What's new

China says wants peace after newspaper warns on South China Sea clash

This same foolishness by the Pakistani state has enabled it to become a nuclear weapons state and prevent an enemy that is 8 times bigger than us from ever invading/attacking Pakistan.

Yes, this is precisely the kind of foolishness I meant. The sort of cleverness that keeps revelling in getting out of serious trouble, without ever bothering to figure out or to think about how that trouble happened in the first place.

  1. If Pakistan had played its cards well, and had not behaved in an idiotic manner in 1947, there would never even have been hostilities.
  2. If Pakistan had not played the 'non-state actor' card in 1947, and fallen in love with the idea, it might not have tried playing the same card every time, in every hour of need,
    1. whether in 1965, in the form of SSG troops sent in to masquerade as ordinary citizens rising up in revolt;
    2. or in 1971, encouraging the Bihari Mussalman and the Bengali Islamist to join and butcher dissident Bangladeshis;
    3. or against the Soviets, joining in and attacking the Afghan state on the grounds of religious rescue of a friendly nation, and arming the mujahedin to the hilt with some of the American arms received, all the while proclaiming piously their complete disinvolvement with events across the border;
    4. or in 1999, pretending blithely that all was well, and that some hot-headed activists had taken completely unilateral and disconnected advice; or in Mumbai, again, butchering civilians in cold blood and absolving themselves of all responsibility;
    5. or by hiding OBL next to their cadet school and being wholly astonished by his detection and execution by an American raiding force which came through and went back without any let or hindrance;
    6. or today, propping up the Taliban with matchsticks on all sides, and again proclaiming even more loudly than on other occasions that they were not involved, that the Taliban leadership may or may not be present in Pakistani cities, but Pakistan had no knowledge about it;
  3. If Pakistan had not practiced militarism as a key factor of their national identity, and
    1. allowed their generals to subvert the process of governance, through the instrumentality of an officer found unfit for front-line service and protected by an extension of his career as well as the unfortunate death of the best candidate for the job; an officer who promoted himself Field Marshal without having displayed any leadership in war;
    2. allowed half of its total existence since independence to pass under military rule;
    3. allowed one war-losing dictator to be succeeded by another;
    4. allowed a sickening sycophant and an obscurantist to kill the legally elected prime minister and take power for himself, and possibly ruining Pakistan's prospects to stay on the civilian path;
    5. tried to adjust the line of control in its own favour, and been hoist by its own petard;
    6. allowed bizarre schemes to be proposed and implemented to correct earlier setbacks, without taking into account a broader and more universal disapproval of the fairly obvious adventuring displayed;
    7. allowed more dictators to come in by supporting the clinging to power of a particularly short-sighted general who had already caused humiliation to the state;
    8. continued to weaken and undermine the civilian leadership, without taking the vital leadership role themselves;
  4. If Pakistan had not displayed unbounded, unlimited aggression towards its neighbours, east or west, and I could add more than 10 examples of this behaviour, then
then there would have been no reason to fear anyone, no reason to think about your neighbour being seven or eight times bigger. There would have been no reason to become a nuclear power. Pakistan wantonly sought out danger and made enemies, to east and to west, and now tries to take credit for provoking war and making war, and then defending herself.

The way you speak about CPEC is as if india is economically more powerful than america and that the living standards of Indian people are better than Germans/West Europeans.

Perhaps that thought, that feeling of inferiority and dealing with shoddy goods is in your own mind, since I never mentioned anything of the kind. Nor did the living standards of Indian people come into my comment: again, probably a private nightmare of your own.

What I did mention was that you are being thrown a fribble, and the long-term consequences of this economic equivalent of a lollipop will cost you a lot. As other smart initiatives of the Pakistani administration has cost a lot.

The CPEC project and presence of Chinese assets/investments now all over Pakistan means that any attack on Pakistan is now an attack on China. In case of Pakistan going to war, the Chinese in the very least would be forced to give us (in substantial quantities) their most advanced conventional weapons systems to be used devastatingly against our enemies.

That is precisely what I am saying. You are well on the way to becoming North Korea. Congratulations on your statesmanship and foresight.

Pakistan's relationship with China is of massive benefit to Pakistan and helps ensure our survival against potential enemies much more powerful than india.

Yes, indeed. Yet another bogey that you are creating, by irritating your former BFF and provoking them at every step. It was these allies, who are still formally your allies, whom Pakistanis used to cite as helping to ensure their survival against India, for instance, and Russia, when Russia had entered Afghanistan and was breathing down the neck of Pakistan. Now you seem to be hinting that these mighty friends are about to be provoked by yet another misadventure, which you will no doubt describe as a bold move for political independence, and you have better friends in place already.

Quem Deus perdere vult, Dementat prius.

Sir, have not yet started with what @WAJsal has put in. I skimmed over his posts and realised they are exhaustive and it shall need me to first read the history from as far back as I can find and then read his posts and enquire of my doubts from him and tag you in the context in order to get a better perspective of things.

It shall be a shame and an insult to his hard work if my half baked and half assed queries were directed to him out of ignorance.

So I dusted out a copy of The History of Civilisations of Central Asia and went straight to Volume 4 of the series and specifically the chapter The Western Himalayan States by AH Dani. The Tibetan angle was a gem .... so the question to the gentleman quoted. It is astounding how people do not realise the long term implications of the whole issue of Kashmir and its unsettled status on CPEC, the effect of the project on Pakistan and its long term implications on their strategic objectives.

With the tightening of the noose in the SCS and especially Malacca (by Indians) I am really interested in observing how Pakistan once agains surrenders its own interests in this misplaced quest for 'power' and supposed 'prosperity'. Like the gentleman has said, the army remains supreme and it has an interest, it does raise the query of personal interests trumping long term strategic objectives.

Also, I sense that we may see Baluchistan come into prominence now, as Joe Cocker would say, 'with a little help from my friends'.

There was confirmed Chinese brigade along Skardu-Minimarg-Kel axis since 2010, with elements of combat troops there, officially to provide protection to the construction work, but also as a block for any ingress of unsavoury characters from Pakistani domestic industry into Xinjiang.

You have hit gold. Dani is gold.

He was a scholar in BHU who was insulted and told to go to Pakistan, and he did. There he became their brightest star in history and archaeology.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. As the bloody Sangh Parivar never found out and never will.

The rest you will find beautiful; he is a very high scholar.

There is a wonderful story about his journey to South Korea. His hosts ensured that he was comfortable and left him preparing to retire to bed. In the middle of the night, they heard him shouting and rushed to his room, fearing the worst. They found him holding an ordinary flask of water, on which there was an incription in Korean. "What has happened? What is the matter?" they asked fearfully. "I can read this!", the great man shouted, "I do not know the words, but I know what they sound like!" And he proceeded to pronounce the words, to the utter astonishment of the Korean hosts, who recognised the sounds immediately.

Dani was adept in Brahmi script, and had recognised the Korean script as a variant of Brahmi. He later pieced together his midnight discovery and found that the Korean script had indeed been adapted from Brahmi.

But that was the kind of scholar he was.

You lucky man.

For the rest,

Yes, this is precisely the kind of foolishness I meant. The sort of cleverness that keeps revelling in getting out of serious trouble, without ever bothering to figure out or to think about how that trouble happened in the first place.


Source: https://defence.pk/threads/china-sa...h-china-sea-clash.437956/page-3#ixzz4Da7vdjjJ
 
.
If the above is true that the importance and strategic value of Gwadar for China will increase many times over. Especially in light of te fact that the americans have an alliance with the Taiwanese. Potentially interesting times ahead.

China's loss = Pakistan's gain
 
.
Good search Bro. Seems people out there are wrongly quoting China in order to escalate situation more. Nefarious designs seems to be making way by publishing such news.




Dear Sirs,
The 12th July thing is between stake holders and China. I dont think so either India or Pakistan have any say in this regard. So why should even these two be concerned here? China knows how to tackle itself and whatever is the result out there, it wud have almost nil affects on China.
@NALANDA Like I said that India aint even the concerned party out there than what has it got to do with NSG thing?

The 12th July thing has been brandished in the faces of the whole world, with perhaps a few additional brandishes in the faces of those whose friendship Pakistan should be seeking. If you insist on internationalising it, and counter-posing it to your defeated stances on other matters, why blame us?
 
. .
Just was curious to know, assuming hypothetically ruling goes in China Favor, will China still set aside ruling and negotiate with Philippines ??

According to UNCLOS, Andaman islands belongs to Myanmar, it's within 200 nm off Myanamar coast. I support Myanmar will ask for an artribution in the future. And under British colony, Andaman islands were managed by Rangon, not by Bombay.
 
. .
According to UNCLOS, Andaman islands belongs to Myanmar, it's within 200 nm off Myanamar coast. I support Myanmar will ask for an artribution in the future. And under British colony, Andaman islands were managed by Rangon, not by Bombay.

Good try.

It confirms my suspicion that many members on this forum have not the slightest clue about the nature of law.
 
. .
The fallout of which would have potentially massive benefits for Pakistan in that if China becomes very reliant on Gwadar, then China will HAVE TO ensure that Pakistan becomes an economically and militarily very powerful nation no matter the cost. Even if it means in-cooperating the Pakistani economy to the Chinese one. This would in an instance propel Pakistan into becoming a virtually developed nation like Turkey. Many interesting times ahead if you are a Pakistani.
Turkey is a developed country?? No industrial base, even cannot make self-propelled guns, rocket launchers to imports from China, most of the exports of primary products... Because GDP per capita, so is the developed countries? Brother. I think equatorial guinea is the developed countries.
 
.
The 12th July thing has been brandished in the faces of the whole world, with perhaps a few additional brandishes in the faces of those whose friendship Pakistan should be seeking. If you insist on internationalising it, and counter-posing it to your defeated stances on other matters, why blame us?

Sir You missed my point of concern, this very thing is between China and other stakeholders and both Pakistan, India aint party to it directly. But if we go by your definition then what about case of Russia, who is being hit hard with many kind of sanctions and is the closest partner of India. But its none of concern of India as you would find alternate ways for the affected things. And regarding the defeated stances of ours then why go away, just consider the events of near past, where we can only see its India who failed not only in NSG bid but cudnt stop the CSF for Pakistan, so much so the F-16 thing again got revived, Pathankot files are being littered with dust and so on. All this happened when Pakistan moved only few strings and didnt even initiate full diplomatic drive. Imagine if we go with full throttle diplomacy then what wud happen? You ll give 1001 counter arguments for this but this aint the point we are discussing here. Again I wud say that 12th July is being dealt by China, the way they have dealt other issues so I wud not worry for that and there would not be some implications which can not be dealt by China befittingly.
 
.
fail to understand how is India 'waiting' for the verdict and why would you drag India on a thread for SCS except to ensure that there is a troll fest?



That is, but understood. I have been harping on this aspect at a number of times that Gwadar is essential for China in the context of SCS and for US this is a potential area wherein China can be 'discomfited' in order to 'toe the line' over SCS.

If the July 12th ruling goes against China, what shall indeed become interesting is the position Pakistan will play, as once again it will become a frontline state in power politics between two powers which have nothing other than their own self interest at work. Indeed, interesting times ahead.
Oh, it is a sort of "Freedom 251“ reply...
 
. .
If law worked, Philippines would not occupied Zhongye islands from China in 1970's.
And McMahone line is illegal.

No, the Philippines, or rather, one mentally unstable adventurer would not have occupied the Zhongye island (not plural). How does that illegal act prove or disprove anything? The problem there is with the enforcement of the law, not recognition of law, per se, or adherence to the rule of law. There is a distinction, and a very broad and clear one at that, nothing refined or sophisticated.

And how does that affect the legality of the McMahon Line?
 
.
@shah1398 I just search and read sources, China didn't says what the title report.
The newspaper Reuter reporters don't feel ashame of fabrications.
A Chinese newspaper says, if the Philippine lay aside the arbitrition, China will take bilateral discussion with Philippine about revelant issues. Their consideration is when the arbitrition happens, there will be no rooms for negotiations any more.
Read it in Chinese language !

China always wanted peace in SCS. However, China is also willing to and have the capacity to defend and maintain it's sovereignty there.


Well only Chinese can say that, after building man made islands!
 
.
Oh, it is a sort of "Freedom 251“ reply...

Your point being? A silly point from you to my pointing out silliness of some other member's post?


If law worked, Philippines would not occupied Zhongye islands from China in 1970's.
And McMahone line is illegal.

What are your views on land reclamation being done by China in SCS?

Do you think that a nation should have the right to make an artificial island and then claim it as its own?

Or if one is to comply with contiguous water clause, build an island after reclamation and keep thee cycle on in perpetuity thereby encroaching on the sea itself?

@greenwood @dy1022

Please read, understand and then speak. Its tiresome when half baked knowledge perpetuates and becomes a rant and a flurry of absurd and baseless comments

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom