The propaganda is that China’s premier brought along a 200-strong business delegation to sign MOUs worth US$35 billion with the public and private sector of Pakistan, creating the impression that a “paradigm change” is underway whereby China is about to replace the West as the biggest “foreign investor”, donor and trading partner of Pakistan. But the fact is that most of the MOUs are not worth the paper they are written on. Pakistani businessmen were hastily assembled at the last minute and mingled with their Chinese counterparts without having done any homework about mutually profitable projects.
They were MOUs and not signed agreements with every clause of the agreements stipulated. I think it was good that something was done, even if in a hurry, at least better than making a sorry face(doing nothing) or refusing to work with them. Let us ask Pakistani businesses to work on different details of the business plans and try to materialize them into agreemetns mutually beneficial to both countries.
The fact is that China is neither making any significant foreign investments in Pakistan, nor handing out free money to Pakistan. Only US$400 million was pledged as a “soft loan” tied to a couple of projects like the Karakoram Highway that are of strategic importance to China itself and all the money will go to line the pockets of Chinese contractors and labour working on these projects. Only US$10 million has been coughed up for flood rehabilitation and reconstruction (the US has contributed US$300 million).
No country hands out free money. We really have to make an effort to materialize these MOUs into practical business plans that, as I earlier said, benefit both Pakistan and Chinese investors. This is how world is supposed to work.
US$300 million are free? How would they be allocated? Who would disburse them? How much percentage would actually reach the actual target population?
Noteworthy jointventure projects inside Pakistan are conspicuous by their absence. The fact also is that China’s premier and businessmen were focused on India, their first stopover, where they clinched agreements to raise the volume of their trade from US$60 billion currently to US$100 billion per year in the next few years.
Their focus on India is their 'business' which makes good sense since investment and trade with India, have more benefits to Chinese investors and instead of having any ill wishes about it, we should try to promote ourselves as a good friend to both especially China because it is already a good friend, while trying to normalize relations with India as much as we can.
The Chinese proverb quoted by Mr Wen Jiabao that “a ‘distant neighbour’ is more important than a ‘close relative’ has been interpreted to signify Pakistan’s “closeness” to China, conveniently omitting the priceless value that China attaches to ‘close neighbours’ (like India) in relation to ‘close relatives’!
Good they were, at least, saying we are more important means they want to maintain very good relations with us despite smaller trade with us and we should build on it rather than comparing ourselves to eight times larger country where they have more economic interests due to huge population and larger trade.
In the same spirit, China has constantly advised Pakistani governments and policy makers to put the dispute of Kashmir with India on the back burner
They gave a very good advice and we really should follow it if we cannot solve the issue. It is much better than maintaining status quo which means armies strategically deployed on the border forever to fight anytime.
and forge ahead with trade and commerce on the basis of interests and interdependencies, advice that Pakistan’s military establishment has constantly spurned in favour of a sumzero conflict strategy mantra: India must solve Kashmir to Pakistan’s satisfaction before relations can be normalized.
Kashmir should be irrelevant for this decision because this dispute is not going to be solved anytime soon, means just status quo. The right approach would be to look at the state of our own industry and our own economic interests. We do not want to destroy our industry and neither do we want to unduly protect it so this question has to be answered carefully with good economic analysis and not based on simple philosophical ideas.
No wonder, then, that when Dr Fehmida Mirza, the Speaker of the National Assembly, profusely thanked China for its unstinting support for Pakistan’s position on the Kashmir dispute, Mr Wen Jiabao consciously snubbed her by omitting any reference in his speech to Pakistan’s “core” Kashmir dispute with India!
Means that their interests in India are probably increasing so he was being more discrete than before. We cannot only talk about our strategic importance to maintain Chinese support and friendship. This friendship has to be strengthened by increasing trade, and investment. Otherwise their increasing economic interest in India might erode a lot of support on various issues. All the bonds we maintain with China will last only if they are supported by strong economics.
Significantly, China’s avowed pro-Pakistan tilt did not stop India from helping to dismember Pakistan in 1971, nor did it stop India from retaliating against Pakistani-provoked wars in 1965 and 1999.
If China intervened, there would be more countries in the war. Besides no country fights any other country's war. This is really asking for too much.
The old adage is truer now than ever before: when push comes to shove, interests and not friendships matter in international relations.
This is exactly true. That is why we must build on existing interests and find out opportunities on which we can work together for mutual benefit. China has the largest foreign reserves in the world. They also have largest and increasing holding of US debt that they buy to support dollar and American economy so Chinese exports continue to go to US. In a similar spirit, we must present good and practical economic plans to Chinese where they could invest and make money (and we make money as well) and they would be strategically vital for our country as well. This should be the most important principle behind a long lasting friendship.
Countries that are economically strong have mutual economic interests with most other countries, ideological friends or foes, while the countries who have poor economic conditions, have few allies other than just some donors who give them aid to prevent them from being unstable or to stop them from promoting terror elsewhere.
