Connect with us

East Asia

China’s ‘One Belt One Road’ upsets USA, India

Published

on

The China-Pakistan Axis has caused serious problems for world’s top power USA and South Asian giant India. The United States, as a stabilizer of the balance of power in Asia, has backed India as a potential competitor with China. The rivalry visibly surfaced when U.S.-backed India failed in its bid to be included in Nuclear Suppliers Group over Chinese opposition. India held China solely responsible for its failure. Decades ago, the looming threat of Soviet expansion in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

Asian economic and military giant currently is engaged in two issues: China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as part of its One Belt agenda and South China Sea where it is fortifying its base. The CPEC will connect China’s largest province, Xinjiang, with Pakistan’s Gwadar port in Balochistan, the largest and most impoverished province of Pakistan. Balochistan has been under attack by separatists, insurgents, and Islamic militants – now including the Islamic State (ISIS) – for over a decade. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is a series of projects that stands to connect the Asian giant to Central Asia and Europe in the long run. Beijing has agreed to invest $46 billion for CPEC.

The idea of Gwadar port development has boosted image of China. Washington could not understand the importance of the Gwadar port — until China took it over. The port will open gateways for China to destinations where the United States is already present or intends to maintain its hegemony, including Central Asia and the Gulf States.

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has considerably annoyed both USA and India which fears deadly consequences of the project in the long run. USA diluted and downgraded its ties with Pakistan more due to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project offering China importance in the region than the US murder of Osama Bin Laden. The CPEC in fact kills Asia Pivot of USA. Hence Americans are angry with Pakistan, calling for slashing military aid package.. A rise in violence may be the most effective way to scare Beijing off the ambitious plan. And Islamabad has repeatedly accused India and other foes of CPEC of fomenting attacks with just that goal in mind.

America’s ‘Asia Pivot’ policy, to contain China-Russia and China’s fast growing economy cum efficient diplomatic clout, has not yielded the estimated or expected results so far, at least. But Beijing has already advanced to some extend its ‘One Belt, One Road’ agenda revolving around old Silk Road, greatly upsetting USA and near strategic partner India.

The closest land route for India to access Central Asia is to the west, through Pakistan; however despite many bilateral efforts the two countries have yet to reach an agreement that would allow Indian trucks on Pakistani soil. Therefore, as an alternate though longer route, India will access Iran’s Chabahar from the sea, and from there its goods will enter Afghanistan and eventually Central Asia and Russia. Moreover, Afghanistan will now have access to Indian Ocean, which was not possible without passing through Pakistan earlier.

The attraction of Gwadar port is the main reason for China to build a 2,000 km of road and rail infrastructure worth $10.63 billion in Pakistan, stretching from Gwadar to eventually connect with Kasghar. According to reports, a network of gas pipelines will be set up to finally connect Pakistan with Iran. Tehran has already completed its part, as per a 2013 deal, and is waiting for Pakistan to finish its section. This was originally envisioned as a so-called peace pipeline among Iran, Pakistan, and India but it now seems China will replace India and feed its energy hungry industry with Iranian gas. India greatly opposes the proposed CPEC route and development at Gwadar port mainly because the proposed route passes through the controversial territories of Gilgit-Baltistan and Kashmir between India-Pakistan. India has invested in Iran’s Chabahar port – just 72 km from its rival Gwadar port. In May 2016, India, Iran, and Afghanistan signed a trade corridor deal giving India land access to Central Asia from Chabahar, bypassing Pakistan.

In February 2013, Pakistan awarded operational contract of Gwadar port to China amid American pressure to look for alternatives. This port is a linchpin for China’s dream of OBOR, providing the Maritime Silk Road with a link to the Arabian Sea. The port at the mouth of the Persian Gulf provides China with the shortest route to the oil rich Middle East, Africa, and most of the Western hemisphere. Gwadar will have the estimated capability to handle to 19 million tons of crude oil per year, which will be sent to China after being refined at the port.

Is India targeting Balochistan?

Recently, on August 8, a blast in Balochistan’s capital, Quetta, killed at least 95 people. The same day Pakistan’s prime minister and army chief visited the injured and labeled the attack an attempt to sabotage CPEC in an official statement. Balochistan’s chief minister accused India’s intelligence agency RAW of being behind the attack whereas national media linked the bombing to “India backed Afghanistan.”However, Islamabad offered no statement regarding an official document issued in July, which stated that1,000 bullet ridden corpses were found in Balochistan during last six years. This discrepancy gives a clear indication of what concerns government the most in the province.

Insurgency and armed conflicts in Balochistan are not a new phenomenon. The violence dates back to late 19th century when Balochistan came under the British empire. During the early 20th century, Balochistan strove to become a “British free” region; later on, it was forcibly annexed by newly founded Pakistan in 1948.

Though badly impoverished, Balochistan remains at the center for a successful CPEC and a peaceful South Asian region, and Balochistan’s importance has grown beyond all estimates.

The inhabitants of the mineral rich area, constituting one-third of Pakistan’s total area of 800,000 square kilometers, are still striving for provincial autonomy as promised by the father of the nation and the constitution of Pakistan. However, continuous suppression by the federal government through military might has turned this quest into a separatist movement.

The Pakistani leadership has publicly accused India and Afghanistan of involvement in insurgency and terrorism in Balochistan for decades. Interestingly, now it has also linked such activities to Iran, whose Sistan province borders Balochistan. The only land route that connects both countries travels through these regions. Pakistan is not happy with growing bilateral ties between its old rival India and old friend and ally Iran, especially given the potential impact on CPEC.

The Pakistani government is angry that Baloch separatists receive training in camps in Afghanistan established and fully funded by India. Balochistan also borders the tribal area of Pakistan, where forces are combating “terrorists” who fight for existence as humans with their own links to Afghanistan. The US Congress has also expressed concerns regarding human rights violations in Balochistan, making Pakistan wary of an intrusion into the Islamic Republic’s internal matters. Further, on the geopolitical stage, America is more supportive of India’s “Look East” policy than China’s OBOR and in past, Washington had proposed its own “New Silk Road” connecting South and Central Asia but was keen to invade energy rich Arab world. .

Historically, the separatist and freedom fighting sections in Balochistan have also been linked to both Afghanistan and India. In 1970s, Afghan President Daoud Khan established militant camps in his country to train Baloch separatists to join efforts of India and NATO to destabilize Pakistan. This continued to be the case until President Hamid Karzai’s government, when he assured Islamabad that Afghan soil would not be used against their neighbor. However, Pakistan continuously accuses the Indian embassy in Afghanistan of funding militants against Pakistan. The recent wave of terrorism in Balochistan has brought this blame game back. India still claims to be”innocent”, while killing Kashmiris in fake encounters.

Indian military has already murdered over 100,000 Kashmiri Muslims and used Hindus in Kashmir to castigate Kashmir Muslims.

Pakistan asserts that India is bent on sabotaging CPEC by funding and training anti-state elements in Balochistan. The claim is supported by India’s official concern over CPEC and a potential Chinese naval base in Gwadar to ensure Chinese maritime hegemony in Indian Ocean. On India’s 70th Independence Day on August 15, PM Narendra Modi added fuel to the fire. In his address to the nation, Modi said that Kashmiris and Balochs alike have thanked him for raising concerns regarding human rights violations by the Pakistani Balochistan state.

Pakistan termed the remarks as a proof of Indian meddling in its territory. Pakistan accuses India of fully focused on destabilizing neighbor Pakistan and silence Kashmiris.

Observation

In spite of concerted efforts by USA and Europe and even Russia, China has far refuse to engage itself in the so-called terror wars which are indeed a permanent war on Islam.

It is obviously not out of love for Islam, but it only does not want to waste its resources on wasteful things Washington has envisaged for the world powers. Beijing only offers support. In Afghanistan and Syria China only extends the necessary help but still refuses to be part of war mongers in Mideast.

China plays safe in war issues related to Syria or Afghanistan while it is interested only in reconstruction operations. Beijing could finance the NATO wars through USA without committing troops and terror goods. Russian involvement in Syrian may change the Chinese attitude to terror wars since it also targets Muslims in the country.

The China-Pakistan Axis is too strong for India to do anything about it. It only dutifully complains about increasing Pak-China military and economic ties to USA for necessary “strategic” action against Pakistan and USA also is helpless, though it cuts aid to Islamabad. .

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

The West, Sinophobia and Cooperation

Irfan Khan

Published

on

Interestingly, populace they are inhabitant of whether West or East pole share having almost common issues like weak productivity growth, proliferation of sophisticated war weapons and climate dangers; however, except for a few issues which, in particular, people of West considers most panic and hazardous. Policy-makers of the West are indulging themselves with a narrative that China’s rise would threaten capitalist economic model and the very survival of the West liberal democracy. Is it so?

Not at all. What must be ponder here is the fact that international capitalists model has stopped functioning, which have witnessed 2008 financial crisis. The leading investors and tycoons, unfortunately, have not been maintaining a steady balance between profitability and investments: profits are becoming increasing while no apparent increase in investments has been recording. Its consequential effects are lowering trends in productivity across the globe; which, in response, has been adversely affecting the prosperity of people across the globe. Establishment and corporate-based politics put the nations in a competition with each-other, that affect masses; as it is underpinned by observing myriad portion of budgets are going into military weapons.

British colonial hegemony culture, and US-led conflicts since last few decades, morphed world into most devastating state, perhaps. In this scenario, China’s rise seeds a hope to the indigent and penurious economies, which the West is fury of.

The current dispute between the US and China in terms of trade and technology, and if European take side, would morphed to a more dramatic state; where the health of the global economy will likely to be damaged. It is safe to say and notwithstanding predictable that this  trade would be converted to a new hottest-cold war, which may force the emerging multipolar world to split into financial bipolar form.

How long will this bubble not burst? It will be likely to head the world towards a global conflict.

However, here’s one good news or perhaps token. West-Policy makers, instead of spreading Sinophobia, should assure that they can be living comfortably with China. It is because, so far so good, China has been depicting a cooperation and advancement, irrespective of humanity, ethnicity and religion. What’s more the West propaganda that China is appearing as geopolitical actor is equivocal; because it never influences and impose their culture on any nation.

Embracing a different economic model, China, is plausibly on a runner-up position to the US and experts claimed it will surpass the USin the next decade. Whether it’s 5G tech. Or leading status of green energy, or ultra-scales exports or its leading developments for the nations having indigent economies are hallmark achievements in recent history. The US and the West should, I propose, consider China’s rise a piece of cake, and welcome its come out while securing its interests under the umbrella of cooperation. This logic, while posing no threat, seems to be long term functional.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Beyond China-U.S. trade and where is its outlet?

Wang Li

Published

on

By

Since China-U.S. trade war started in the Mid-2018, it has lasted for more than 14 months. From the beginning, the World Bank and the IMF have taken the position that the trade conflict America has trigged will serve no country’s economic progress and their action is patently wrong. Since then, China has at several occasions showed its good-will and sincerity including purchase of the products from the U.S. and the consensus reached between the two heads of state at the summits in Argentina and Japan, during which both parties agreed to move towards dropping all of the additional tariffs introduced during the dispute, and reach a comprehensive agreement that is fair and beneficial to the two sides. Yet, there is still no insurance of the end of trade war between the two largest economies of the world.

Now comes a new possibility that from October 10-11, a senior trade delegation from China, headed by Vice Premier Liu He, is scheduled to meet their American counterparts in Washington DC, led by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. Yet, the trade talks also come at a precarious time in Trump’s decision to reduce the number of U.S. forces in the Syrian border areas with Turkey and amid a spiraling impeachment inquiry into his interactions with Ukraine. More than that, the White House has repeatedly used national security as a reason to sanction Chinese companies, and this has been a talking point in U.S. presidential campaign speeches.

As a matter of fact, the Sino-American rivalry, like the German-Britain rivalry one century ago, is as much a clash of two major powers as it is of two systems: the authoritarian and state-protected development of a rising power vs. the liberal, free-market constitutionalism of a ruling power. Therefore, differences in economic system inevitably amplified the salience of the narrowing economic gap, leading the ruling power to feel cheated and the rising power to feel unsatisfied and threatened. By taking the current China-U.S. trade war into consideration, several factors are complicating the upcoming round of talks.

First, the American resentments against the Chinese economy have grown and seemed to be systematic steps to decouple the world’s two largest economies. As American scholar James Rae argued that with a series of steps, ranging from the tariff rollout to restrictions on dealings with major Chinese technology firms and “ordering” American companies to move production out of China, the U.S. has signaled that this is a trade war, indeed a confrontation over the fundamentals of two rival economic models involving at least four economic tools—standard-setting, technology acquisition, financial power, and infrastructure investment.

Second, the U.S. argues that the Chinese story historically resembles the German one in an overall sense and these parallels are not entirely coincidental. China has long admired the German export-led growth model and is skeptical of laissez faire capitalism. The founding statesman of unified Germany has been consistently seen as an icon of a modernized and powerful country since China has taken its own modernization in the later 19th century. Even it is held, though groundless, that after China emerged from the civil turbulence in 1979, it supposedly structured its development banks on the German model, though it supplemented their loans with Western capital. Under state-directed development, China eventually emerged as the world’s largest exporter with enormous market share in the United States, similarly creating economic interdependence while inadvertently laying the foundation for political competition. This is one of the sources of the Thucydides trap” occurred in the United States but rejected by China and in particular President Xi Jin-ping.

In addition, as a result of these strategies, the speed of the catchup is equally alarming to American elites now. For instance, China’s GDP was only 25% of U.S. GDP in 1990 after a decade of reforms, but has since approached American GDP in 2018. On the one hand, China, like previous Germany, is perceived to have undergone a radical and alarming economic modernization that catapulted it into the rank of first-rate power in mere decades. On the other hand, the United States, following the British mentality of the day, holds that the Chinese developmental model is a form of cheating, forced technology transfer and manipulation in finance. In light of this, China has paten reasons to be concerned that the United States has sought to halt its peaceful rise and undermine its economics by restricting trade, technology and capital flows—whether through economic means or direct subversion.

Yet, Trump’s instinct to do something is not entirely unwelcome, and some of his administration’s policies may prove promising. For example, bipartisan legislation like the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act presents an instrument to deal with China’s state-backed purchases of Western intellectual property that is somewhat more surgical than blunt U.S. tariffs. Other challenges, including China’s forced technology transfers, non-tariff barriers, and subsidies to state champions remain, and although they violate WTO rules. It seems to testify some people’s growing concerns that the economic escalation is now moving the trade dispute into the political realm, from where it had formerly been immune. First, the U.S. has already used the dubious frame of national security to make rhetorical demands as well as launch new policy initiatives to punish the Chinese firms. Second, even the issue of human rights has been inserted into the equation as the U.S. has released an export blacklist of companies with business in China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region. Also while President Trump has been quiet enough on the riots in Hong Kong, a commentary on the topic by the Houston NBA franchise has ironically started a new row that could have major implications for the broader relationship. As Rae observed, the consequence is that debating social issues is easily a slippery slope and the intrusion of trade into China’s domestic affairs even crosses highly sensitive issues related to China’s core national interests and sovereignty. It is true that once those red lines are crossed, unraveling a pathway back will be enormously complicated.

It is understandable that China appears more optimistic or even confident in resolving the current trade war. It declared to purchase huge amount of soybeans, pork and other agricultural products from the United States, signaling that such deals will be exempt from additional tariffs imposed on U.S. goods. This is another gesture of goodwill from the Chinese side to further demonstrate its sincerity in ending the trade issues between the two sides. In the span of two days, China and the United States are supposedly to take a series of positive steps in preparation for a new round of trade talks scheduled for this talks in Washington D.C. Although China resolutely opposes any escalation in the trade war, it admits that there are no winners in a trade war, and therefore a constant escalation of tariffs is not the road to a solution. Only by adhering to the principles of equality and mutual respect, and by negotiating with a calm and rational attitude, can the dispute be defused and differences resolved. To that end, it argues for sincerity, patience and practical action needed. On the eve of the new round of talks, the two sides did have taken actions and created favorable conditions for making substantive progress, in line with the expectations of the international community.

True, as a cliché goes, where there’s a will, there’s a way. China has expected a positive result from this round of talks, but the issue is that the United States has already perceived or misperceived China exactly following the path of rising Imperial Germany one century ago. Some observers even hold that Trump’s trade approach is emotionally satisfying but diplomatically disastrous, therefore they fear his confrontational strategy and support a more cooperative economic relationship with China. Yet, in an overall sense, China has been described frequently as a rising power with patent ambition to take advantage of having a state-directed system competing in technology standards, innovation, financial politics, and geo-economics, which force the United States to seek a coordinated response. Given this, that American response should neither be blindly confrontational nor naively cooperative; instead it should be competitive. Sure competition remains the theme of the China-United States relations in the next decades. It is unclear if it takes the scenario of the cold war or the cold peace, but it is clear that the approach America will adopt would be to work with its allies to strengthen rules, set standards, punish Chinese industrial policy and technology theft, invest in research, welcome the world’s best and brightest, and create alternatives to its geo-economic statecraft. It is truly hard to predicate who might be able to play a better hand in this globalized chessboard.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Five demands, not one less: China’s test of Leadership

Irfan Khan

Published

on

There were students, doctors, lawyers, activists; in short people belong to every faction of society, who came out on the streets in a number of tens of thousands in Taipei, Taiwan, marched against “totalitarianism” what they consider China holds in the regime. Yes, it was the recent September 29, Taiwanese citizens packed to the streets for upholding solidarity with Hongkongers.

Plebeian in Hong Kong (HK)—a former British colony—is protesting for the last four months against China authority. The key reason that forced them to do so was China’s authority intervention in the city internal affairs. The episode started since March this year, following an extradition bill issued by the Chief executive of HK on the edict of China. This, however, seems a little to the people outside to HK, but it instead has grim historical facts for Hongkongers. HK-plebeian considered Chief executive of HK—Lam—pro-Beijing, while Mr Xi’s regime as despotic, who has been dreaming unified China. The current legal status of HK is linked to its special status enacted by China-British declaration, 1985. It was this, according to which the city was allotted the status of semi-autonomy with a mini-constitution. While in 1997, HK was taken to handover to China, the administration of China pledged to not intervene in HK internal affairs at least until 1947.

However, China’ s demand from HK’s administration to issue extradition bill for a HK-man who has murdered his girlfriend during visit to Taiwan. HK-plebeian considered it an example of attack by China on its internal system and has now been protesting. At a rally, protestestors contended five demands: the withdrawal of extradition bill, relabeling them as rioters, assurance of universal suffrage to choose chief executive and legislature for the city, and lastly patently investigation for police violence against the demonstrators and activists.

Are there atrocities?

Yes: Various televised recordings shows what has been going on there: They have brutally been shelled, thrown gas, and fired.

China’s view

From the day first, China viewed it the CIA’s plot aiming to stir up people against China Cumminst Party’s rule or a  foreign-led campaign against the regime.

Mark Pinkstone, an Australian journalist with 50 years of experience in Hong Kong, said, “The Basic Law, the constitutional document that supports ‘one country, two systems,’ provides freedoms of expression, speech and religion. Not one of them has been eroded since the handover in 1997. The current demonstrations are living proof of that.”

According to the Human Freedom Index monitored by the Cato Institute, based in Washington  Hong Kong is ranked No 3, trailing only New Zealand and Switzerland. The index ranks 162 countries and autonomous regions based on 79 measures of personal and economic freedom. The US is ranked 17 as measured by the same indicators.

The World Economic Forum published a survey of people from 25 nations who were asked if they thought their own government was heading in the right direction or not. The survey was conducted between October and November of 2016.

China emerged leading the pack, with 90% of its citizens responding that their government was on the right track while only 10% thought not. The US was squarely in the middle, ranked at 13, with 35% of its citizens thinking their government was going in the right direction and 65% disagreeing.

China’s leadership

Once an ideological and internationally solitary state China is now transformed to a most advanced one under the rule of communist party. It made its intriguing appearance on the chessboard of international power, however, still enduring some domestic challenges–HK is one of them. While it claims to work towards various connectivity and cooperation based projects, yet do not have efficacy to let the World its way of leaderships. Its think-tanks are either  do not want to lead or they believe in pragmatic steps rather than bolstering theoretical ideas. Even its media can not counter the west propaganda and what the consequential effects are people around the globe hear much about it from the west. The current HK’s issue is amid the problems which matter more and are the real  tests of China’s leadership.   

Continue Reading

Latest

Human Rights33 mins ago

Turkey’s Syria offensive could spark another catastrophe

Airstrikes and a ground offensive by Turkey in northern Syria against Kurdish forces have left civilians dead and forced tens...

Newsdesk2 hours ago

ADB Unveils New 5-Year Strategy for Nepal to Promote Stronger, More Inclusive Economy

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has released a new 5-year Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) for Nepal that lays out ADB’s...

Middle East5 hours ago

Landing in Riyadh: Geopolitics work in Putin’s favour

When Russian President Vladimir Putin lands in Riyadh this week for the second time in 12 years, his call for...

Reports6 hours ago

MENA Faces Another Year of Subdued Growth, with Bolder Reforms Needed to Boost Private Sector

Economic growth in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is projected to slow to 0.6% this year compared...

Style9 hours ago

The Breitling Avenger Swiss Air Force Team Limited Edition

Breitling is celebrating the 55th anniversary of the Patrouille Suisse Swiss Air Force Team, admired around the world for its...

Energy11 hours ago

A Century of Russia’s Weaponization of Energy

In 1985 a joint meeting between U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev conveyed this enduring sentiment...

Newsdesk13 hours ago

Bangladesh Economy Continues Robust Growth with Rising Exports and Remittances

The Bangladesh economy sustains strong growth in FY19 led by rising exports and record remittances, says a new World Bank...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy