US and PRC relationship & India

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 21 Aug 2010 07:20

I think China's fomenting of Maoists in Nepal is mainly due to fears of a rising India, but was immediately triggered by the arrival of US troops nearby in Afghanistan. At that point China realized that US could be in the region near its vulnerable western borders for a long time, and they decided they had to effect some changes in the area, in order to counteract the adverse situation that was brewing for them.

RamaT · Post by **RamaT** » 21 Aug 2010 11:24

Sanjay M wrote:I think China's fomenting of Maoists in Nepal is mainly due to fears of a rising India, but was immediately triggered by the arrival of US troops nearby in Afghanistan. At that point China realized that US could be in the region near its vulnerable western borders for a long time, and they decided they had to effect some changes in the area, in order to counteract the adverse situation that was brewing for them.

[Don't know if this is the thread to continue Nepal discussion, moderators please move if appropriate. Thx.]

I agree that China is engaged in Nepal as a way to counter India, saying it's because of 'fears of a rising India' is quite unlikely.

I don't believe China is 'afraid' of India in any major sense.. currently they have us strategically outmatched, larger navy/AF, better equipped Army and their trump card, a robust multi-leg nuclear arsenal that can reach every inch of India if they so choose. So China isn't afraid, in fact our politicians are the one crafting policies out of fear.

China is 'concerned' about India though.. absolutely, however I don't see how US troops in Af-Pak directly affect their policy via Nepal(please expand as I am quite likely missing something). Their policy with regards to the Nepalese maoists has been going on for well over a decade, and they are very close to their end-goal.. getting them in power and turning them hostile to India and friendly to China, see earlier response for reasoning.

Also, this is a much better articulation than mine of how screwed we are in Nepal.. http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2010 ... nepal.html

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 21 Aug 2010 20:59

We had a qualitative edge in the naval and airpower domains till not so long. But that got eroded as we sat on our collective behinds and China marches on qualitatively and of course quantitatively.

See we need to give credit where its due. They have better leadership and probably a braver leadership.

Even when their military tech was shit like in the mid seventies they tried to come up with an ABM system based on superguns (The Xiangfeng) and direct ascent interceptors. they weren't afraid to experiment. we true to our great Indianness dragged our feet on bread and butter stuff like weaponization and Project Devil while they were deploying their first nuke subs.

They also admirably weathered the isolation-interregnum spanning quite a few years between the tilt from the soviets to the yamrikhans when not too much technology flowed to them. But they persevered, stole, did whatever it takes.

Then they cleverly manipulated the yamrikhans to give them whatever they needed from processors to MIRVs. And got precision tooling capability from Germany and Japan.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 21 Aug 2010 21:02

and in India this nonsense of always asking for upgrades rather than moving in blocks has to be stopped.
There are certain strategic categories where having something deployed is better than having nothing at all because our 'uber uber' planned system is still in trials.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 21 Aug 2010 21:36

Cross Post

An Uighur Intellectual who won't back down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/world ... china.html

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 21 Aug 2010 23:11

One of the fundamental assumptions which policymakers throughout all the eras of Indic civilisation have been making is that the Gangetic plains are stonewalled by the Himalayas providing a natural barrier against invading forces. We have been marinated and steeped in this assumption for so long that it is even impossible for us to think that there might be invaders who have designs on the Gangetic plains through this route, however arduous.

It is almost like a circular argument, "Himalayas present hence absolutely no invader can cross-over" == "Absolutely no invasion can take place because of Himalayas".

Chinese are playing out the modern day Hannibal in what could yet be a second (Punic) war by largely proving the above assumption wrong. For the plains Han to be able to cross 3000 km of hostile territory and "ruled out" terrain to arrive at our doorstep, it is truly a commendable feat.

There should be more attempts to study mainland Chinese worldview, for all we know, they might be looking at us like we look at Panama or some other backwater nation.

As always, India will only move once "checkmate" has been unofficially reached, at this point the Chinese are still a stroke away. All iz well onlee.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 22 Aug 2010 00:13

Klaus wrote:One of the fundamental assumptions which policymakers throughout all the eras of Indic civilisation have been making is that the Gangetic plains are stonewalled by the Himalayas providing a natural barrier against invading forces. We have been marinated and steeped in this assumption for so long that it is even impossible for us to think that there might be invaders who have designs on the Gangetic plains through this route, however arduous.

This is totally wrong impression. If you read ancient history or even medieval history of Indian sub continent, there have been numerous instances of foreign tribes coming to India through Himalayas either for invasion, lured by its riches, or for trade and commerce. That has been for ages. Indic civilization has been /becoming stronger for each of these groups have dissolved into Indian System . Except for one Muslim invaders , they retained their individuality unmixed like water and oil. All things that are considered taboo on Sanatan Dharama are considered pious by them and are drummed into psyche of native converts,

So Himalayas may have been a formidable challenge for incomings or outgoings but that has not stopped frontiers facing challenges. It was in peninsular India that things were relatively untouched until Muslimsesp. Moughals showed up.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 22 Aug 2010 00:23

^^^ Oh no, when I said Himalayas, I meant only the Himalayas to the north and northeast, not the Hindukush or the Karakoram or the Pamir Knot range. I'm sorry if you read my post in an erroneous way, I was not talking of Islamic invasions, more so with the current thrust of Chinese power into Nepal.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 22 Aug 2010 16:30

Klaus wrote:^^^ Oh no, when I said Himalayas, I meant only the Himalayas to the north and northeast, not the Hindukush or the Karakoram or the Pamir Knot range. I'm sorry if you read my post in an erroneous way, I was not talking of Islamic invasions, more so with the current thrust of Chinese power into Nepal.

Never mind.

Not exactly Islamists , Mongol , saka, Hun , Kushan etc all came to India , one way or the other.

However Himalayas to the North and North East may be formidable, 1962 has given enough lessons to revise those assumptions. What we lack in is Strategic vision vis a vis China. However I feel Nepal would not be a cakewalk for China.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 22 Aug 2010 19:21

We can still take on Chicom if we just develop the kind of commitment to indigenization that they have shown.

Like a retired ex Air chief quipped the Indian mind will always be superior to their's. Its time we harnessed it rather than circumscribe it.

Fact is we did develop a way better tank than they have done with their Type 99 and 96 which at the end of the day are embellished T-72s. But while they would build 1000s because its indigenous we'll deliberately keep buying crap from elsewhere.
because we are like that onree.

No I don't think strategic alliances with one or the other XYZ is the key to countering China.

Domestic strength and self-belief is.

And when we really do that China will also take us seriously and possibly even come round.

Asian solidarity is the key.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 23 Aug 2010 03:58

D Roy wrote: Like a retired ex Air chief quipped the Indian mind will always be superior to their's. Its time we harnessed it rather than circumscribe it.

Good for morale boosting, bad to plan a stategy around.

D Roy wrote: Domestic strength and self-belief is.

And when we really do that China will also take us seriously and possibly even come round.

Asian solidarity is the key.

I totally agree with this. The Chinese are more rational than you give them credit for. If it's more profitable to engage with India, they will do it. But at this stage it's more profitable for the Chinese to suppress India.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 24 Aug 2010 06:59

I thought Samudra Gupta defeated some hoon tribe somewhere over Himalaya.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 26 Aug 2010 12:59

Interdependency Theory

The Chinese and Indian economies often elicit breathless admiration from commentators. In fact, domestic deficiencies and regional tensions mean that the rise of China and India is hardly assured.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... ncy-theory

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Aug 2010 13:51

TonyMontana wrote:I totally agree with this. The Chinese are more rational than you give them credit for. If it's more profitable to engage with India, they will do it. But at this stage it's more profitable for the Chinese to suppress India.

One key to Asian stability is the destruction of Pakistan. Once Pakistan falls, China would lose both its capability of boxing in India in South Asia in a constant struggle with Pakistan, as well as its ability to deny India's strategic value to both itself as well as to other powers like USA.

Only with a destroyed Pakistan, would India's true strategic value be acknowledged by the other powers. Peace with Pakistan does not give India sufficient boost in the balance of power equations.

China will bid for an entente with India, when it feels threated that their interests in South Asia and Indian Ocean Region are at risk without such an entente.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Aug 2010 15:45

rajesh, fully agree - the disintegration of pakistan (and its disintermediation in matters of importance) is overdue

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Aug 2010 21:23

x-posted...

chanakyaa wrote:I came across an interesting article in the WSJ about how what Southeast Asian countries have in mind to avoid being turned into a banana republic by PRC.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PU ... 87976.html
The rising labor costs represents an opportunity for countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia. These countries are pressing ahead with plans to stitch together the patchwork of nations into a common market and production platform by 2015. If fully realized, the project will include fewer restrictions on movement of skilled labor from country to country. Looks like the a southeast union (EU style) in the making (but, unlike EU, plagued with undeveloped legal system and corruption)….

Some thinkers in India also said this a month ago- the SE Asian (SMTPVIC) countries might take advantage of the laobr differnetial if it comes to that. This is another millstone around PRC's feet.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 27 Aug 2010 04:24

RajeshA wrote:
One key to Asian stability is the destruction of Pakistan. Once Pakistan falls, China would lose both its capability of boxing in India in South Asia in a constant struggle with Pakistan, as well as its ability to deny India's strategic value to both itself as well as to other powers like USA.

Only with a destroyed Pakistan, would India's true strategic value be acknowledged by the other powers. Peace with Pakistan does not give India sufficient boost in the balance of power equations.

China will bid for an entente with India, when it feels threated that their interests in South Asia and Indian Ocean Region are at risk without such an entente.

Easier said than done. Pakistan is too valuable to both China AND America for them to let it fall. And regarding the bolded part. Positive emotions trumps negative emotions everytime. Why does the Chinese have to fear? Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.

Why can't China bid for an entente with India over growth in trade?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 27 Aug 2010 05:01

^^^ We are Toydarian Baniyas. Jedi hand waving never worked with us since Gandhi became one with the Force, not even by beijing xiaojies. So you can put back that light sabre into your Third Gorge and flick the button on.

All right, new crap from our side: "Pakistan is an autonomous territory of India and our sarkari mullahs are more pious".
Post flood emotions are not easy to manage but *our mullahs* can help.

see? The "third eye" that Kissinger craps on his pants about.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 27 Aug 2010 05:34

Stratfor's Friedman:

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 27 Aug 2010 08:58

^ It looks like US has taken the supel powel certification away from China.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Aug 2010 09:58

ramana wrote:Playing Our Game
Oxford University Press, USA | August 5, 2010 | ISBN-10: 0195390652 | 280 pages |

Conventional wisdom holds that China's burgeoning economic power has reduced the United States to little more than a customer and borrower of Beijing. The rise of China, many feel, necessarily means the decline of the West--the United States in particular.
Not so, writes Edward Steinfeld. If anything, China's economic emergence is good for America. In this fascinating new book, Steinfeld asserts that China's growth is fortifying American commercial supremacy, because (as the title says) China is playing our game. By seeking to realize its dream of modernization by integrating itself into the Western economic order, China is playing by our rules, reinforcing the dominance of our companies and regulatory institutions. The impact of the outside world has been largely beneficial to China's development, but also enormously disruptive. China has in many ways handed over--outsourced--the remaking of its domestic economy and domestic institutions to foreign companies and foreign rule-making authorities. For Chinese companies now, participation in global production also means obedience to foreign rules. At the same time, even as these companies assemble products for export to the West, the most valuable components for those products come from the West. America's share of global manufacturing, by value, has actually increased since 1990.

Lot of BS

China is being setup as a global disrupter for the rest of the world including India and US will enjoy the benefits

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2010 11:16

TonyMontana wrote:Easier said than done. Pakistan is too valuable to both China AND America for them to let it fall. And regarding the bolded part. Positive emotions trumps negative emotions everytime. Why does the Chinese have to fear? Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. Why can't China bid for an entente with India over growth in trade?

The entente you speak of is one with China as the primary power in Asia setting the terms of that entente for India. India would rather have an entente of equals.

Chinese fear, we speak of, is the same fear America has, of losing its primacy. Its not a fear of being attacked.

The dynamics of Pakistan are such, that PRC and USA cannot save it, and if they save it, it will be in a form highly toxic to both parties - in an extremely jihadist form willing to bite both PRC in Xinjiang and USA the world over.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 28 Aug 2010 02:07

The Chimerica chimera

America is now staring at a fast re-arranging world, with many of the pieces outside its grasp. Foreign policy analysts call it a ‘multipolar’ world, which has been radically rearranged from the bipolar one that existed during the Cold War. Then it used to be a simple, straight fight between the American alliance and the Soviet bloc. America knew how to deal with that world of intrigue, force, power and naked military play. Today that black-and-white edifice has crumbled. The bad guys have gone, and the Soviet Union is no more.

Today’s equations are far more complex, and still evolving. By far the most important equation is the one being crafted between America and China. “Our future history will be more determined by our position on the Pacific facing China than by our position on the Atlantic facing Europe,” said Theodore Roosevelt almost a century ago. Somewhat later, the prediction is finally ringing true. British Historian Niall Ferguson calls it Chimerica, a new ‘nation’ that was born after the end of the Cold War. “For a time it seemed like a marriage made in heaven,” Ferguson wrote in The Ascent of Money. “The East Chimericans did the saving, the West Chimericans did the spending”. China grew furiously, and Americans gorged on low interest rates and inflation.

America has often leaned on China to play the good cop in North Korea. Since China supplies Pyongyang with almost all its oil, it enjoys some persuasive powers over Kim Jong-Il. America has often called in those favours, and China has obliged; in 2003, it even cut off fuel supplies to North Korea for a few days.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wants to use ‘smart power’ — a clever potion of military might, economic clout and cultural influence, a mix of the traditional strategies of hard and soft power — to deal with China. She believes that the 21st century should be a ‘multi-partner’, not a ‘multipolar’ world. Other advisers in President Barack Obama’s administration would like to replace the earlier ‘engage-and-hedge’ approach with one that ‘maximises opportunity but also manages risk’. The phrase in vogue is ‘strategic reassurance’. Whichever words are used to dress it up, the strategy has to be a 21st century variant of the ‘carrot and stick’.

Happily for now, an asymmetric dynamic drives the relationship between China and America. China exported over $350 billion worth of goods to America, and lent $800 billion by buying American treasuries in 2009. Just as China needs America’s markets, the US needs Chinese debt. Even a slight wobble in this equilibrium could throw millions of Chinese workers out of jobs, and push American interest rates high. Lawrence Summers has called it the ‘balance of financial terror’. But Americans can take comfort in their unquestionable military superiority over China. The economic might of the two may be converging. But the military equation is loaded in America’s favour.

Yet, China is a difficult country to fathom, and that troubles many Americans. Very little is known about China’s nuclear alert systems, or how close it is to mounting its America-range nuclear missiles on submarines. The Pentagon hasn’t been able to persuade the Chinese to send their chief of strategic nuclear forces to Washington; indeed, no American official has been allowed into the headquarters of the Chinese armed forces. The sophisticated Chinese war machine on display at the 60th anniversary parade created disquiet in the western world. It was mentally contrasted with the Soviet Union of yore, which was a weak economic power that tried to sustain a disproportionately large army, and eventually lost the plot. China, on the other hand, is first building a strong economy.

American policymakers dread the day that China is forced to ‘go it alone and create international organisations that fundamentally clash with US interests... which could make the future very uncomfortable for the United States’. They speculate on what would happen after China’s economy becomes larger than America’s. Once its military might is comparable, will China continue to be a good guy? Will its ambitions change once it has put a man on the moon (targeted for 2020), and mounted several America-range nuclear missiles on submarines lurking in the Pacific? Will a century-old history of humiliations and suffering under western powers uncoil into a primeval desire for retribution and dominance? Will China remain happy playing second fiddle to America, or will it carve its own spheres of influence, at least as an equal?

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 28 Aug 2010 05:32

China warns US against selling Taiwan radars

China objected Friday to a U.S. plan to supply radar equipment to Taiwan's air force, even though the sale was far short of the F-16 fighter jets the island's president urged Washington to provide last week.

The U.S. is obligated by its own laws to provide Taiwan defensive weapons.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 28 Aug 2010 05:37

China’s core interests

For the past 60 years, the Communist Party of China has ruled supreme over the Middle Kingdom. Chinese rulers are, however, anguished about the future of the Communist dynasty. They are aware that in the past, Heaven has withdrawn its Mandate from many dynasties, bringing disasters, famines, floods or earthquakes to different parts of the empire (it is happening right now) leading to the dethronement of the emperors. This is why, in June 2006 the State Council ordered an eight-episode TV research entitled Preparing For Danger in Times of Safety — Historic Lessons Learned from the Demise of Soviet Communism. The project was given to no less than the Academy of Social Sciences, the prime government think-tank. Party members were requested to carefully study and ‘discuss’ the conclusions offered by the Chinese president himself: “There are multiple factors contributing to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a very important one being Khrushchev throwing away Stalin’s knife and Gorbachev’s open betrayal of Marxism-Leninism.” Apart from the survival of the party, the PCR has a few core issues, namely Taiwan and Tibet and Xinjiang (which symbolise the stability — or instability — of the empire).

Tsang says: “By declaring the South China Sea a ‘core national interest’ and elevating it to the same status as Tibet and Taiwan, Beijing has marked another territorial claim. If this is not challenged, it will gradually gain de facto international acceptance, as its claims over Tibet and Taiwan have in the last six decades.”

According to the author there were four reasons for the US to send its carriers: (1) pushing China to buy more US bonds; (2) using war threats to hammer China’s development; (3) reducing US debt pressure; (4) confirming that China doesn’t dare to start a war. The author believed that Americans manipulated all of the issues troubling China (Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, India, Vietnam, the South China Sea, Mid-Asia, and Falun Gong). He argued that the right way to handle the US carrier situation was to sink the carriers having a joint naval exercise with South Korea in the Yellow Sea.

The peaceful rise of China will probably continue to be the official motto for some time, but many other forces are at play. Let us not forget that China is not a monolithic empire, but a puzzle of many disparate forces. Only the future will tell who will prevail. By the way, what are India’s Core Interests?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Aug 2010 12:29

Cross posting from the PRC thread.

Not realted to the khans, but, relevant to India and the PRC.

It’s the season for India versus China

An interesting extract from the article

As one China watcher told me, “The Chinese leadership know their growth rate is going to fall. And they worry about India beating them one day. But they calculate New Delhi will make a hash of it and miss the chance.”

Hoping that the enemy makes a mistake is not wise strategy.

JMT

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Aug 2010 12:32

Pratyush wrote:
Hoping that the enemy makes a mistake is not wise strategy.

Is that Sun Tzu?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Aug 2010 12:38

I don't know, just some thing I picked up from BRF.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 Aug 2010 19:33

Hard Decisions on Soft Power

Conclusions

It is not surprising to see Chinese leaders and academics referring explicitly to China’s soft power, and adopting policies to promote it. In a sense, this reflects a sophisticated realist strategy for a country with rising hard power. To the extent it is able to combine its hard power resources with soft power resources, it is less likely to frighten its neighbors and others and thus less likely to stimulate balancing coalitions directed against it. Successful strategies often involve a combination of hard and soft power that are called “smart power.” For example, in 19th century Europe, after defeating Denmark, Austria, and France with Prussian hard military power, Bismarck developed a soft power strategy of making Berlin the most attractive diplomatic capital of Europe. During the Cold War, the United States used both hard and soft power against the Soviet Union. Thus it is not surprising to see China following a smart power strategy. Whether this will be a problem for other countries or not will depend on the way the power is used. If China seeks to manipulate the politics of Asia and exclude the United States, its strategy could be counterproductive, but to the extent that China adopts the attitude of a rising “responsible stakeholder” in international affairs, its combination of hard and soft power can make a positive contribution. In return, much will depend upon the willingness of the United States to include China as an important player in the web of formal and informal international institutional arrangements.

China is far from the United States’ or Europe’s equal in soft power at this point, but it would be foolish to ignore the important gains it is making. Fortunately, these gains can be good for China and also good for the rest of the world. Soft power is not a zero sum game in which one country’s gain is necessarily another country’s loss. If China and the United States, for example, both become more attractive in each others’ eyes, the prospects of damaging conflicts will be reduced. If the rise of China’s soft power reduces the chance of conflict, it can be part of a positive sum relationship.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Aug 2010 12:03

Sanjay M wrote:Beijing gets de facto control over Gilgit

This should become the singular focus of India. Let's forget the pit-o-shit in Pakistan. That is only for entertainment. This is serious.

There are generals in USA who too think, that China should not be allowed to bully its way in Asia militarily and to expand. The time has come for USA to prioritize its PRC containment policy and work with India to put a stop to Chinese expansionism in Northern Areas.

Northern Areas have moved into the possession of China. They are no more under the control of Pakistan. As such Pakistan cannot really make a fuss about it, should India (and US) try to bring an area which is legally a part of India under Indian control. The situation of 1948 has changed.

If US assists India, it will NOT be at the cost of its alliance against Pakistan, but rather to stop PRC encroachment.

Pakistan has ceased to be a factor in Northern Areas now. This is now a matter between PRC and India and the question of US support to India on this.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Aug 2010 12:39

The Americans are looking for ways to get out of Afghanistan with their honor intact. They want to be able to tell the American people, that they have not lost in Afghanistan.

In fact the Americans will not be able to suffice even one mission goal for Afghanistan. So the only other way they can do that is by saying something more important came up. That can be either Iran or it can be support to India in China-occupied Kashmir or it can be both.

Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) is only Mirpur. Rest is China occupied.

Iran however is not a crisis region at the moment. Should Israel or USA start something there, many in the international community would put the blame on USA for war-mongering and unprovoked aggression, or as simply an open tactic to get out of Afghanistan.

Balwaristan (Gilgit-Baltistan) however can very quickly turn into a conflict zone, through the actions of other parties, and using that as an excuse to pull out of Afghanistan would seem far more credible.

JMTs

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 29 Aug 2010 18:38

Acharya wrote:
Pratyush wrote:
Hoping that the enemy makes a mistake is not wise strategy.
Is that Sun Tzu?

No, it is B Ramalinga Raju.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 29 Aug 2010 20:52

Chinese troops follow wherever in the Chinese investments sit in poor and anarchic states. What is happening in Gilgit isn't that different from the pattern of Chinese deployments in Sudan to protect their investments. I'd posted reports of significant Chinese investments in Gilgit-Baltistan on the forum several months back

http://www.southeastasianews.net/story/539000

This article is interesting because it suggests that the Chinese are behind political reform in Gilgit-Baltistan in the hope of building strong local relationships. It will be interesting to see if the PRC takes a similar tack in Baluchistan, i.e. working on Islamabad to provide greater local autonomy to the Baluchis, and then cashing in on the good will.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... tistan-070

The Chinese clearly still believe Pakistan can serve as a direct outlet to the Indian Ocean for trade and energy flows, and they are following through.

The Pakistanis are glad for the money, but there are additional benefits; turning it in to a co-dominion with the PRC makes it that much easier to defend against India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Aug 2010 21:07

baluchistan also has mineral deposits that chinese industry could be interested in. and via NA they can reach in tajikistan and further beyond for investments...all the CAR states need money and dont particularly care where it comes from.

pakistan *is* serving the old british purpose of appointing a reliable dog in the region to block a future india from reaching into its old hinterland of central and western asia by land.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 29 Aug 2010 21:25

China already shares long direct borders with Tajikistan, Kyrgystan and Kazakhstan. They don't need Gilgit-Baltistan for CA access - after all this is the original silk road we're talking about.

I would think that in addition to securing better access to Afghanistan and Baluchistan, a *major* Chinese security interest would be in exercising control over contact between the Sunni jihadis of the Af-Pak region and their own restless Uighurs, especially if they buy off the Ismailis of G-B with investments and support for local autonomy.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 29 Aug 2010 21:56

Johann wrote:China already shares long direct borders with Tajikistan, Kyrgystan and Kazakhstan. They don't need Gilgit-Baltistan for CA access - after all this is the original silk road we're talking about.

I would think that in addition to securing better access to Afghanistan and Baluchistan, a *major* Chinese security interest would be in exercising control over contact between the Sunni jihadis of the Af-Pak region and their own restless Uighurs, especially if they buy off the Ismailis of G-B with investments and support for local autonomy.

Johnann: One can take the protection of economic interests in G-B and/or the better control of access routes for its Uighur population only so far.

On the face of it, the economic costs of transport over land from Baluchistan to Xinjiang and then on to the Han heartlands is questionable. The G-B population as you well know are not the Wahabized Sunnis or even Barelvis but victimized Shias, so not much can be gained on this score. I feel much of the uighir contacts are through the ethnic minorities of Aghanistan through Tajik and Uzbek lands, rather than through the NA.

What you said in an earlier post (co-dominion) seems to be the overriding reason for increased activity in G-B by PRC. TSP knows extremely well, that its rent potential goes to the dumps, if their head in the NA is cut off. The best way to guarantee that is through increased PRC presence and interests.

The PA generals do a good job to ensure that their rent potential stays high. That is why, Behind every conversation/agreement between the US the TSP on Afghanistan is a red underline. "No role for India". Source: Ahmed Rashid, Descent into chaos. It is all about protecting the rent that the generals are able to charge.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Aug 2010 22:19

Guys:

Watch Fareed Zakariah; he is talking about the rise of China with Robert Kaplan. Little tit-bits about India China rivalry as well. Rober Kaplan is a pretty smart cookie.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 29 Aug 2010 22:25

Shaurya,

The Karakorum Highway has been the major vector for Sino-Pak trade, and for contact between Uighurs, Pakistanis and Arabs since it was opened 1978-1981. In fact some of the first contacts came when the PLA provided guerrilla trainers to the Afghan Mujaheddin in Pakistani camps in the same period.

The Chinese plan to expand the KKH, as well as the volume of trade, which will mean among other things more people-people contact between Pakistanis and Uighurs, something the Chinese are very sensitive about.

The fact that the people of G-B are Ismailis makes them potentially very useful local allies of the PRC in controlling the flow of Sunni extremists in either direction. The reports that the Chinese have supported moves for local autonomy and provincial status for G-B suggests a very long term perspective here, combined with some real political sophistication.

When China is not busy trying to restore the old boundaries of the Middle Kingdom at its height its force deployments and cultivation of influence reflect strategic economic priorities, one of which is maximising the 'opening up' of the Western half PRC, which will not only make lots of money but encourage more Han settlement. This is the same frontier strategy you saw in the US and in Imperial Russia.

Pakistan and China aren't in this for the same reasons even if they can agree on a joint programme.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 29 Aug 2010 22:37

I think China knows that the India factor will always keep Pakistan on China's side, and therefore Pakistan is the more reliable route to the Gulf, rather than going through territories which pass uncomfortably close to Russia, a strong power with whom China may not always have good relations in the future.

A trade and energy route through Pakistan would also provide another means of shoring up a faltering Pakistan, which China does have an interest in propping up against India.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Aug 2010 22:57

Johann wrote:Chinese troops follow wherever in the Chinese investments sit in poor and anarchic states. What is happening in Gilgit isn't that different from the pattern of Chinese deployments in Sudan to protect their investments. I'd posted reports of significant Chinese investments in Gilgit-Baltistan on the forum several months back

All these are recent and these policy has been encouraged by US and western interest to spread the influence of China across all continents. They find that even though China is in P5 its influence - chinese soft/hard power does not reach - africa, middle east or South america. Chinese have hard time integrating into other cultures.

The Chinese clearly still believe Pakistan can serve as a direct outlet to the Indian Ocean for trade and energy flows, and they are following through.

The Pakistanis are glad for the money, but there are additional benefits; turning it in to a co-dominion with the PRC makes it that much easier to defend against India.

Chinese beleive that since they were told that is the way to create an alternate route for IOR. But they were not told that the region is hard and the people do not encourage outside control. They also like kidnapping chinese people.