3) The aam janta are so poor as the rich jarnails and RAPE class are siphoning off all they money. This means they can be unpredictable and so a tipping point may come like it has in North Africa and the Middle East and then tsunami will engulf every thing. To ward off such a tsunami the Saudi king announced 36 Billion, Billion starting with a B, dollars financial package to the people of Saudi Arabia. Will either Amir Khan or Chipanda do such a write off in TSP? I doubt it.
4) Although the country is a condom to Chipanda or Amir Khan, It seems to suffer from shortage of condoms. So their young talibunnies have no jobs, no prospects, no future(except if they want their jannat and 72 after soosai mission). It is a nailed on certainty that a people’s revolutionary tsunami will happen in the near future( within the next 10 -15 years) That will be a “black swan moment”. No one can do anything to stop it, just like the middle east/north Africa now.
5) India will grow...and grow AND GROW. There is nothing they can do “ to prevent us our tryst with destiny”.The jarnails might not accept it, but they know it.
6) At some stage both Amir Khan and Chipanda might feel making peace and improving relation shp and doing business with BHARAT is way way better and stable than Condom.

Necessisity :-

Pakisatan has no money and there is no Pakisatani control in vast swathes of Balochistan/NWFP and Karachi. This along with dire economical situation might lead to civilian unrest which cannot be controlled or predicted exactly by any one. To Prevent it, Chipanda or Amir Khan will have to FLUSH Billions. Will they? I doubt it.

CONCLUSION :-

1. Pakisatan falls bang in middle of 3 vectors, Amir Khan, Chipanda and House of Saud. Since 2 of the 3 vectors fall towards American control, It is my opinion that Amir Khan will retain that control for the forseable future.
2. No one controls/understands mullahs/Taliban completely. But via wahhabi/deobandhi madrassas funded by the Saudis, America will retain some control albeit indirectly.
The House of Saud has a lot of investments in the UK/US to ignore their requests.
3. Burgeoning population,lack of strong civilian control,rising illiteracy and poor employment( along with no country wanting any more talibunnies to come to their country). All this points to civilian unrest at some point in the near future.
4. At some stage, the cost of maintaining/propping pakisatan will more than the gain they achieve, so Chipanda and Amirkhan might balkanise Pakisatan to make it more fundable and manageable.

JMT.....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2011 19:13

^^

Where's the thumbs up icon when you need it. Maram I like your analysis

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Feb 2011 21:40

shiv wrote:Since I am an Indian tying to think like a Chinese strategist about what to do in Pakistan, i will make certain assumptions about what I (China) want:

1) At all costs I want India to be opposed, hampered, thwarted, subdued, sidelined, troubled. I may sell stuff to India but I do not want to see any peace between Pakistan and India. Conveniently, the Pakjabi army, with whom I maintain a close relationship has this same wish regarding India.

But Chinese strategists do not want India to be allied with the US of A either.

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 27 Feb 2011 23:11

@ Shiv ji--------> Thank You.

@ Rajesh A-----------> The story in China is incomplete for a variety of reasons. First we don't have any accurate, independent information from East Turkeministan/xianjiang region.

There are many Mill towns in Northwest England that have similar demographic profile. Areas like Oldham and Bradford have 60% British Pakistani population and this has happened over 30-40 years. There are lots of ethnic tensions.race riots have happened. Unite Against Fascism( an organisation of left wing liberals and british pakistanis) and EDL(English Defence League) a far right british group are regularly having fights with each other needing a lot of police on the streets of Oldham,Bradford and more recently in Luton(near London).

The point is when regional demographics change, it does not come without problems. For example a town called peterborough in Lincolnshire had a massive influx of polish immigrants in a 5 year period and it had its fair share of prolems. That news is suppressed.

why is Chipanda censoring words like egypt,jasmine revolution,tahrir square etc.. etc... The commie party know something that we don't. Flooding hans into Tibet and East Turkeministan will have its problems. no doubts about it.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 28 Feb 2011 01:05

I have more faith in TSPA's ability to provide a secure corridor from the Arabian sea to the KKH, if they have to. They may literally have to cede the corridor to the PLA, build electrical fences, and create a no-Abdul zone but they will do it; assuming that the price is right.

The PLA has a lot of experience creating no-Abdul zones and they can construct fast, really fast.

When it comes to feeding the Abduls, the KSA will have to step up, if the US says bye bye. It is not that the US will forget about the region; it will just keep a low profile and request the Chipanda to share some of the windfall they get from a land-route.

Some of the internal fissures will genuinely subside if the US is forced to leave. What the Abduls will do is still an open question, but the cause-belle will be gone. The fissures will follow the down part of the cycle; how long the down part goes is hard to predict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the truly grand scheme of things, it is the role of Iran which becomes even more important. Both India and China are interested in access to Iran's hydrocarbon resources. However, so far the West/KSA/Israel is not willing to accommodate Iran at the table. If Iran does get accommodated, thinks change dramatically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCP will nip anything which is even remotely considered dangerous. So censoring words is all in a day's work for them. Do not see more into it.

I also not so sanguine that the USN will dominate China, if the push comes to shove. First of all, I very much doubt that the push will come to shove. It will all be shadow boxing as in the previous cold war. Further, regardless of what we think, there is enough firepower within the PLA arsenal to overwhelm at least a part of the USN's defensive shield. The PLA has demonstrated the ability to destroy satellites, run cyber-wars etc. So the shield can be weakened long enough to allow some penetration. Do realize that all the CCP needs is an Hezbollah victory here. A few capital vessels hit or sunk, is all that the CCP wants.

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 28 Feb 2011 01:59

VikramS:-

Chipanda will not build the KKH- Gwadar project, as it is fraught with too many UNPREDICTABLE viariables.

They are :-

1)US can cause havoc( to China) in straits of hormuz. The 5th fleet is based in Bahrain.

2) Strategic bombing by air by the Indian Airforce/US Air Force of the KKH-Gwadar development will make Billions of dollars worthless. I am not saying that it is a certainity. It just a mere possibility.

3) Afghani Taliban/Baloch separatists/ jundullah/Baltiststan separatists/ Balwaristan separatists/uighyur people can sabotage the KKH-Gwadar development. Chipanda has a BIG problem with the Ummah. Chipanda is atheist.Atheist are kaffir in the ummah. It is not a big issue for now. That could very easily change in the future.

Who could predict in the heady days of 1988-89 when Tulibunnies/Pakisatan and GI Joe(there was even a Rambo Film made about this taller than mountains friendship) were best mates and were driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan that in less than a decade, US will fight Taliban and later get into soup with the ISI? If Chinese are reckless and do not learn from the past and go ahead with KKH/Gwadar development, history will repeat all over again. The world is littered with superpowers losing wars, remember vietnam and Afghanistan....

4)Will it be cheaper and best for Chipanda to make peace with India rather than develop KKH-Gwadar development, protect it, invoke Amir Khan's wrath via 5th fleet in straits of Hormuz???

5)China's economy is well integrated with the global regulations and global financial institutions. They have a burgeoning trade relationship with India. US remains their numerouno export market. If they screw this up, it will affect the bottom line of the chinese people("its the economy stupid" from Shri Clinton comes to mind... remember all global politics is actually local). Whenever bottom lines are affected, revolutionary tendencies of people flare up. would the commist politburo want to risk it?

6)No one in the world today can play the zero sum game. That's 20th century geostrategic politics. China knows the red lines with India(even 0if it does not acknowledge them publicly)( http://www.hindustantimes.com/Charm-def ... 63694.aspx).(MMS spoke about china's increasing assertiveness/ Dalai Lama visited Arunachal Pradesh/MMS visited Arunachal Pradesh & Tibet was not included in the Wen Jia Bao/MMS joint statement recently).

China has been operating on the 1962 psychological scar for too long.Things have changed since than. They have not developed a coherent policy vis a vis India yet.

The Chinese also can't dictate terms to the US,beyond a certain point.US know it. Chinese know it.

7) With regards to Iran, America has bases in Iraq. They have bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain right opposite iranian maritime borders. Lets face it, America surrounds Iran all round except caspian sea in the north. Only an insane ( the chinese are Tao/Confusius/sun tzu and all that and so they are wise!) would think the chinese have even a wild chance of getting into Iran.

There is a big difference between wanting it and actually getting it!

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 28 Feb 2011 02:57

Shiv ji,

Delving into this topic further, I feel this article is worthy of consideration :-

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... or-eurasia.

The article is written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs in 1977-81

"AXIAL EURASIA

Seventy-five years ago, when the first issue of Foreign Affairs saw the light of day, the United States was a self-isolated Western hemispheric power, sporadically involved in the affairs of Europe and Asia. World War II and the ensuing Cold War compelled the United States to develop a sustained commitment to Western Europe and the Far East. America's emergence as the sole global superpower now makes an integrated and comprehensive strategy for Eurasia imperative.

Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world's overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's.

Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy."

The above bit is perhaps the concise summary. We have not included Russia into the mix.

The classical Geo Stegy for most is that US is one pole and China the other with India playing the vote of "swing state".

I propose USA as one pole and China as the other pole with both Russia and India able to play the vote of "swing states".This is a scenario over the next 10-15 years perhaps.

The big prize is Central Asian Oil ( the next 10- 15 years).(http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipelines.htm).

In the link above, I direct your attention to point 3( CAR oil into iran and out). That is America's play. China want to stop it/interrupt it/delay it. They may compromise for a slice of the action. There are many deals done between Russia and China about access to CAR Oil. The Pain in the A*** is they have to go through Chechnya, a very volatile region. This again brings China into confrontation with Islamists.

I came across this advert, when I was researching this topic.(http://www.argusasiafsu.com/). Interesting meeting. Hope some Indian Consular official at a low level attended this summit. I can only wish.

Read the BBC link :-
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10185429)

I direct your attention to change the green button from oil production to oil reserves. You will notice Kazakhstan is the game in town. It has large oil reserves and limited ways to access it. That will be a considerable factor in the US-ChiPanda- Pakisatan game. I have'nt seen any open source material on this matter.

Cyril Radcliffe was a very devious cartographer, when he vivisected India into Pakisatan and India !

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 28 Feb 2011 05:39

Maram:

First of all, I find the notion of the US Fifth Fleet or Indian/US strategic bombing deterring China from building more transport lines unrealistic. Unless it truly hits the fan, the US and China will not be firing at each other. They might use proxies, and shadow box, but a direct bullet is an escalation which will not happen unless the gloves are truly off.

The same US 5th fleet is not stopping oil shipment to China or is it? By your logic the Chinese would now be starving of oil and all the other resources they are importing from Eurasia, and Africa. And the 7th fleet could do little in 1971.

In a multi-polar world these fleets are there to preserve the status-quo or whatever new balance emerges. Their role in altering the status-quo especially with relation to major powers is limited. In a lot of ways the India-TSP situation plays out at higher levels and bigger powers too.

I do not see what you want to say about Iran either.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iran/Oil.html

Iran is the second largest producer of OPEC oil. Its primary customers are Japan, China and India. Clearly the US 5th Fleet is doing little to stop those exports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's primary motivation would not be to prevent choke points; it would be to buy influence and get access to its share of the loot. There is no doubt that China has a seat at the table; their focus is to make sure they get the rewards for it.

Clearly, it is in China's interest to have peace and a mutually beneficial relationship with India. However over the past fifty years, their actions have yet to confirm that intent (if it actually exists).

The question of course is whether China can be co-opted to become a partner in the allowing the TSP to find its ultimate destiny. The way I see it, China will agree to that only when it becomes a stake-holder in the new order which also guarantees a proportional share of the Central Asian resources.

It is in this context that I see Iran as a lynch-pin. If Iran is accepted at the table, and out of the axis of Evil, the value of the trade corridors increase substantially to China. That perhaps may be the incentive for China to actually consider giving up on the TSP. Unless and until, the incentives for China are sufficient enough it will not agree to give up on the TSP.

And if they do not give up on TSP, it will be back to square one for India. Whether the Chinese will be good or worse for India vis a vis the US, is what we are trying to determine.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Feb 2011 06:08

Maram, In 18th century,Britain and France were the super powers who were fighting wars all over the world except in Europe. Napoleon came and changed that leading to Waterloo. 20th century saw US and FSU fighting proxy wars. I dont think US and PRC will fight not even proxy wars. The wars will be ishara wars in economy, trade, raw materials all except shooting wars. Current Arab protests will lead to a weakening of forces against US.

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 28 Feb 2011 06:44

ramana wrote:Maram, In 18th century,Britain and France were the super powers who were fighting wars all over the world except in Europe. Napoleon came and changed that leading to Waterloo. 20th century saw US and FSU fighting proxy wars. I dont think US and PRC will fight not even proxy wars. The wars will be ishara wars in economy, trade, raw materials all except shooting wars. Current Arab protests will lead to a weakening of forces against US.

Ramana Garu,
Food for thought!

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 28 Feb 2011 06:51

VikramS ji,

The status quo is Iran is encircled by US all around.If Chipanda wants to change that they would have to change the status quo, which is extremely unlikely.

US accepts India/China getting oil from Iran whilst they siphon off Saudi Arabia. making Iran come out of the axis of evil means enraging the sunni countries.If uncle favours eyeran even by a cat's whisker than the sunni countries will explode. arab-persian equal onlee is the game in town.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Feb 2011 07:16

Vikram - I believe China is emerging from a state of paranoia about the US. In my view the paranoia is only half gone. I also believe that the paranoia, from a Chinese viewpoint is perfectly justified. The US has been dominating China on its east coast for decades and there was little the Chinese could do if push came to shove.

The expression "If push comes to shove" has a curious psychological significance. No matter how unlikely "shove" might be - the party that sees itself as being shoved by the one who shoves will worry. It was always China who was in that position vis a vis the US. It is only after the Chinese economy boomed and after the recent economic recession that China has gained new respect from the US. Sorry to keep sounding like an old man on here - but in the early years of BRF - in the late 1990s - US articles about the Chinese armed forces were contemptuous. I deeply regret not having had the system I now have of archiving articles such as the one that described PLAAF pilots of training on wooden dummy aircraft because of lack of oil. Late 1990s mind you.

And as China's economy boomed they came up with a lot of weird ideas - and as always there was someone to summarize those ideas in a catchy phrase that took on a meaning beyond reality. I am actually referring to the mythical "String of pearls" - which gave China a reputation in India that made India the worrying party in case of "push comes to shove". If you remove Indian dhoti shivering from the "String of Pearls" concept - you find that it was only a Chinese attempt to try and keep its own sea lanes open against a dominating US. Most people on Bharat Rakshak are at their happiest while discounting India as any force worth reckoning with and hence I exclude India in this calculation, although Indians did the maximum browning of dhotis while talking of the string of pearls. That only goes to show how vulnerable maritime party that sees itself as weaker might feel, and presumably indicates China's fear of the US Navy. And while the string of pearls did not attain fruition in the way it was advertised in the dhoti shivering media - the reasons were what you have stated when you say:

The same US 5th fleet is not stopping oil shipment to China or is it?

If you read what happened to individual parts of the string of pearls (I had posted links on this forum in the past) the Chinese clearly brought their abacuses out and found that it would be costlier to make that work and cheaper to ensure that push did not come to shove. But by then the Chinese government too was maturing in its thought - emerging from decades of isolation.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 28 Feb 2011 07:38

What does PRC want in TSP?

You guys are missing one of the most important thing.

PRC wishes to destroy India. It wants India taken out in every possible way. It just wants India destroyed thoroughly. To say that PRC wishes to see India boxed is gross understatement. It wants India to be set back centuries, if not melleniums. It does not want India in any shape or form to exist---Not the idea of India, nor the culture, nor the religion, nor the nation itself.

The cold calculation is that PRC wants TSP-India war to turn nuclear. PRC would be delighted to see India nuked. Nothing would please PRC more than to see mushrooms of clouds in every Indian city. PRC has done the most brazen nuclear proliferation to one of the most bestial and foolish nation with intentions more bestial than our imagination can comprehend.

Rest are just details.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 28 Feb 2011 09:16

surinder wrote:What does PRC want in TSP?

You guys are missing one of the most important thing.

PRC wishes to destroy India. It wants India taken out in every possible way. It just wants India destroyed thoroughly. To say that PRC wishes to see India boxed is gross understatement. It wants India to be set back centuries, if not melleniums. It does not want India in any shape or form to exist---Not the idea of India, nor the culture, nor the religion, nor the nation itself.

The cold calculation is that PRC wants TSP-India war to turn nuclear. PRC would be delighted to see India nuked. Nothing would please PRC more than to see mushrooms of clouds in every Indian city. PRC has done the most brazen nuclear proliferation to one of the most bestial and foolish nation with intentions more bestial than our imagination can comprehend.

Rest are just details.

surinder:

I actually agree that the scenario you outlined has a finite probability which can not be ignored. China continues to proliferate to the TSP which is now racing to make as many bums as possible. So if you go by their actions, and not their words, they are preparing for that eventuality.

Over the next century, the only nation which has the demographic strength to challenge China in Asia is India. And a challenge right next door is a lot more dangerous and relevant than a couple of American fleets. At the end of the day it is the boots on the ground which matter.

I think it is really important that the voice of the people of China becomes relevant apart from the PLA/CPC. Otherwise there is very little checks and balances in the current system to stop any genocidal leader.

The TSP offers a wonderful opportunity for the PRC to settle the Indian case once for all. TSP is going down the drain; it does not have the land or the water to support the Jehadis. What better than to launch them to push India back many decades.

I have seen enough fatalistic rantings in various online fora to believe that at least a certain class of educated, English speaking TSPians are so obsessed with India, that they believe it will be an honor to die in a mushroom cloud as long as there is one in India too.

That is why I find all this talk of TSP is not worth it to PRC to invest in, a bit amateur. Of course if things continue to be fine in China, maybe that day will not come. Things however, will become truly interesting if there is an internal breakdown within China.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 28 Feb 2011 09:22

As far as reasons are concerned I will go by this

Acharya wrote:
India was and is still demographic threat for US and the west.
It has mainly to do with the different racial stock.

Indian geo graphy is another area for control and dominance due to proximity to ME gulf oil.
This makes India for containment or for coption

and this

surinder wrote:What does PRC want in TSP?

You guys are missing one of the most important thing.

PRC wishes to destroy India. It wants India taken out in every possible way. It just wants India destroyed thoroughly. To say that PRC wishes to see India boxed is gross understatement. It wants India to be set back centuries, if not melleniums. It does not want India in any shape or form to exist---Not the idea of India, nor the culture, nor the religion, nor the nation itself.

The cold calculation is that PRC wants TSP-India war to turn nuclear. PRC would be delighted to see India nuked. Nothing would please PRC more than to see mushrooms of clouds in every Indian city. PRC has done the most brazen nuclear proliferation to one of the most bestial and foolish nation with intentions more bestial than our imagination can comprehend.

Rest are just details.

To me every thing else is either details or spin (un-knowingly or deliberately) to justify US and Chinese actions. It is an extention of civilizational/racial undercurrent for US. For China it is pure competetion and it has to destroy India. These aspects are not going to change in another several hundreds of years. Even if it looks like changes they all will be circumstantial or change of power postures. India just have to plan around these and also inspite of these. There is absolutely no room for any middle ground except for continuous strategic compromises.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 28 Feb 2011 09:29

Maram wrote:VikramS ji,

The status quo is Iran is encircled by US all around.If Chipanda wants to change that they would have to change the status quo, which is extremely unlikely.

US accepts India/China getting oil from Iran whilst they siphon off Saudi Arabia. making Iran come out of the axis of evil means enraging the sunni countries.If uncle favours eyeran even by a cat's whisker than the sunni countries will explode. arab-persian equal onlee is the game in town.

Well the Saud exploded in rage when Mubarak was dumped (refused to take phone calls and what not). There is already an uprising in the Bahrein where the Sunnis dominate the Shia. And Bahrein is the home base of the US 5th fleet. So yes there is something happening, already.

Iranian encirclement is again a show of power. On the ground little has changed. Till recently BP was the biggest exporter of gasoline to Iran (they lack refineries). The elasticity in the price of oil is supposed to be 0.5% usage decline for every 10% move in price. Take out Iran's oil and you have oil prices in the $200-$300. Iran also knows that and in spite of N number of fleets, is showing the middle finger to everyone.

The scenario I was proposing was one, where the PRC has enough incentive to dump the TSP. In my view, legitimization of Iran is perhaps a key for that to happen. For all economic purposes, Iran is already legitimized by the actions of China/Japan and the military assistance from Russia.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Feb 2011 10:15

surinder wrote:What does PRC want in TSP?

You guys are missing one of the most important thing.

PRC wishes to destroy India. It wants India taken out in every possible way. It just wants India destroyed thoroughly. To say that PRC wishes to see India boxed is gross understatement. It wants India to be set back centuries, if not melleniums. It does not want India in any shape or form to exist---Not the idea of India, nor the culture, nor the religion, nor the nation itself.

The cold calculation is that PRC wants TSP-India war to turn nuclear. PRC would be delighted to see India nuked. Nothing would please PRC more than to see mushrooms of clouds in every Indian city. PRC has done the most brazen nuclear proliferation to one of the most bestial and foolish nation with intentions more bestial than our imagination can comprehend.

Rest are just details.

Surinder - I have no information to refute or support your contention - but if I contract my size 11 feet and put myself in Chinese shoes and try and think of how one might "destroy India thoroughly" I get some interesting thoughts. If I am not mistaken, Mao had stated that he did not care if the Chinese lost 300 million people in a nuclear war. That would actually make the population problem in China more manageable and there would still be 500 million Chinese left more than twice the number of Americans in that day and age. That had caused some browning of pants in various capitals.

I have echoed Mao Tse Tung in other threads and tried to calculate the cost of 500 nuclear weapons on India. Let us say for arguments' sake that all 500 are 1 megaton warheads so that we don't have to spend time with those who will argue that this is what China-Pakistan will throw at us an nothing less. I have tables that indicate that this type of attack will be hard put to kill even 500 million Indians. That may eliminate me and you, but it leaves behind 700 million at current population levels and aside from fallout - vast areas of rural India will remain untouched.

So yes, the possibility can't be discounted, but the idea of "destroying India" sounds more like a 1960s Bond movie villain's plans. At worst we may go back 1000 years. For some strange reason that thought does not worry me at all. Call me insane.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Feb 2011 10:28

http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-sh ... 110224.htm

How does this impact the role of 3.5 Lubers of Pakistan who keep the squeaker moving ?

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 28 Feb 2011 11:48

shiv:

The aim is not to destroy the billion plus people who live in India, but India as a nation. If all major urban centers, and military installations are destroyed, who or what will govern of what is left-over? Aren't their enough fissures within India, that without a strong central presence, it will just go into hundred directions, with each surviving local dada, trying to carve out a jagir for himself?

Further, after the loss of one third of its population, what kind of credibility will the remains of the central government have? Even now, there are many parts of India, where the writ of the formal law does not run, and sundry unlawful dadas call the shot.

What will prevent foreign powers from coming in and cutting the country up into their own regions of influence. After all, the Islamists, the EJs, the commies, have all cultivated strong constituencies within India. Why won't those fissures burst to the surface after such a traumatic experience? What prevents the 170 million Jehadis with 20 million AKs from the West running over what ever is left; they are anyway running out of land and water.

China could think of surviving a nuclear war because of geographic isolation. So once the Anglo world was taken down and China was left with 400 million, it could take on any one else in its geographic neighborhood. India unfortunately will not have that luxury. Neither does she have geographic isolation, nor does it have armed militias.

China may not do that by herself; but if she has thoughts of getting away by using the proxy of TSP, then it is not beyond the realm of imagination.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 28 Feb 2011 11:53

Prem wrote:http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-sh ... 110224.htm

How does this impact the role of 3.5 Lubers of Pakistan who keep the squeaker moving ?

It just gives greater incentive to them to keep TSP alive as a thorn in India's backside. The biggest loser of India's rise will be China. The Anglo-Urope might not like it, but India is too far away from their borders, to be a major issue. They will have other domestic issues to worry about then.

Sidhant · Post by **Sidhant** » 28 Feb 2011 12:27

Surinder ji, +1.

Vikram S ji, i don't think that India pak nuclear exchange will be a zero sum game. When mushroom clouds go over Delhi, Chinese cities will not remain immune to indian retun gifts. And what is true for india is true for china too. If there major economic/manufacturing centers go down they will be in a similar boat as India will be. As far as external influences are concerned, they don't need land borders to exert. I think China has much more to loose in such a scenario. Since china has already showed it's claws to the world now, any sign of they getting weaker and the world will pounce on them. If even small chinks in Chinese armour are exposed, the west and the rest of the world will not make the mistake of letting the dragon rise again coz the rest of the world has already witnessed how pissful the dragon's rise has been.

So though I am very sure China will be tempted to use Pakis to nuke India, they will not come out unscathed and the dream of Asian century will get delyed for atleast another 100 yrs.

Regarding US, they have always believed in balance of power and they would like their munna to stay afloat to keep India in check but they will not allow this munna to mortally burn India as they would like India to keep the dragon in check.

Bottomline, till US has infuence in Pak we might keep on seeing gruesome terrorist attacks and small concessions to TSP to keep it's ehandee intact but nothing devastating. But as soon as PRC takes control we can very well expect devastating blows on our economic and national security lifelines.

Currently US presence in af region has provided these Jihadis a ready target and somewhat tied down the TSPA in western sector. But once US and it's influence is gone, india will become a hot target and TSPA will be free again to implement it's sinister plans with impunity.

JMT

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Feb 2011 13:51

Maram wrote:CONCLUSION :-

1. Pakisatan falls bang in middle of 3 vectors, Amir Khan, Chipanda and House of Saud. Since 2 of the 3 vectors fall towards American control, It is my opinion that Amir Khan will retain that control for the forseable future.
2. No one controls/understands mullahs/Taliban completely. But via wahhabi/deobandhi madrassas funded by the Saudis, America will retain some control albeit indirectly.
The House of Saud has a lot of investments in the UK/US to ignore their requests.
3. Burgeoning population,lack of strong civilian control,rising illiteracy and poor employment( along with no country wanting any more talibunnies to come to their country). All this points to civilian unrest at some point in the near future.
4. At some stage, the cost of maintaining/propping pakisatan will more than the gain they achieve, so Chipanda and Amirkhan might balkanise Pakisatan to make it more fundable and manageable.

Maram ji,
thanks for your efforts in summarizing the strengths, weaknesses and necessities.

I have some difference of opinion on your conclusions though.

1&2. House of Saud is not the only Islamist power in game, or for that matter Wahhabi power in game. House of Saud and its supporters support the whole Wahhabization of Islam through their charities because that is their debt to Wahhab. Without their generous support to the cause, the House would lose their claim to the throne pretty quickly and all the wolves would be baying for their blood. Through this support, they do get a certain respect and influence in Pakistan.

At the same time, we need to talk about the "Wahhawolves" - rival more pious centers of power in the House of Saud, the Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Al Qaeda and Associated Movements.

The House of Saud is sandwiched between the other Islamic sects and the Wahhawolves, and they have only a free flow of petrodollar generosity and American support, keeping them above water.

The Wahhawolves are all quite active in Pakistan, often nurturing themselves through the Saudi generosity itself, and giving the Wahhabization its militant edge.

The claim, that the House of Saud together with USA have an edge over China, is misleading. I would say, the Wahhawolves weaken the hold of USA and House of Saud on Pakistan, and China profits from this weakened influence.

3. Consider a pyramid resting on its head with its base in the air. Depending on how flat and broad its head is, the more stability would be in the pyramid. Desperation, Anger at the Power Elite, High Expectations, Freedom and Military Capacity of the Base (which is in the air) would agitate it and cause it to tip over, toppling the power structure. But if the head (which rests on the ground) is broad enough, and glued enough to the ground, the turned over pyramid would remain stable.

Any society, Indian or Pakistan would follow this dynamic.

In Pakistan, what is happening is that the head of the pyramid (resting on the ground), which was made up of RAPE, Feudals, Army Jernails, had become weakened. The Islamists had made their way down towards the head of the upturned pyramid. When the head collapses under the weight of the pyramid, the pyramid would come to rest on the next layer - the Islamists.

Now the Islamists would be concentrating all power into their hands, i.e. building the glue to the ground, and this power would be fairly distributed and organized amongst the commanders of the Islamist set-up, whose aim would be to control their own little Islamic fiefdoms.

From the conditions necessary for the toppling of such a system, only desperation would be available but not much more.

No Freedom - One would not need to design some unnatural artificial new system of authoheritarianism. All the elements needed are available in Islam(ism). - Everything that doesn't suit the Islamist powers that be, would be officially against Islam, and as such would not be tolerated.

At the moment, the Elite-in-Waiting, the Islamists, have full freedom to hold the present government to ransom, be it through public rallies, be it through Ghazi Mumtaz Qadris, be it through the mosques and Friday prayers.
No High Expectations - It is education that causes high expectations in normal societies. The Taliban will see to it, that education is one-dimensional. Also the people are told that they will get all the want and need after they die - be it their 72s or two meals a day.

By always acceding to the demands of the Islamists, except in the case of the Red Mosque, the current Pakistani Elite has given the next layer of Elite-in-Waiting, the Islamists sufficient reason to hope for toppling the current system.
No Military Capacity - At the moment the Islamists have the military capacity. That is why they can threaten the current elite. When the Islamists take over, the question remains whether there would be sufficient military capacity left in the rest of the population. Most probably according to Islamic jurisprudence, all other elements capable of violence would be hanged for their non-Islamic ways, and the others would join the system as its foot-soldiers.

At the moment, the Islamists have sufficient power to cause chaos and to make pin-pointed attacks for psychological pressure on the current regime. In the Army also, the influence of the Islamists has increased. So they are in a good position to take over, especially because the cadre in the military would cooperate when the time is ripe.
No Anger at the Power Elite - When Islamists control the levers of power, the ordinary people would see their Islamist elite not in opulent robes, wining and dining with foreigners, but rather a pious bend of mind and attitude. The anger would remain contained.

At the moment, the RAPE wine and dine with the Kufr, with ideological enemies of Islam, they plunder their country, corruption is everywhere, so the Elite-in-Waiting, the Islamists can generate sufficient anger amongst the faithful to topple the current regime.
Contained Desperation - It is not just availability of food items that lead to desperation. Shoddy distribution can just as much be a culprit. We have seen Hamas, and other organizations with Dawas, putting up a good show at management of a public distribution system. It too can be emulated in Pakistan, and to some extent it already is.

The shoddy governance of the current regime has caused much poverty and disenchantment and desperation amongst the people, and it grows. That and the comparison to relatively well run dawas would give the general populace reason to welcome the Islamists with open arms.

So the conditions are such, that the Islamists can topple the current regime, if not right away, then some time soon, but the conditions would never be such, that an Islamist regime would be toppled easily in Pakistan, at least not for a long period of time.

4. Pakistan is Pakistan because it is a conglomerate of ethnicities and provinces, where the only glue to keep it together is Islam and the anti-India bogey. You start breaking up the place, and the region loses its current justification for existence based on its present India-centric Enmity. Why would USA and China want to do that?

Besides it may not be up to them as the current regime also has a say in it, and a future Islamist regime would have a lot more say in it.

When one speaks of propping up Pakistan, one should know, that most of the aid has gone into the pockets of various Jernails, Feudals and RAPE. Not much has really touched the poor.

Pakistan has been chugging along based on its own devices. It should not be forgotten that Pakistan is basically an agricultural country, with a relatively good system of irrigation. If they improve the available system, they could easily increase their productivity 2 to 3 times, and feed a twice a big population. Besides poverty in the world has proven that humans can survive at a much lower level of sustenance.

With respect to Pakistan, it is best to not read too much into economic woes. The economic woes only point to a regime change in Pakistan, a change to an Islamist regime. However it does not point to a Pakistan under the Islamists incapable of ruling Pakistan.

This thinking that USA and/or China cannot prop up Pakistan in the future is too optimistic and I dare say misleading for our strategy towards Pakistan.