The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Mar 2011 21:35

This article, posted by JRJR in the Paki thread sparked some thoughts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... %3Darticle

For the majority of Pakistanis, particularly the religious-political right as well as hardliners within the security apparatus, the Davis case proved what they had long suspected: Americans are a rogue force within Pakistan.

What is interesting to me is that everyone knows that Pakis who have the power to protest are anti-US. But yet the US is getting a lot of things done in Pakistan - and none of that can be done without the cooperation of the Pakistan army.

Obviously the Pakisatan army is supporting the very Satan that Pakis claim to hate.

But paradoxically, the Pakis who hate America have (so far) been great admirers of their own army. It seems to me that the charmed existence that the Pak army has led is finally being seen for what it really is. They were the original runners with the hares and hunters with the hounds even inside Pakistan. They cooperated with the US while they were admired by Pakis and the US was hated.

But that leads to a further question. Just because the mango Paki who used to respect his army suddenly finds out that his army is part of the problem and is in cahoots with the US does not mean that the US is going to cut and run. That is because the Paki army does not have the power to make the US bugger off. The Paki army has the power to supress its own people and grab Paki funds - but the Raymond Davis episode has clarified to me that the Paki army is in no position to dictate terms to the US.

In fact I am suddenly seeing the US in a slightly different light. The US may well compel the Paki army to do exactly as it orders them and it will ask the Paki army to prevent any major conflagration that would put pressure on the US to make it want to pull out. In other words mango Pakis who hate the US will me made to shut their gobs tight and stuff it. Perhaps, just perhaps, in the long term, the US will not be loved any more, but the hatred will partly be transferred to the Paki army - and the large majority of Abduls will understand what their army has been doing. Need to see.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 18 Mar 2011 21:45

RajeshA-ji, the whole premise of a "pushtunistan" is a bit of a fantasy....Unless there is an Afghan govt strong enough to sponsor the enterprise, the only way it can happen is if the US puts its weight behind it...India (or Iran) is in no position to influence the activity beyond the symbolic and superficial...Geogrpahy militates against the rationale...

The US needs to arrive at that decision - that Pashtunistan is beneficial to its interests...Even then its not a done deal...Vivisection of a country without supprot from a powerful geographical neighbour is a near impossibility...

The best case possibility is the emergence of a relativekly stronger Af that can push this agenda forward...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Mar 2011 01:38

somnath ji,

Pushtunistan is the logical extension of the Blackwill Plan of withdrawing stationed troops from Pushtun areas in Afghanistan, and expanding combat sorties and special operations (i.e. sort of guerilla war) into Pushtun areas of Pakistan, if need be!

So on the one hand it gives the Pushtun in Afghanistan space to rule themselves, and not from Bagram or Kabul, and on the other hand an environment to cool their passions. If they remain aggressive towards other Afghans or the coalition troops, then a common military policy is to be extended over Pushtun areas in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. By segregating the Tajiks, Aimaks, Hazaras, Turkmen, Nuristanis, etc. whose regions would continue to "enjoy" American presence, from the Pushtuns, Americans are de-facto drawing a line through Afghanistan, i.e. they are drawing Pushtunistan's border with Northern Afghanistan. By not respecting the Durand Line, just like the Pushtuns, the Americans would be signalling that it does not constitute a border either.

So the question is whether Americans accept Blackwill Plan or not! If Republicans come to power again in 2012, then the chances are higher that it would be accepted.

So Pushtunistan is not so improbable as one may think!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 19 Mar 2011 10:58

RajeshA-ji,

The complications on the ground are too many to have simple sweeping solutions - Pak domestic politics, politics of NWFP et al...

Anyways, a fantastic account of the situation by Saeed Naqvi for ORF - he consistently has the best links in Afghanistan of all Indian journos..

http://www.observerindia.com/cms/export ... 608411.pdf

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Mar 2011 14:36

Minor digression..

About Pakistan's nukes - most public statements (over the last 10 eyars) from senior people in the US admin, India (including Fernandes and some Indian Army chiefs) and Pakistanis (Hoodbhoy) suggest that Pakistani nukes are 'secure" and under American aided PALs. But a few sources - again American "Paki experts" and at least one Paki have said that some nukes may be/are unaccounted for.

Also reports seem to state that the main US worry is not weapons but fissile material, which Pakistan is making in large amounts. Having said that - most recent reports speak of "numbers of Pakistani weapons", but on the other hand reports still say that Pakistan's warheads are not mated with delivery systems and are stored separately. India's worries, if any, are not stated at all. China has no worries as far as I can tell.

So there is a lot of disjointed information out there - but no discernible public international panic.

How much of the US's interest in Pakistan revolves around nukes? Judging from Pakistani "unofficial establishment sources" of thr Zaid Hamid/Hamid Gul genre the fear in Pakistan is that the US is out to "de-nuke" Pakistan. Whatever the US's intention I believe that it is not physically possible for the US to denuke Pakistan - given that some nukes remain unaccounted for.

Again the Raymond Davis episode tells me that the US is still not averse to applying brutal pressure on Pakistan to make Pakistan do everything that it publicly claims that it will not do. And the US has the clout to do that despite wriggling and squirming in Pakistan.

The question that arises from these observations is whether the US will ever get "pushed out" of Pakistan by circumstances? if so what circumstances?

Frankly one such circumstance would be nuclear war between India and Pakistan - which would force the US to quit Pakistan for various reasons - not least being the safety of its personnel. Apart from that I do not see any other way in which the US could quit. I don't think any "popular uprising" will work. I wonder if a spilt in the Pakistan army would do that. A coup and fighting between factions of the Pakistan army (unlikely IMO).

My feeling is that if ever the US is going to be forced out by internal Pakistani disorder, they are not going to leave without doing serious damage to Pakistan's nuclear deterrent. I suspect the Pakistanis know that very well and cannot do anything other than say that any attack on their nuclear installations would provoke retaliation against India. I find it difficult to believe that a US that worries about nuclear Pakistan will quit Pakistan docilely without inflicting damage. Maybe they might do that - I may be wrong, but i think that is unlikely.

To me the only other factor that causes doubt is whether the US will interfere on the side of Pakistan in case Pakistan conducts a a nuclear attack on India. If India does not retaliate the US will not have to leave Pakistan so it is worth putting pressure on India even if India is attacked by a Pakistani nuke. Apart from diplomatic pressure various things could be done including giving Pakistani prior warning of Indian retaliatory attacks from the US's vast intel assets and to alert Pakistani defences about incoming air attacks. In case Pakistan nukes India - the US could be expected to do its best to avoid escalation of the conflict and that could well be a disadvantage to India. And an advantage to both the US and Pakistan.

The US, sitting in Pakistan and supporting the Pakistani army to hold that moth eaten state in one piece is a headache for India. It may have its plus points - but the negatives are also significant. As I said several times - the least I would look for is stoppage of US arms supplies that can be used against India. At the very least it would be a sign that the US takes Indian concerns seriously. The US can do what it wants with Pakistan as long as they do not enhance the threat to India.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 20 Mar 2011 00:58

shiv:

Your last post articulates a lot of issues very well. One thing I will caution though is that we do not yet know what concessions the TSPA got for letting go RD. I do not count the drone attacks as a US showing the finger; that was very likely a the right target appearing at the wrong time, with the US deciding to go ahead with it.

I do agree with you that India should focus its effort to let the US know that any military aid to the TSP which can be used against India (modern aircraft, missiles, anti-ship stuff) will not be acceptable. The problem is that India has very little leverage against the US establishment to do that; especially when TSPA is doing so much for the US. I have noted though that the delivery of the first grade maal is rationed; at least going by the F-16 delivery schedule.

Regarding nukes: Your observation about fissile material being the bigger concern is valid. Simply because it is a LOT easier to smuggle fissile material than a fully functional nuke.

I do believe that the challenge for India is that one or two nukes will result in immense global pressure for India to not respond. Going by the Western reaction to the Japan nuke plant crisis, the hysteria over the impact of radiation leak is enormous. The fear of course is that the radiation can travel all over the globe and no one is immune from its side-effects.

I think it is absolutely imperative for India to have a very articulate response strategy outlined, and backed by enough weapons and delivery systems to be considered feasible. This stragey has to be on auto-pilot if a nuke attack occurs on India. This should include payback to the KSA, the CCP apart from the TSP. However the problem with such a strategy is that it gives greater incentive for the CCP to convert two to 200. Once the genie is out of the bottle, self-preservation gives the hawks an excuse.

An eye for an eye, and the world will be blind. But if you do not retaliate, then you lose the other eye too. Dharmic quandry indeed.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 20 Mar 2011 02:13

I have been pondering over something for a while.

1. At the end of the day all the great game and super-power jostling is about access to resources and secure trade lanes.

2. For most of the post WW-II the OECD consumed most of the resources. Hence keeping the price of resources down was in the interest of the OECD. That equation had changed dramatically over the past two decades as the emerging economies have started growing rapidly and their demographic profile implies that their consumption of resources will soon start rivaling the OECD.

3. The role of commodity prices in the growth of the emerging world is a lot more critical than the OECD. This is a result of the distribution of wealth and also the profile of the economies. In the OECD the percentage of spending exposed to commodity pricing is significantly less than in the emerging world.

4. Most big corporations, the First among Equals in the OECD, have operations all over the world (S&P 500 gets about 50% of its revenue from outside the US). Many OECD countries like Canada, Australia, and even the Khan have a lot of natural resources also.

5. China has already shown that resources matter in its rush to acquire both land and material resources.

6. Should this mean that the OECD is (or should) alter its focus from access to resources? Is the support to all these mid-East uprisings an articulation of the new thought process? Is keeping strong-men on the payroll to guarantee the OECD access to resources no longer the same value as it used to be?

7. If #6 is indeed true, what is the new direction and focus the Khan might have?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Mar 2011 08:57

For the record
http://tribune.com.pk/story/135156/myth ... -business/

American aid to Pakistan is split almost evenly between civilian and military assistance, with civilian aid totalling $4.5 billion and military aid amounting to $4 billion.

Washington paid an additional $8.9 billion to Pakistan’s military as compensation for services rendered on behalf of the US military under the Coalition Support Fund. The reimbursements are on account of expenses already incurred by Pakistan in providing assistance to US military operations, said Lt Col Michael Shavers, spokesman for the office of the defense representative in Islamabad.

“The Americans are not giving significant aid to Pakistan but what is important is Washington’s capability to manage everything from politics to economy through various institutions,” said a senior government official who asked to remain anonymous.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2011 19:23

I was picking my unkal Googal's brain trying to figure out some things about Pakistan China nuclear cooperation.

China apparently has only 13 power reactors compared to India's 20 currently. China operates Westinghouse reactors and a pindigenous reactor modelled on the French Areva. Apart from that it seems to be open info from Xerox Khan that the Pakis set up a Uranium enrichment centrifuge for the Cheeni-boys as recently as 1986. Hmmm. Did China not have efficient Uranium enrichment tech till 1986?

Pukistan's Chashma reactors are of Chinese origin and I think it is at this site that Cheeni boys want to set up two more reactors. The Chinese seem to be masters of applying "See one, do one, teach one"

I was trying to compare Pakistan's seismic zones and China's seismic zones to see how much at risk Chinese and Paki reactors may be from an earthquake. I am still digging. Maybe something interesting will come up.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Mar 2011 19:34

shiv wrote:I was trying to compare Pakistan's seismic zones and China's seismic zones to see how much at risk Chinese and Paki reactors may be from an earthquake. I am still digging. Maybe something interesting will come up.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Mar 2011 20:21

Cross post from Libya thread

Suppiah wrote: I do agree with your overall view that west is out to fix us so we can never challenge them economically, culturally and politically. But we just have to look at relative merits. Compared to the 'east' they are far better..at least they let you live.

Suppiah - no offence meant but a Hindu living in an Islamic kingdom a few centuries ago cannot be blamed for saying exactly the same thing "At least they let you live". That is after all what they were allowed.

Actually the attitude of the west in terms of domination is exactly the same whether they are dealing with Islamic Pakistanis or Libyans or secular or Hindu Indians. as long as Pakistan and India can fight it out and as long as China and India can fight it out the West (read US) stands to gain.

We need a paradigm shift in our thinking. If China and India were to bandwagon the West would be seriously screwed. Pakistan too need to be brought under our sphere of influence. We can "let them live" no?

Choosing between China and the US - I find more similarities between India and China than India and the US if you exclude politics and English.

If China and India fight the US gains
If India and Pakistan fight both the US and China gain
If India and China "make up" and cooperate it is the US in Asia that will be at greatest risk. Both India and China can benefit.

I have concluded (as others have done) that the US will never ever stop supporting the Pakistani army.

i believe that is we can reach an understanding with China for decreased rivalry and if we can engage China to impress upon Pakistan the need to control anti-India activities that would ease pressure on India and China and incerase pressure on the US.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Mar 2011 21:19

^^^ shiv ji, rightly said. conflict between china and india is not good for Asia. it would be wonderful for US and Western imperialists. let's not forget the lesson of Japan. japan gave them a convenient excuse to come in and partition asia into different blocks and establish naval control over Eastern Pacific and IOR. a china vs. india conflict might even give them chance to establish military bases right in our backyard like say Tibet or Burma or even BDesh. that way they'll have domination over Asia and control of IOR for another 100 years.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Mar 2011 21:52

shiv wrote:I believe that is we can reach an understanding with China for decreased rivalry and if we can engage China to impress upon Pakistan the need to control anti-India activities that would ease pressure on India and China and incerase pressure on the US.

I would have it the other way round. Make Pakistan into India's jihadi whore and let it loose on China, and the USA, should USA not stop its efforts to contain India!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Mar 2011 21:54

devesh wrote:^^^ shiv ji, rightly said. conflict between china and india is not good for Asia. it would be wonderful for US and Western imperialists. let's not forget the lesson of Japan. japan gave them a convenient excuse to come in and partition asia into different blocks and establish naval control over Eastern Pacific and IOR. a china vs. india conflict might even give them chance to establish military bases right in our backyard like say Tibet or Burma or even BDesh. that way they'll have domination over Asia and control of IOR for another 100 years.

Devesh I believe that the Chinese have been as dumb as Indians in reading the west as "correct" in judging India and china as rivals. India and china have not been rivals in the past and I think the Chicom party remains dumb and Maoist in their aggression. Mao may have been a great leader but some of the things he said and did were dumb. Only the US gains from India China competition.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Mar 2011 21:57

As long as China sits over Tibet, there can be nothing else between India and China other than rivalry!

Once they make Tibet into a buffer state again, then sky is the limit to cooperation between China and India!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Mar 2011 22:31

RajeshA wrote:As long as China sits over Tibet, there can be nothing else between India and China other than rivalry!

Once they make Tibet into a buffer state again, then sky is the limit to cooperation between China and India!

True words said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2011 08:46

RajeshA wrote:As long as China sits over Tibet, there can be nothing else between India and China other than rivalry!

Once they make Tibet into a buffer state again, then sky is the limit to cooperation between China and India!

This is how I see the situation:

In brief, India has to prepare for war with China and Pakistan. As long as no war actually occurs, the balance is maintained. If war occurs with either of these countries , India becomes weaker in relation to the other (non warfighting) entity. But the very rivalry and preparation that we have with Pakistan and China makes US top dog because our resources are exhausted in merely "balancing" these two powers.

The same is true for China. As long as China has to reserve forces for any theatre - it is rendered weaker than the US in its own backyard. The US is not only pre-eminent, the US also makes a loud noise about any emerging power such as China long before they are able to challenge its hegemony.

What China and India are doing is similar. They are both arming themselves to take on all challengers knowing fully well that actually fighting will render them weaker. if any one challenger can be rendered weaker without war they become that much stronger and have that much extra reserve military power to take on the challengers who are left.

The US knows this damn well and must ensure that all regional rivalries are never solved. Any dogmatic regional insistence that some enmity should last forever benefits the US the most. In the long term the is no option for India other than to displace US power. It is only a half-game to see China a a rival. It is the US and China in a three way US-India-China game with Pakistan as an added complication

It is possible to game this:

India china rivalry/war (US and Pakistan gain)
India -1
China -1
US +1
Pakistan +1

India-US rivalry/war (China/Pakistan gain)
India -1
US -1
China +1
Pakistan +1

US-China rivalry/war (Best for India)
India +1
US -1
China -1
Pakistan -1

India Pakistan rivalry/war (worst for India)
India -1
US +1
China +1
Pakistan -1

Note that out of 4 scenarios India comes off with a plus only in one scenario
The US, China and Pakistan all come off with a plus in two out of four situations.

Aligning with the US or China is a problem for India. China in Tibet may be a problem for India. But the US and China in Pakistan are also a problem.

India stands to benefit greatly by removing Pakistan from the equation, but not by war. Cooperating with China and the US to increase their competition is also an advantage. Any rivalry with China has to be tempered by the advantage it gives the US. The attitude that China is more important, we need to bandwagon with the US is a bit like an Indian Maharaja cooperating with the British to defeat a local Muslim ruler.

Nothing is easy. Everything comes with a cost. Blind opposition to China also comes with a cost. Blind cooperation with the US carries its own cost.

My personal views..

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 28 Mar 2011 17:42

Cross posting my post from the China Thread.................

www.samachar.com/India-plans-558 ... hfief.html

(India will build 558 roads totalling 27,986 km by 2030 at a cost of over Rs.500 billion (over $10 billion) in an effort to shore up its infrastructure along the borders with China and Pakistan, IANS claims.

This massive project, to be completed in two phases, seems to be India's answer to China's infrastructure development in Tibet in the last decade and Pakistan's five major road projects. )

Atlast We are beginning to see the contours of India's response to Beijing's activity in Tibet/North Pakistan(gilgit/baltistan/blawaristan) regions.

-India has heavily ordered planes to augment strategic air lift capability.
-MMS has spoken of "China's increasing assertiveness" and has visited Arunachal Pradesh and allowed His Holiness the Dalai Lama to visit Arunachal.
-The recent Joint Statement in the Wen JiaBao- MMS meet did not include Tibet.
-We are now going to build and augment the road infrastructure.

In the next 5 -10 years India will have built good road infrastructure; have a good strategic air lift capability; have a SSBN capable of restraing Beijing's aggressive posture and we will have Air Craft Carriers in South China Sea with SSBNs along with them. This is a very real possibility, but as a possibility in the current time.

I am satisfied that India has decided to respond to Beijing's cow boy posture mainly the jarnails variety in China are deluding themselves of repeating 62 again!

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 28 Mar 2011 17:53

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote:As long as China sits over Tibet, there can be nothing else between India and China other than rivalry!

Once they make Tibet into a buffer state again, then sky is the limit to cooperation between China and India!
This is how I see the situation:

In brief, India has to prepare for war with China and Pakistan. As long as no war actually occurs, the balance is maintained. If war occurs with either of these countries , India becomes weaker in relation to the other (non warfighting) entity. But the very rivalry and preparation that we have with Pakistan and China makes US top dog because our resources are exhausted in merely "balancing" these two powers.

The same is true for China. As long as China has to reserve forces for any theatre - it is rendered weaker than the US in its own backyard. The US is not only pre-eminent, the US also makes a loud noise about any emerging power such as China long before they are able to challenge its hegemony.

What China and India are doing is similar. They are both arming themselves to take on all challengers knowing fully well that actually fighting will render them weaker. if any one challenger can be rendered weaker without war they become that much stronger and have that much extra reserve military power to take on the challengers who are left.

The US knows this damn well and must ensure that all regional rivalries are never solved. Any dogmatic regional insistence that some enmity should last forever benefits the US the most. In the long term the is no option for India other than to displace US power. It is only a half-game to see China a a rival. It is the US and China in a three way US-India-China game with Pakistan as an added complication

It is possible to game this:

India china rivalry/war (US and Pakistan gain)
India -1
China -1
US +1
Pakistan +1

India-US rivalry/war (China/Pakistan gain)
India -1
US -1
China +1
Pakistan +1

US-China rivalry/war (Best for India)
India +1
US -1
China -1
Pakistan -1

India Pakistan rivalry/war (worst for India)
India -1
US +1
China +1
Pakistan -1

Note that out of 4 scenarios India comes off with a plus only in one scenario
The US, China and Pakistan all come off with a plus in two out of four situations.

Aligning with the US or China is a problem for India. China in Tibet may be a problem for India. But the US and China in Pakistan are also a problem.

India stands to benefit greatly by removing Pakistan from the equation, but not by war. Cooperating with China and the US to increase their competition is also an advantage. Any rivalry with China has to be tempered by the advantage it gives the US. The attitude that China is more important, we need to bandwagon with the US is a bit like an Indian Maharaja cooperating with the British to defeat a local Muslim ruler.

Nothing is easy. Everything comes with a cost. Blind opposition to China also comes with a cost. Blind cooperation with the US carries its own cost.

My personal views..

Excellent post Shiv ji. Clarifies things(quite a lot in my mind) .India have to engage with US in the hope that Indo American alignment worries China so much that they will do something(hopefully stupid) in TSP(to cause problems for India) and in the process enrage the US. It is tall order. But Thats the best of the 4 scenarios and we have to work towards it.

China will not damage America economically, as it would also effect China. So, both China and US will shadowbox in TSP. in the next 5-7 years, I envisage a split in the TSPA and ISI with one group fighting the other for control(unless China funds TSP like US does now) and if they do it they will push US into India lap.

Sarah Palin coming to India must worry China quite a lot.Palin visited India and Israel, the message being republicans view the relationship with India as they view the relationship with Israel. If this situation develops further, the situation on the ground will alter.

JMT...

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 28 Mar 2011 19:19

Shiv, of course, no offense taken...

I think all these starry eyed dreams about Asian century and all that is just that for now - starry eyed dreams. You can argue with equal logic that China stands to gain when India and US become enemies and US stands to gain if India and China become enemies and any valid or invalid combinations if you throw Russia, Pakistan etc., in.

I think such dreams to have a modicum of realism need to wait for communism to collapse in China and for China to stop believing that it can control India through its puppets as well as through Pakistan and hence needs to care a rats a.s for our core concerns. The condescension, no, contempt with which it has been handling Indian concerns are a case in point. Why bother when you can hire Indians to do their job free of charge?

Convincing China to control TSp to our benefit will be impossible because we have nothing to offer for now. We will be in a position to offer, if we get closer to west and become a nuisance to China, in effect doing a TSP on them. Anything else is begging, period. And it does not work.

That is why, in a relative sense, I feel it is better to keep closer to one a.sh.le so we can be in better position to screw the other, granted both are a.sh.les.

Really, there is absolutely, geography excluded, no particular reason why China is destined to be a close friend and not US. Or the other way around...

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 28 Mar 2011 20:33

Suppiah,

you are discounting the possibility of Black Swans. the Global order is extremely fragile right now, and there are possibilities for all kinds of black swans. the economic black swans seem to be the most potent kind right now. and usually economic malaise and collapse leads to much greater geopolitical ramifications. this can be good or bad for India. if we play our cards right and maintain a strong, independent posture, we might come out of this as winners. but it can also be bad, if we get roped into meaningless entanglements by vested interests who can easily coax our dhimmified leadership.

continued US hegemony for several more decades is doubtful, b/c of the precarious financial situation. no country can run deficits like US is running, perpetually. something has to give. this is where, i believe, Acharya's prediction that they'll try to start a war is an astute warning. it's very possible that to ensure western dominance, some kind of a conflict will be ignited in Asia to make sure there is no continued peace and prosperity for a long period of time. it is essential, for US empire to survive, that there be a massive conflict in Asia. without it, US influence in the region will decline irreversibly.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 Mar 2011 21:00

VikramS wrote:6. Should this mean that the OECD is (or should) alter its focus from access to resources? Is the support to all these mid-East uprisings an articulation of the new thought process? Is keeping strong-men on the payroll to guarantee the OECD access to resources no longer the same value as it used to be?

7. If #6 is indeed true, what is the new direction and focus the Khan might have?

Absolutely no evidence that the thinking has changed in any significant way that does not give importance to access to resources and a stable global trade environment.

The methods or tactics to get to these resources do need periodic adjustment as these countries/regions evolve.

So, like you said, direct colonialism was the chosen route 100 years back, globalization is the chosen route today. Both were intended to keep the their civilizations, the first among equals - in its most benign form. The goal has not changed.

You do have a change in areas where there is a perceived resource crunch, such as energy. Hence, the frantic rush and investment in alternate energy, to create new resource pools.

This attempted transition on this critical resource, if successful will see the biggest change in geo-political equations. Not because the thinking has changed, it has not, but because the traditional resource would not be as valuable anymore.

The above is going by a western narrative.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Apr 2011 06:19

Cross post

NRao wrote:China's presence in PoK 'increasing steadily': Army Commander

Is this all the attention this topic gets?

China's presence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) is "increasing steadily" and its troops are "actually present" along the Line of Control, a top Army Commander said, adding the Chinese footprints are "too close for comfort" for India.

"Chinese presence in Gilgit-Baltistan and the Northern Areas is increasing steadily... There are many people who are concerned about the fact that if there was to be hostility between us and Pakistan, what would be the complicity of Chinese. Not only they are in the neighbourhood but the fact that they are actually present and stationed along the LoC," Northern Army Commander Lt Gen K T Parnaik said here last week while addressing a seminar.

He said China's links with Pakistan through PoK "lends strength" to the "nexus" between the two countries which is a cause of "great security concern" for India.

"As part of (China's) 'strings of pearls' policy, Chinese footprints are too close for comfort," Parnaik added.

The Army Commander said such a nexus between the Chinese and Pakistani military "jeopardises our regional strategic interests in the long run and and facilitates speedy and enhanced deployment of Pakistan armed forces to complement China's military operations and thus outranks India."

He said China has been found to be involved in the construction of numerous roads and and several hydro-power projects inside PoK.

Beijing is laying a web of roads that run across areas as distant from each other as Skardu in PoK and Kunming in China near Myanmar border.

China has already constructed roads connecting all its highways to logistic centres and major defence installations that dot the border with India and the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in south-eastern Jammu and Kashmir.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Apr 2011 07:45

One reason for cross posting the message about Chinese troops here was a post from the Paki thread which is relevant here

Dipanker wrote:^^ India is now paying the price for not actively pursuing the policy to liberate and reintegrate Gilgit-Baltitstan. Now that Gilgit-Baltitstan has become part of China, it is going to be difficult.

On BRF I have seen two different streams of thought which rarely, if ever, come together in one thread.

1. India should have taken over PoK. Nehru stopped it but people who came later were also not far seeing enough to take it - india had plenty of chances and the military strength.

2. The US is in Pakistan as part of the great game to hold India in check. The US supports the Pakistani army and state and will not allow India to take advantage.

The US of course is not doing anything about Chinese troops in PoK. The meaning of this could be interpreted as
a. The US is incapable of doing anything about it
b. The US does not know about it
c. The US allows it as part of the keep India in check policy.

Any thoughts on this from anyone?

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 06 Apr 2011 07:54

^^^
C)
The US has never supported India in any India-China conflict be it 1962 or subsequent years. For a nation that has no hesitation going into any country under the pretext of democracy, they sure don't say anything about the Uighurs and the occupation of Tibet.
US only gives lip service to the Tibet issue. Tibet is rarely if ever shown as a separate country but any US/anglo think tanks, media etc. Compare with J&K over which India has legitimate claim.
Also contrast with the US stand on Russia which is hot and cold but mostly aggressive. They were active in splitting up the country.
Actions speak louder than words. There is likely some truth to the history of Mao's association with the Americans andsponsorship thereoff - very similar to Sheikh Abdullah's ring of support.
There is certainly a part of post 1940's chinas senior cabal that shares value system with the anglo american group be it religion or monetary.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 06 Apr 2011 08:09

(b) can be ruled out. (a) is not likely. US can do something to pressure Pak against inviting PRC into PoK. but that can only happen if India in turn has some chips on both PoK and US and pressures US to restrain its dog.

(c) is the most likely. this is b/c US is gripped by the Paki-stain is victim mentality; and of course, cutting off India's head is an added bonus. at the very least, US is apathetic to that outcome.

both (a) and (c) raise the question: why doesn't US care about increased power for PRC? there are many BRFites who think there is a crazy rivalry going on between PRC and US. if so, wouldn't the US react to PRC becoming more powerful day after day in Central Asia, by increasing direct troop presence and building a string of posts in the area, including Kahsmir? something to ponder upon, for those gripped by the commentary of "US-China rivalry."

pran · Post by **pran** » 06 Apr 2011 09:04

In terms of opportunity like 1971 when India had the gumption and strength to absorb a shock and ensure partial policy success, it is rare and unpredictable. A super power support ensured a stand-off with another, and a mid level power. Now considering this on backdrop of. 2 wars in the near history, India was able to achieve some success. What will it take for India to achieve a standoff capability wrt 2 major powers to exercise full success influencing a favorable outcome.
It is that strategic independence,that scared the west into cornering India.currently India is consolidating and postponing the eventual exercise for future by holding a accomodating posture. Looking at the wars in the last 2 decades, a common pattern emerges, all the wars are being led by a wolf pack against single isolated country. It is not going to be one-on-one anymore. In this scenario a deterrence needs to be worked out to deter the pack.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Apr 2011 16:23

shiv wrote: a. The US is incapable of doing anything about it
b. The US does not know about it
c. The US allows it as part of the keep India in check policy.

Any thoughts on this from anyone?

Shiv, it need not be 'either or', IMHO. It could well be a combination of all the three or at least two (a and c).

Historically, Pakistan has played the USSR card (briefly in its nascent stages) or the China card (largely after 1962) against the US. The US could do nothing in many instances and ultimately exploited those evil linkages to its own benefit to contain and then defeat the cold war rival, the USSR. Those were the days when the US power was at its peak, and when it had significant leverage with Pakistan too. Economically too, the Americans were not engaged with the Chinese then which is not the case today. Besides, the Chinese have a significant clout worldwide which the US is mindful of. Chashma-3 & 4 are the latest examples. Today, the US is a declining power and the Pakistanis have developed multiple avenues to force the Americans to pay for their services. I wouldn't say 'the US is incapable', but it may have only very limited capability of stemming this evil relationship.

The US may know about the intentions of the Pak-China relationship because Nixon-Kissinger-Mao-Chou conversation of 1971 reveals how they conspired etc. So, they know how contemptuously the Chinese leadership holds India. Subsequent intense interactions between them, after the restoration of diplomatic ties, may have only resulted in more widespread understanding of the Chinese view on India. It was after all an American report that revealed recently the tunnels etc in Balawaristan. One can be sure that they are keeping a close watch on what is happening there. However, the real intentions behind the Chinese presence may not be entirely known.

It has been the US policy to ensure that nobody challenged it (which is not incorrect from its standpoint per se). May be they learnt a lesson from their over indulgence of the Chinese. So, the US may impose self restrictions on how far it needed to go vis-a-vis India.

There is a fourth possibility too. The US may be allowing this to happen, assuming it has the leverage to stop, just in order to humour Pakistan and China for its own tactical requirements. Not necessarily to keep India in check. This is a least-cost solution for the US for whatever it needs in return from Pakistan and China. We have seen many times too that the US is as tactically brilliant as our neighbour to the west.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Apr 2011 19:15

SSridhar wrote:
shiv wrote: a. The US is incapable of doing anything about it
b. The US does not know about it
c. The US allows it as part of the keep India in check policy.

Any thoughts on this from anyone?
Shiv, it need not be 'either or', IMHO. It could well be a combination of all the three or at least two (a and c).
<snip>
It has been the US policy to ensure that nobody challenged it (which is not incorrect from its standpoint per se). May be they learnt a lesson from their over indulgence of the Chinese. So, the US may impose self restrictions on how far it needed to go vis-a-vis India.

There is a fourth possibility too. The US may be allowing this to happen, assuming it has the leverage to stop, just in order to humour Pakistan and China for its own tactical requirements. Not necessarily to keep India in check. This is a least-cost solution for the US for whatever it needs in return from Pakistan and China. We have seen many times too that the US is as tactically brilliant as our neighbour to the west.

Absolutely Sridhar - I am inclined to agree with you and your view has provided some direction to my own thoughts.

But if we get back to the original question that sparked the thought - "Why are we not taking over PoK?". The answer could well be the confounding factor of US support to Pakistan. It sounds like an excuse but unless one believes that the US is benign and innocent in Pakistan it is clearly a valid excuse.

The next question is "What is India going to do about Chinese troops in PoK?"
Teh answer could well be "Bugger all". Other than preparing for a 2 front or 3 front war - we, who are constrained from launching an attack on PoK (even if that was our intent) by the US presence and support in Pakistan, are hardly going to battle with Chinese troops on the ground protecting Pakistan.

The only expression I can think of is "F**kin' tough shit" and gnash my teeth in impotent despair.

Geopolitics is not as easy as it sounds. The things that happen, happen because everything is in favor of things happening in that way. Everything is in favor of the tri-nation cooperative of US, China and Pakistan sticking three fingers up India's backside. There is no go for India other than to arm itself to take on all comers and kill their joy in a war, should that come our way.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Apr 2011 20:30

shiv wrote:There is no go for India other than to arm itself to take on all comers and kill their joy in a war, should that come our way.

Sadhu, Sadhu.....

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Apr 2011 21:11

shiv wrote:There is no go for India other than to arm itself to take on all comers and kill their joy in a war, should that come our way.

There is a center of gravity in the geo political situation. India has to attack that CG and things will unravel and will no longer pose problem and strait jacket on India. Indian population is one geo political advantage.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 07 Apr 2011 07:14

Paks make themselves useful to both US and China to keep India down. Once both US and China realize that India cannot be kept down and that they will pay a price unless they are nice to India - at that point one can begin to deal with the problem of external support to the Paks.

This is already beginning to happen in fits and starts.

Given that the US and China are rivals and will remain rivals, it will not do for India to align itself too closely with either one - because then the Paks will go with the other.

Thus India has to be important to both, without being aligned with one of them against the other. Also, it has to become clear to both that a policy of trying to keep India down will be unsuccessful and costly.

I would say that a big part of the problem is India's strategic diffidence - for example not developing proven thermonuclear capability.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 07 Apr 2011 12:16

...>>There is no go for India other than to arm itself to take on all comers and kill their joy in a war, should that come our way.

+1 and with our own weapons as much as possible, and not just with weapons of military war.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 07 Apr 2011 18:34

...>>There is no go for India other than to arm itself to take on all comers and kill their joy in a war, should that come our way.

+1 and with our own weapons as much as possible, and not just with weapons of military war.
...>>There is no go for India other than to arm itself to take on all comers and kill their joy in a war, should that come our way.

Absolutely. There is really no other way, except to give in, which India won't do. India must possess the means to inflict serious damage, if not devastation, on China, Pakistan and North Korea in the event of a war, or being struck first with WMD. It's likely that many Indians question the ability of India in this regard, which partly explains their desire for India to come to some deal with Pakistan on Kashmir, or equally to engage in abolition of nuclear weapons and missiles solely with Pakistan, and forgetting about China or any other country.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Apr 2011 12:25

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 930199.cms

"We have a strong real time intelligence sharing mechanism with the US and they have conveyed the same thing to Indian agencies including RAW – that these troops are stationed all along the LoC in PoK. They conveyed this to Indian agencies independently without us seeking any confirmation from them," said an official, adding that the government at the highest level was aware of the latest developments in PoK.

"Their confirmation seemed to be based on technical intelligence. They said these Chinese troops seemed to be involved in construction activities," he added. He, however, added that this was not the first time there was confirmation from the US about heightened Chinese activity along the LoC but that was restricted to the Gilgit-Baltistan area.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 10 Apr 2011 16:27

>>a strong real time intelligence sharing mechanism with the US and they have conveyed the same thing to Indian agencies including RAW

This is the first time I'm hearing things articulated this way... especially the bolded part. Someone has talked out of turn, or it is deliberate. Either way it does not sound good.

In any case, it suggests strong "multi-agency" interaction between the two sides. Early days, no doubt, but we have to be extremely careful how we calibrate this. We can be sure that there are quite a few skeptical people on both sides ... I suppose they must have some sort of relationship recovery mechanism in place in case there is "friendly fire" resulting from Uncle's multiple such linkages.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Apr 2011 21:05

JEM, deep linkages with the US are fraught with immense danger. We have already seen how our blighted leaders and even non-leaders blurt out everything to the Americans within the safe confines of the American Embassy/Consular Office. Slowly, what we see in Pakistan and ridicule that country for, I fear, may happen in ours too. Unfortunately, we are being pushed into the American corner by both external and internal factors. Enough for this thread.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 10 Apr 2011 22:28

No doubt, which is why i pointed it out... This needs to be calibrated very carefully... I'm fairly confident that it will, but of course you never know with these things. Anyways, OT like you said.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 10 Apr 2011 22:38

shiv wrote:This article, posted by JRJR in the Paki thread sparked some thoughts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... %3Darticle
For the majority of Pakistanis, particularly the religious-political right as well as hardliners within the security apparatus, the Davis case proved what they had long suspected: Americans are a rogue force within Pakistan.
What is interesting to me is that everyone knows that Pakis who have the power to protest are anti-US. But yet the US is getting a lot of things done in Pakistan - and none of that can be done without the cooperation of the Pakistan army.

Obviously the Pakisatan army is supporting the very Satan that Pakis claim to hate.

But paradoxically, the Pakis who hate America have (so far) been great admirers of their own army. It seems to me that the charmed existence that the Pak army has led is finally being seen for what it really is. They were the original runners with the hares and hunters with the hounds even inside Pakistan. They cooperated with the US while they were admired by Pakis and the US was hated.

But that leads to a further question. Just because the mango Paki who used to respect his army suddenly finds out that his army is part of the problem and is in cahoots with the US does not mean that the US is going to cut and run. That is because the Paki army does not have the power to make the US bugger off. The Paki army has the power to supress its own people and grab Paki funds - but the Raymond Davis episode has clarified to me that the Paki army is in no position to dictate terms to the US.

In fact I am suddenly seeing the US in a slightly different light. The US may well compel the Paki army to do exactly as it orders them and it will ask the Paki army to prevent any major conflagration that would put pressure on the US to make it want to pull out. In other words mango Pakis who hate the US will me made to shut their gobs tight and stuff it. Perhaps, just perhaps, in the long term, the US will not be loved any more, but the hatred will partly be transferred to the Paki army - and the large majority of Abduls will understand what their army has been doing. Need to see.

There need to be, and there probably will be many more incidents of the sort.

However its wrong to think the US held all the cards in the discussion. There's a reason that Predator strikes halted for the first three weeks of Davis's capture.

The Pakistani generals got exactly what they wanted out of the negotiations, and the Americans got their man. The people who are left feeling humiliated are the Pakistani public, especially the religious nationalists.

In the end, when push comes to shove, the PA will not chose America over its core local support base.

That was the secret of Zia's popularity with the Pakistani right wing. The PA will produce more Zias and send them to the top when it needs them to retain nationalist support.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Apr 2011 06:47

Johann wrote: The Pakistani generals got exactly what they wanted out of the negotiations, and the Americans got their man. The people who are left feeling humiliated are the Pakistani public, especially the religious nationalists.

Johann what, in your view, did the generals get from the negotiations?

I guess a few Pakistanis felt humiliated but the fact that the humiliation was not bad enough to spark an uncontrollable series of protests indicates either that the humiliation was not much and Pakistanis are beyond caring, or they are scared enough of the Pakistani army to avoid being critical. Ultimately the US got its man without public humiliation and the humiliation if any was Pakistan's. And the Pakistani army bent to the US's will without anything to show in public.

The quid pro quo that the Pakistani army has with the Taliban (don't attack us in Waziristan, and we won't attack you in GHQ) is hardly a victory for the Pakistan army. The Pakistani army is doing what the US says on the one hand and is also doing what the Taliban asks on the other. The only role for the army is to reach a middle position between the two forces that are dictating terms.

But this Pakistan army that serves many masters seems to have great popular support among ordinary Pakistanis. I can see that at least some of that support comes from the myths that have been built up about the army in past wars. More support possibly comes from the "Protector of Islam/Pakistan and Muslims" reputation of the army. But what is not clear to me is that there is at least some recognition in Pakistan that the army is a problem but that does not get too much publicity. It seems to me that this is kept at a minimum by strong-arm methods. To me that is good news. The Pakistan army will have to pay for that eventually.