Pakistan - China alliance : Janes

Society Military and Strategic Issues
1

I’ll have more coverage of the Chineese Communication Minister’s trip to Pakistan to finalize the details for the Gwadar deep-sea port and Baluchistan- Sind Coastal highway.

Despite differing political, economic, ideological and social systems, Pakistan and China have developed enduring strategic ties since their relationship was first established 50 years ago.

Besides political and diplomatic co-operation, the two countries are extensively involved in wide-ranging defence co-operation, particularly in the controversial area of nuclear weapons and missile technology.

The present period of shifting regional and global balances of power has provided the two countries with greater opportunities to strengthen their alliance than ever before. Now intelligence reports indicate that secret talks on nuclear development are currently underway.

It is against this background of growing convergence of their interests that the recent visit to Islamabad of Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji must be viewed. The following developments are worth noting:

  1. Sharing the Chinese vision of a multi-polar world, Pakistan’s military chief executive, General Pervez Musharraf, expressed his opposition to the regional dominance of India and global influence of the USA and called instead for a greater Chinese role in international affairs. By rejecting the US National Missile Defence (NMD) programme in the presence of the Chinese leader, he has made clear Islamabad’s strategic support for Beijing - which is also opposed to the US’ plans.

  2. General Musharraf also unequivocally expressed the view that “the Pakistani people hope and pray that Taiwan will reunify with the mainland of the motherland before long”.

  3. In return, commenting on Pakistan’s internal affairs, Premier Zhu Rongji praised Musharraf for promoting stability and economic development, thus - albeit indirectly - endorsing his military regime.

  4. The visiting Chinese leader also offered Beijing’s support for Islamabad’s position on the Kashmir issue.

  5. In addition to signing many economic agreements (along with $250 million worth of credit), Beijing has also extended assistance in developing Pakistan’s nuclear power infrastructure and other core industrial sectors. Rongji further announced that Pakistani imports would be given priority in order to remove the trade imbalance between the two countries.

  6. Even more importantly, the two countries signed agreements construct jointly the deep-sea Gwadar Port on the Makran Coast in Baluchistan.

Janes Information June 7, 2001

2

Thanks for posting this topic Abdullah

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

Economically, militarily and politically the very special relationship between Great China and Pakistan continues to grow from strength to strength. From the Karokoram highway in the far north of Pakistan to Gwadur port in the far south, the physical achievments of our unique relationship are evident.

China is about to become the numebr 1 economy of the world in a few years, it has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, and its economic might is sweeping through East Asia and other parts of the world. We are lucky to have them as our most loyal and trusted allies.

As high as the Himalayas, and as deep as the oceans as they say.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

3

China feels "highly vulnerable" only in its relationship with India in the region and not so any more with either Russia or the Southeast Asian countries including Vietnam and North Korea, says a US Institute of Peace study.

According to the USIP -- a think tank funded by the US Congress -- "This vulnerability may be exacerbated by several major developments, including India's control of large chunks of territory that China claims; the disruption of recent bilateral efforts to alleviate border tension and resolve territorial disputes; by India's recent testing of nuclear weapons, which has created another obstacle in improving their relationship; the operation from India of an active Tibetan independence movement, which is quite successful in internationalising the Tibet issue and enhancing an independence consciousness within Tibet; and a relatively low-level of bilateral investment and trade."

The study was done for the USIP by a leading Chinese-American scholar, Dr. Nan Li, who currently teaches political science at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio. He's also taught courses on international relations and Asian politics at Dartmouth College, the University of Massachusetts, and Eastern Kentucky University.

Li argues that in addressing its vulnerability with India, "China is most likely to take a defensive position that focuses on conserving what is in its possession, rather than an offensive posture that place an emphasis on acquiring what it claims."

The study, From Revolutionary Internationalism to Conservative Nationalism: The Chinese Military's Discourse on National Security and Identity in the Post-Mao Era, predicts that "such a defensive position may entail stockpiling material and improving communications and road linkages at forward positions along the borders and developing infrastructure that links these positions with the rear so that reinforcements may be more swiftly deployed in the event of conflict.

"Some intermediate-range ballistic missiles may also be redeployed to enhance nuclear deterrence," it says, and such efforts would "most likely be accompanied by providing military aid to Pakistan, which may in turn deflect Indian military pressure on the Sino-Indian border."

This defensive stance would be conditioned by several factors, "including India's acquisition of nuclear weapons; difficult logistics to sustain an offensive operation on high, remote, and geographically harsh plateaus; and the general perception of the disputed territories as barren mountain ranges that have little economic value."

But it notes that "an exception to this perception is land in Arunachal Pradesh under Indian-control, which China also claims as its territory."

However Li, a former USIP fellow and a specialist on Chinese civil-military relations and military doctrine, acknowledges that the "Chinese claim may be used more as leverage in negotiating with India over territories that are under Chinese control, but also claimed by India, than as an agenda item to be acted upon.

"Chinese security analysts at least privately acknowledge that it may be immensely difficult for China to recapture this land in the near future," he says. .

Richard H Solomon, President of USIP and a former senior State Department official who headed the East Asia bureau, says in a foreword to the study that, "If China's new national security doctrine focuses on more proximal threats, this should not obscure the fact that the country has geopolitical concerns as well."

He notes that "indeed, China's proclaimed 'strategic partnership' with Russia and arms sale to Pakistan and Iran underscore the fact that the PRC has not retreated to a 'Fortress China.' Yet these foreign policy initiatives can still be considered regional, and they are most likely pursued according to a collective worldview that the management of regional security issues should not be left to its two old rivals -- the United States and Russia -- alone."

Thus, Solomon states that, "Like any other powerful nation-state on a realist global chessboard, China follows the logic of balance of power in international politics."

Li's study acquires special significance in the current context, with the Bush Administration seeking to develop a strategic partnership with India and the conservative Republican leadership in Congress urging that this be done as a counterbalance against China.

India argues that it would prefer to be recognised purely on its own merits and not in terms of a zero-sum game with China or any other country. This is what US officials also publicly acknowledge they would like to see develop, although privately there are several policymakers who still see an advantage in playing one against another, usually as a means for Washington to gain maximum leverage.

Solomon himself notes that Li's study as part of the USIP's "congressional mandate" is one of a number of the institute's "contributions on political change in the PRC and its implications for regional security."

4

According to the USIP – a think tank funded by the US Congress

That figures. Nice source rvikz.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif

5

Rvikz did you get this from rediff by any chance??
This news must really piss the US off.

Our's not to reason why,
Our's but to do and die:

6

rvikz, you Indians have to get out of your delusions - you guys lost the 1962 war big time against Great China. My that was a thrashing you got. And YOU ended up losing large tracts of territory in Kashmir and Arunachal which you still have not got back to this day. If China merely moves a few soldiers close to your border you people get into panic mode big time.

And you guys have to accept that Great China is Pakistan’s best and most loyal buddy. No amount of Indian jealousy pains are going to change that fact. China and Pakistan’s friendship grows from STRENGTH to STRENGTH, as shown by all this massive military and economic cooperation.

Here’s to Great China and Pakistan!

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/soldier.gif

7

Tuesday, June 5, 2001

An Indian Phalcon could fly before the Chinese

By Aluf Benn

Far from the turmoil of the territories, the forum for strategic cooperation between Israel and the U.S. met last week. Dubbed Tides, the forum is headed on the Israeli side by Amos Yaron, director-general of the Defense Ministry, who heard from the Americans - headed by Lincoln Blumfield, an assistant secretary of state for military affairs - about U.S. interests in Asia. The American briefing focused on an improvement in relations between the U.S. and India. The Israelis listened and made notes. For now, they were careful not to speak up about it.

And for good reason. Israel has quietly been working on a very large deal involving hundreds of millions of dollars in sales of the Phalcon airborne early warning station to the Indian Air Force. The Indians are interested in at least one Phalcon and an option for another, but they are asking for a political guarantee from Israel that the deal be sealed - and executed. In New Delhi they learned the lesson of the Phalcon sale to China, which was canceled in July 2000 after the Americans scotched it.

Israel will need a green light from the Americans before it can sell the aircraft to the Indians. Indian Defense Secretary Yogendra Narain visited Israel last month and heard reports on the project at Israeli Aircraft Industries headquarters in Lod, and visited Elta in Ashdod, where the Phalcon radar system is manufactured. The Indians have already purchased the land-based Green Pine anti-missile radar system. It's built on technology similar to the Phalcon's. The U.S. agreed to the Green Pine sale as well as other weapons deals and some parts of the system were sent to India in January, just before the change of administration in Washington.

Last year, Israel told the U.S. about its interest in supplying the Phalcon to India but did not get an unqualified approval from the Clinton administration. The Bush team regards India as a key nation in Asia, a possible counterweight to the Chinese. In conversations with Israeli officials, Bush officials expressed satisfaction with the Israeli-Indian involvement. National Security Adviser Uzi Dayan who made his first visit to India last month, heard the same, while in Washington. Historically, the U.S. sided with Pakistan and was suspicious of India, which was long a leader in the non-aligned nations movement and close to the former Soviet Union. In recent years, the changes in global geopolitics have contributed to a deterioration in Pakistan's standing in Washington, where it is now viewed as a trouble-making incubator for radical Islamic extremists. India, under a right-wing government, looks like an island of stability compared to Pakistan. Clinton opened the way to India last year during a state visit there. His heir, Bush, has discovered India is the only country in the world to openly support his plan for a missile defense system.

But the Indian-U.S. rapprochement doesn't guarantee that Washington will agree to any Israeli initiative to sell the Indians weapons. Martin Indyk, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, said yesterday that the Chinese Phalcon incident makes tangible the difference between the approach and view point of an international superpower and a regional power that wants to sell weapons to other regions in the world. "Both sides," he said at a Tel Aviv University lecture, "learned that this is a matter that has to be dealt with openly, and that's what has been done since."

There also isn't complete agreement inside Israel about selling the Phalcon to India. Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer wants the deal done, and thinks he can win Washington approval. Next month he'll pay his first visit to Washington as defense minister. But the Foreign Ministry is worried about damage to relations with China, which won't be happy to see the Phalcon it wanted end up in the hands of the Indian Air Force. The issue has yet to reach the uppermost levels of government in Jerusalem. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres have yet to weigh in with their views.

Meanwhile, the Chinese Phalcon is grounded at the IAI plant, waiting for the final decision. The Chinese ignored the Israeli announcement of the cancelation, and demanded the contract be enacted in full. Senior Israeli sources there's no chance that will happen, especially because of the worsening relations between China and the U.S. "There are some who still think the deal should move forward," said a senior defense source. "This one knows a senator, that one knows a congressman. But the truth is there's no chance."

Israel will be asked to compensate the Chinese, who paid a hefty advance for the plane, which technically is theirs. The IAI says the government ordered the cancelation, so it has to pay. The decision, as usual, is being postponed to the last minute.

8

rivkz, how is India’s long and desperate search for friends to rival the MIGHT of Great China going to change the ever expanding relationship between Pakistan and China? You guys are waiting behind China to procure defence equipment from Israel, while Pakistan and China are moving their military and economic alliance to new heights.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

9

Tensions between Han Chinese and Uygur students erupted into a large-scale brawl at Changan University in Xian, Shaanxi province, in which more than 30 students were injured.
More than 300 riot police were called in to break up the fight in the early hours of Thursday, but no arrests were made, security officials said.

Witnesses said about 10 Uygurs and 20 Han Chinese were injured in the fighting.

There were conflicting reports on who instigated the melee between the Han and the Uygurs, a Muslim ethnic minority based in the northwestern region of Xinjiang, where militants are struggling to create an independent country.

The Hong Kong-based Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy said the clash occurred when a group of drunken students belonging to the Han majority passed by a dormitory of Uygurs students, shouting "Xinjiang pigs" and "go home to Xinjiang". Dozens of Han Chinese then faced about 80 Uygurs, while hundreds of students looked on, the rights group said.

Three Uygurs were seriously wounded in the clash, the centre said.

Several Han witnesses, however, said the fight began when Uygurs wielding knives beat up Han students.

"The students were angry," said one Han student. "They showered rocks at the Uygur students' dormitories. Dozens of windows were shattered."

Police escorted five Uygurs away from the scene to protect them, and when 200 Han students gathered to protest against what they called "preferential treatment" of Uygur students, riot police used sticks to break up the crowd, another Han student said. No Uygur students were available for comment.

The incident was the latest of several run-ins at the university between Uygurs and Han, students said.

A school staff member confirmed the incident had taken place, but refused to give details on the condition of the injured students or say if the situation was now under control.

Attempts by teachers to intervene failed, and a member of the campus staff was injured in the riot, the school staff member said.

The fighting was "caused by drinking", and began when Uygur students attacked Han students, another official said. "We are still dealing with the issue," he added.

A local education official blamed it on the Uygur students, saying they had been singing the whole night, disturbing other students.

The incident followed a bloody clash in Shandong in December last year in which six Muslims were killed after months of confrontation over a "Muslim pork" sign at a Han butcher's shop and the hanging of a pig's head outside a local mosque.

Xinjiang declared a short-lived East Turkistan Republic in the region in the late 1940s but has been under firm Chinese control since 1949.

Uygur militants opposed to Chinese rule have carried out assassinations and bombings in Xinjiang. Uygurs complain that massive migration of Han Chinese to the region is swamping them and taking away their jobs.

Next Story

10

Oh boy rvikz you sure do have some wonderful debating skills? Can’t you say anything yourself for a change?

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

Give us any proof that anything that is stopping China and Pakistan expand their massive economic and military cooperation in a wide range of fields? As we have seen over Kashmir, the growing military cooperation between Great China and Pakistan is sending shivers down America’s spine and leaving India to perform U-TURNS here, there and everywhere.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Malik73 (edited June 09, 2001).]

11

mallik can you riot in "great china" as you did in uk. you hate the west but love to live
in uk and enjoy the freedom

12

rvikz, I dont want to “riot” in Great China, nor have I “rioted” in the UK or hate the west. A person usually criticising a western government is only criticising the government and its polices not the people and country as a whole. Try noting the difference?

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

Now back to the topic at hand of the Pakistan - China alliance. Do you have anything to refute what has been said by the opening post in this thread about the huge and expanding nature of China-Pak relations?

13

china no longer can exploit pak-india differences . niazi was looking up in the
sky in bangaldesh for chinese paratroopers

14

First of all, a very good cut and paste, Brother Abdullah.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

Brother Malik73,

  1. The visiting Chinese leader also offered Beijing’s support for Islamabad’s position on the Kashmir issue.<

IMO, this line clearly shows how sincere the friendship really is. A country which holds the people of both Tibet and East Turkestan Republic by the neck offers support for Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir!

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

It is good for all three nations - China gets an ally to watch over booming India from the west, Pakistan gets further “support” for Kashmir, and India gets an excuse to further her growing ties with the US.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

15

A person usually criticising a western government is only criticising the government and its polices not the people and country as a whole.

thats why you want send shivers down the spine

16

Whose talking about exploiting India? Maybe you are talking about the USA? This is about Pakistan’s national interests, which has seen the growing of our long standing allinace with Great China. Our allinace with China has seen great economic and military benefits for Pakistan, as symbolised by concrete monuments like the Karokoram highway and now Gwadur port. Not to mention our superb military cooperation which has caused heartburn from Delhi to DC.

Pakistan is allied with the future and destined power of the world. While our foes are still holding out for the last scraps that declined Russia can offer them and declining USA is offering them.

There is nothing that India, the USA or any American stooge has done in the last 50 years or can do in the future that will stop the ever increasing Pak-China mega allinace.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

17

Brother Malik 73,

There is nothing that Pakistan, China or any other Chinese stooge can do in the future that will stop the juggernaut of US-India progressive alliance. The sudden nervous frenzy displayed by China in running to Pakistan with a bag of sugar candies is a clear indication of its fear of India’s growing might.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

18

My my, Queer, you do have an over-inflated opinion of your country don’t you? Did it not occur to you that this attempt by China to continue to expand her influence might have more to do with George Bush’s stance on China as a “strategic competitor”?
Please… India is a little insignificant bug compared to the might of China. Great China has absolutely NOTHING to fear from India. On the other hand, with America’s new hostile stance, China has little choice but to extend her reach or face another round of bullying by America.

19

Mad Sci,

Pakistan is an even less significant bug to the US, and China’s strength against the US undergoes no change by offering Pak goodies. On the otherhand, it gets a chance to reiterate itself as the regional superpower by befriending pakistan, and thereby covering its greatest rival India from two sides. Too bad you refuse to see it.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

20

China is just another tool to help Pakistan to continue on its future course as a major geostrategic player.

Partners and alliances are only secondary to the supreme interest and this interest was determined well before the creation of Pakistan.

China-Pak alliance is a means to the end, not an end in itself.

[This message has been edited by alizadeh2000 (edited June 09, 2001).]