What's new

CPEC Financing: Is Pakistan Being Ripped Off By China?

In the same way I see CPEC as a vehicle for Chinese economic ingress into Pakistan which will tie Pakistan economically within the Chinese arc. This down the road will mature into full spectrum economic, military (expect Chinese bases ) and social relationship. For instance Chinese see Baloch coast as a place for Chinese holiday makers to visit as they do for instance Antalya in Turkey. Presumably full scale resorts that cater for Chinese holiday makers including drinks, food and other pursuits will be needed further down the road. It's all exciting stuff and I see Pakistan changing over the decades.
The thing you missed is that China can not keep giving us handouts and this is a way to help us stand on our own feet. Couple that with the fact that they will shift certain industries to Pakistan to make them more cost effective, they have basically worked on the country like they would on a province of their own.
Improve power and connectivity by land, increase security and reduce distance to consumer. These all work for them, and they earn from it too boot. Our industrialists will be the biggest losers which frankly, is a good thing. What is needed for our country now is a bigger export market, decreased reliance on foreign goods, and a clear vision. In our country this is was impossible till this project came along.

Its obvious China is making big profits from Pakistan, however China is taking big risk in Pakistan, so is demanding higher risk rated return.
Actually the profits are minimal compared to the return. IPPS anywhere can get a good return, and roads are always profitable with tolls and other collectables. Two percent interest is a joke, when others are coming to us with 6 to 9 percent if we ask for loans. This is a life line, and with the power projects it is more of a boost to our economy.
 
.
The thing you missed is that China can not keep giving us handouts and this is a way to help us stand on our own feet.
Agreed. I think that is what real CPEC is about.

Couple that with the fact that they will shift certain industries to Pakistan to make them more cost effective, they have basically worked on the country like they would on a province of their own.
Yes. They are applying the very development model that has worked so well for them. Look in less than three decades they have gone fo famine country to economic powerhouse country. One example I read in the article I read was that nearly 50% of Pak agri products are wasted for lack of cold chain logistics and poor distribution networks. This is where the Chinese could invest and create win win synergy for both sides. If Chinese companies make profit from this our farmers and consumer will also benefit.

Our industrialists will be the biggest losers which frankly, is a good thing.
We don't have industrialists. We have monopoly profiteers who survice on monoply and rent. The Pakistani consumer is raped by them as he is hostage to their economic monopoly. If they were industrialists by now they would have spread their wings abroad like TATA in India have. That has not happened because they can only survive inside Pakistan under the monopoly created by trade restrictions and import restrictions. They are like a mafia and need to go and a new eneration of real industrialists can take root.


5918cab9a0494.jpg



https://www.dawn.com/news/1333101/exclusive-cpec-master-plan-revealed
 
.
For a few billion dollars to wreck a stategic allies economy which would send Pak into a tailspin would be suicidal thing to do for Beijing. China for it's own strategic strength needs Pakistan as a strong, prosperous country, that it can trade with, build military alliance with and have a long term strategic alliance with. Do you chop a apple tree for short term benefit or do you nurture it to gain fruit year after year?

Look no further than North Korea to see Pakistan's future.

China does not need a prosperous Pakistan which could get jittery about losing its economy due to its closeness to China.

But you are right in correctly identifying that this whole business of China-Pakistan economic corridor is a smoke screen. What China really needs is military bases in Pakistan. To achieve this goal, China requires a desperate Pakistan that is totally dependent on China and China only. Towards this end, China would dominate and pervade each and every sector of Pakistan to control it internally. China would produce in Pakistan what it needs in China (For example agricultural products, since Pakistan has more arable land than China) and import them to China. This is what British did by growing cotton, tobacco, sugarcane etc in their colonies that they could either consume or make money off. Expect 90% of imports and exports of Pakistan to be with China in the next decade.

K_K-9zDi0sO2kD4ZqyVrhFeVhH52928D7Mru-JiBIrgrQQrQDY2XGvAP0GZwo3f7Dr3jqCCR93fK89UQdMXIakDsPwjzJyJSkvm0wIQicWAX4fogNDYYHyRmJwRN8oiFfVsxTEy3
 
. .
Yes. They are applying the very development model that has worked so well for them. Look in less than three decades they have gone fo famine country to economic powerhouse country. One example I read in the article I read was that nearly 50% of Pak agri products are wasted for lack of cold chain logistics and poor distribution networks. This is where the Chinese could invest and create win win synergy for both sides. If Chinese companies make profit from this our farmers and consumer will also benefit.
Also I hope they can point to us that we have an unsustainable agricultural model and we need to focus more on edible oils(3rd biggest import) and bring practices to save our water. The CPEC model should address some issues directly, hopefully Gwadar will be like the Chinese ports I have seen with regards to hygiene.
We don't have industrialists. We have monopoly profiteers who survice on monoply and rent. The Pakistani consumer is raped by them as he is hostage to their economic monopoly. If they were industrialists by now they would have spread their wings abroad like TATA in India have. That has not happened because they can only survive inside Pakistan under the monopoly created by trade restrictions and import restrictions. They are like a mafia and need to go and a new eneration of real industrialists can take root.
Yes finally someone else said it also. The ability to innovate, invest in R and D, and streamline processes has been lost here. Idiots and more idiots, hopefully this N league scourge leaves us soon, and better policies rip these industrialist leeches out.

But you are right in correctly identifying that this whole business of China-Pakistan economic corridor is a smoke screen. What China really needs is military bases in Pakistan. To achieve this goal, China requires a desperate Pakistan that is totally dependent on China and China only. Towards this end, China would dominate and pervade each and every sector of Pakistan to control it internally. China would produce in Pakistan what it needs in China (For example agricultural products, since Pakistan has more arable land than China) and import them to China. This is what British did by growing cotton, tobacco, sugarcane etc in their colonies that they could either consume or make money off. Expect 90% of imports and exports of Pakistan to be with China in the next decade.
China does not need a prosperous Pakistan which could get jittery about losing its economy due to its closeness to China.
Okay, first of all let us make this simple. The first and second point contradict each other. A prosperous Pakistan will spend on its military, making it more capable, which will be most helpful to Chinese industry, its foreign policy, and balancing and occupying more of Indian armed forces.
A strong economy for example, would lead to more purchases for the Navy, larger crafts which would partly be sourced from China. those ships would add to the strength of the Pakistani Navy and require a greater presence of Indian Navy to counteract.
Take this example, spread it around to other branches of the armed forces, and you will realise another aspect hopefully of the way China can prosper.
As far as greater exports to China goes, that would be a benefit in our economy with its decreasing exports. The industrial zones being built will have Chinese industrialists who will set up factories. Explain to me how it is more profitable to drag cotton back to China, make shirts and drive them back through Pakistan to Gwadar compared to just make them near Gwadar in the industrial zone, ship them off with a Made In Pakistan tag, giving us jobs, an increase in exports, and most importantly, the money to pay back other loans that have been taken with relative ease.
Military bases in Pakistan goes against the whole Chinese thinking process, they would never have helped us so much if they had to fight for us also. They can improve our economy, we can buy weapons from them, and point them at India. Our fighting prowess is respected by most armed forces, including yours, and military bases are not something expected.
@Kaptaan anything I missed and you would like to add
 
.
Then there is no return , World moves around return take an example of FDI in India ,are they serving Indians or there own ?
Yes bro,when company comes to india they come at their own risk,there is no garuntee of returns,if everything has garuntee they would have invested in any market ,people invest if they think they will get returns .you start a business and if it runs you make money if you don't you go empty handed
 
Last edited:
.
anything I missed and you would like to add
You pretty well covered everything. I would just add here that I won't even bother replying to the Indian members here. Their entire take on CPEC is coloured by rivalry with Pakistan. They can't just look at it objectively. I guess it's like opposition parties in politics. They always will oppose or find something to complain about or else they would not be opposition party. I mean to compare the dynamic of China/North Korea with Pakistan is crazy to say the least.

I have no doubt that CPEC and more so China will be seen as factor that changed the road Pakistan ws on in the future. I even think that the robust military operations launched in FATA and inside Pakistan have been pushed by China - whose behind the scene prodding has created a sort of unity in military/political establishment or else they would still have been talking.


Ps. I look forward to the day when they begin uprooting the stupid palm trees they have planted everywhere and begin decorating roads with images of the dragon. A change in outlook !
 
.
I have no doubt that CPEC and more so China will be seen as factor that changed the road Pakistan ws on in the future. I even think that the robust military operations launched in FATA and inside Pakistan have been pushed by China - whose behind the scene prodding has created a sort of unity in military/political establishment or else they would still have been talking.
as long as we do not F it up... We seem to be good at it...
As far as the posters go, a few will read and understand even if most just come to go CPEC bad, akin to cavemen with their clubs. Some Noon supporters saw the light, hopefully some Indians do too. Do not know which are more stubborn honestly.
 
.
The first and second point contradict each other.

Not at all.

A prosperous Pakistan will spend on its military, making it more capable, which will be most helpful to Chinese industry, its foreign policy, and balancing and occupying more of Indian armed forces.
A strong economy for example, would lead to more purchases for the Navy, larger crafts which would partly be sourced from China. those ships would add to the strength of the Pakistani Navy and require a greater presence of Indian Navy to counteract.
Take this example, spread it around to other branches of the armed forces, and you will realise another aspect hopefully of the way China can prosper.

Again you are thinking from your perspective only. China's goal is not to sell some military hardware to Pakistan. Think about it. If Pakistan were to be 2 Trillion dollar economy with $500 billion reserves and $30 billion yearly defense budget, What is the probability that Pakistan would buy J-10s instead of F-16 Block 70s or RAFALEs or Euro Fighters to confront India? For a $17 Trillion economy like China, you military sales are peanuts but controlling every industry of Pakistan from defense to power to infrastructure to agriculture means that they literally controls all things Pakistan and Pakistan would have no option but to provide military bases to China on China's terms. Your independent economic growth is death knell for their strategy. You may provide Gwadar today but when your economy grows tomorrow, you may ask them to leave. The only way they could avoid this is by controlling all faculties in Pakistan. Pakistan and Myanmar are extremely important to China as these are the only two countries which could provide direct access to the Indian Ocean due to the Malacca dilemma. Hence they would not leave anything to chance and try to dominate both these countries.

As far as greater exports to China goes, that would be a benefit in our economy with its decreasing exports. The industrial zones being built will have Chinese industrialists who will set up factories. Explain to me how it is more profitable to drag cotton back to China, make shirts and drive them back through Pakistan to Gwadar compared to just make them near Gwadar in the industrial zone, ship them off with a Made In Pakistan tag, giving us jobs, an increase in exports, and most importantly, the money to pay back other loans that have been taken with relative ease.

Again you are thinking from Pakistan's perspective only. This is like saying British built Indian railway system. British did not build railway system in India for the Indians rather to help British move their goods from India. British grew cash crops like indigo and cotton which fetched them better profits even as millions of Indians died of starvation.

Chinese building CPEC roads in Pakistan is akin to British building Indian Railway system.
Chinese building power plants in Pakistan is akin to British building the barrages/dams in India.
Chinese building agriculture in Pakistan would be akin to the British policy of growing cash crops like cotton and indigo at the expense of staple crops like wheat and rice.

Pakistan's staple food is wheat but China's staple food is rice. If China needs rice to be imported they would encourage rice to be grown instead of wheat in Pakistan. This is the best case scenario. In the worst case they may grow cash crop like cotton which would lead to starvation deaths in Pakistan.


Military bases in Pakistan goes against the whole Chinese thinking process, they would never have helped us so much if they had to fight for us also. They can improve our economy, we can buy weapons from them, and point them at India. Our fighting prowess is respected by most armed forces, including yours, and military bases are not something expected.

Again Chinese are taking advantage of your insecurities against India like they took advantage of North Korea's insecurities against the South Koreans.
 
.
Again you are thinking from your perspective only. China's goal is not to sell some military hardware to Pakistan. Think about it. If Pakistan were to be 2 Trillion dollar economy with $500 billion reserves and $30 billion yearly defense budget, What is the probability that Pakistan would buy J-10s instead of F-16 Block 70s or RAFALEs or Euro Fighters to confront India? For a $17 Trillion economy like China, you military sales are peanuts but controlling every industry of Pakistan from defense to power to infrastructure to agriculture means that they literally controls all things Pakistan and Pakistan would have no option but to provide military bases to China on China's terms. Your independent economic growth is death knell for their strategy. You may provide Gwadar today but when your economy grows tomorrow, you may ask them to leave. The only way they could avoid this is by controlling all faculties in Pakistan. Pakistan and Myanmar are extremely important to China as these are the only two countries which could provide direct access to the Indian Ocean due to the Malacca dilemma. Hence they would not leave anything to chance and try to dominate both these countries.
They can outright buy everything and anything they want as they did in America. They used their money to buy power, and changed the narrative enough to get a strong footing in world affairs. They could have bought out our leadership, bought all our institutions and our elections to place a puppet, they could have done that 10 years ago, and they did not. They have interests and they align with ours.
Yes, we would let go of the US and European fighters as they have too many restrictions, something our armed forces are moving away from. F 16 in any number was to plug a gap, just as the supposed purchases of certain French planes is a stop gap for you.
For a 17 Trillion economy our weapon sales mean an outside vendor with close ties with multiple countries, and with time a growing reputation for their arms would mean more sales. Investments pay dividends in the future, not everything is a quick buck to be made. Our defence budget would still require ships, which America would not give us the latest off, which Russia would hold back on, and we would buy from China.
And every ship China sold us, would be used against a country which they have to defend against. 2 birds with one stone.
Our independant ecomonic growth frees them from South Asia and lets them concentrate outside it. When we have a stronger economy we will free Chinese to move forward.
Let me give you an example you might understand, a strong Afghanistan which is ready to fight Pakistan, would you not want them to have a strong economy, strong enough to buy arms and be a threat to Pakistan, enough to dilute the forces on the borders with India.
Our friendship with China is something it does not doubt, and has branched throughout the military and political circles.
 
.
Let me give you an example you might understand, a strong Afghanistan which is ready to fight Pakistan, would you not want them to have a strong economy, strong enough to buy arms and be a threat to Pakistan, enough to dilute the forces on the borders with India.

Controlling Afghanistan is not critical for India (though we appreciate their friendship) while controlling Pakistan is critical for China.
 
.
Controlling Afghanistan is not critical for India (though we appreciate their friendship) while controlling Pakistan is critical for China.
No, China as a friend is critical for Pakistan, and China knows this. You need to look at it from the side of battle of hearts and minds, thousands of troops can not do what one helping hand can do. And China knows this, and is helping us because of it.
Think of it like the bacteria inside your intestine, you need it, and it needs you. I can not get simpler then that.
And China with its oil supplies from Russia, its oil reserves, and multiple supply depots does not need Pakistan like you seem to think. If you blocked commercial shipping of Made in China, that would lead to a crash of the global economy and no one wants that, and China knows that. No Iphones, no electronics, no branded shoes, what would the world do. Even the chickens in America are going to be Made in China soon.
 
.
No, China as a friend is critical for Pakistan, and China knows this. You need to look at it from the side of battle of hearts and minds, thousands of troops can not do what one helping hand can do. And China knows this, and is helping us because of it.
Think of it like the bacteria inside your intestine, you need it, and it needs you. I can not get simpler then that.
And China with its oil supplies from Russia, its oil reserves, and multiple supply depots does not need Pakistan like you seem to think. If you blocked commercial shipping of Made in China, that would lead to a crash of the global economy and no one wants that, and China knows that. No Iphones, no electronics, no branded shoes, what would the world do. Even the chickens in America are going to be Made in China soon.

China as a friend may be critical to Pakistan but What China needs is that China remains the only friend of Pakistan. Anything less is suicidal from China's perspective.

West already has a grand plan to move businesses out of China. Many businesses are moving back onshore due to automation/robots. West no longer needs cheap Chinese labor. Wherever they need, businesses are moving to South and South east Asia.

China now wants to play the big boys game of competing with the West instead of being the manufacturing shop of the West. This is where the shipping lanes and OBOR/BRI/CPEC comes into picture.

An independent Pakistan would mean that China cannot rely on Pakistan. Just think why in spite of many incidents involving people of Pakistani origin why does West give a pass to Pakistan? West knows that any harsh action may make Pakistan more insecure and push further into tight Chinese embrace. On the other hand sanctions against Pakistan is the best that China could hope as that would make Pakistan completely dependent on China.

======================================================================

China’s ‘Malacca Dilemma’ and the future of the PLA
BY CPIANALYSIS ON NOVEMBER 21, 2014 • ( 1 COMMENT )
Written by Malcolm Davis.

The life-blood of China’s economy is energy. Without access to energy resources, China’s economy will slow, and its prosperity will wane, it will become more vulnerable to internal social and political disorder and the CCP’s grip on power will weaken.[1] Therefore, ensuring China’s energy security affects its foreign and defence policy, and will influence the future development of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).[2] China’s imported oil demand continues to outstrip diminishing domestic and offshore production and current projections suggest that by 2020 imported oil will make up 66% of its total oil demand, increasing to 72% by 2040.

At the heart of the challenge of ensuring energy security is ‘the Malacca Dilemma’. Chinese President Hu Jintao recognised the strategic significance of the Malacca Dilemma in November 2003 noting that “certain powers have all along encroached on and tried to control navigation through the [Malacca] Strait.” [3] The significance of the Malacca Strait is that 80% of China’s energy (in addition to much of its trade) moves through a waterway that at its narrowest point is only 1.7 miles across. The nearby Lombok-Makassar Straits (see map) are also strategically significant as most supertankers too large for the Malacca Strait traverse this route.[4] China is attempting to alleviate its dependency on these waterways by building pipelines through Myanmar and via Gwadar in Pakistan, but none of these projects would replace dependence on the sea for China’s energy supplies.[5]

Therefore in considering solutions to resolving the Malacca Dilemma, an obvious step, and one currently being undertaken, is greater cooperative naval diplomacy with other international actors to maintain good order at sea, and counter unconventional non-state threats to maritime security such as piracy and maritime terrorism. Beijing also could support capacity building for littoral states, intelligence exchanges and multi-national training through regional security architecture such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). But such peacetime practices do nothing to eliminate the Malacca Dilemma given that in a future conflict China still faces the prospect that an adversary could interdict Chinese shipping passing through the Malacca and Lombok-Makassar Straits.



Source: Andrew Erickson, Abraham Denmark, and Gabriel Collins, “Beijing’s Starter Carrier and Future Steps – Alternatives and Implications” in US Naval War College Review, Winter 2012, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 22-23

In a recent debate over the effectiveness of the US ‘AirSea Battle’ concept, Thomas Hammes suggested a strategy of Offshore Control that proposes a distant blockade on China and notes that the United States “…could prevent the passage of large cargo ships and tankers. In doing so, it would cripple China’s export trade, which is essential to China’s economy.” [6] The strategy highlights the importance of the Malacca, Lombok, and Sunda straits, and ensuring routes north and south of Australia were controlled such that “these shipments could be cut off”.[7]

The context of this debate over US strategy is important to consider. China’s rapid rise and its military modernisation has generated a regional security dilemma with its neighbours who see China’s assertive behaviour in managing Asian maritime disputes, and worry that under Xi Jinping, China has chosen to move beyond Deng’s ‘bide your time, hide your strength’ dictum of foreign policy to embrace a more assertive revisionist posture that challenges the existing regional order and the strategic primacy of the United States. Regional states have responded by seeking closer security ties with the United States at the same time as the United States has chosen to rebalance to Asia in response to China’s rise. Thus, a regional ‘pull’ combined with a US’ ‘push’ is emerging. From Beijing’s perspective, the US rebalance, and intra-regional ‘band wagoning’ is indicative of the containment of China, and it has chosen to push back militarily with A2AD. The US and its allies see such a Chinese step as reinforcing their perception of a desire by China to challenge US strategic primacy in Asia. The regional security dilemma is sharpened.

For China, Hammes’ Offshore Control represents the Malacca Dilemma made manifest. In thinking about how China may respond, Storey argues that one path to countering the Malacca Dilemma is “building credible naval forces capable of securing China’s SLOCs.”[8] But what does this really imply for future PLA modernisation? China will need to build credible expeditionary naval capabilities as well as long-range airpower for maritime strike operations in more distant operations in ‘Far Seas’ and ‘Far Oceans’ to ensure an ability to break any distant blockade (see map). China’s introduction of the training aircraft carrier Liaoning in September 2012, is to be followed by up to four more indigenous aircraft carriers potentially by the mid-2020s, and represents a step in the direction of blue water capabilities designed for such a role.[9] But aircraft carriers will need to be fully supported by naval surface combatants as well as appropriate auxiliary vessels designed for at-sea combat sustainment tasks. It is beginning to develop skills in operating naval task forces in more distant operations, such as those engaged on counter-piracy tasks off the Gulf of Aden, but its logistic capabilities are insufficient to sustain a distant task force, especially one engaged in hypothetically high intensity combat operations. Erickson argues, based on analysis by Nan Li, that by 2020 China will only be able to project a modest joint task force for low-intensity operations far from China.[10]

Yet, maintaining China’s energy security in wartime cannot be seen as being of secondary importance, and China is now undertaking a series of political and strategic steps, and building new military capabilities that suggest it is beginning to respond to the threat of distant blockades. At the political and strategic level, President Xi Jinping has recently announced the ‘Maritime Silk Road’ to integrate markets from China to Europe via the Indian Ocean littoral region. The Maritime Silk Road will enable China to develop maritime infrastructure including ports across the region. The Maritime Silk Road strengthens China’s economic and political influence, and thus widens China’s strategic interests across the Indian Ocean. This will not represent a new development per se, as Holmes and Yoshihara note that China has been active in promoting its influence across the Indian Ocean littoral over recent years.[11] But the stakes are now rising. China’s growing investment and its international prestige associated with the Maritime Silk Road must be protected which will in turn demand presence. That must influence PLA modernisation in coming years, and the Maritime Silk Road now provides a key rationale for an expansion of the PLA’s expeditionary warfare capabilities.

At the military level, Erickson suggests a number of potential indicators for emerging blue water and long-range air capabilities, and three specific capabilities are worthy of consideration.[12] Erickson nominates quieter submarines as being important, and O’Rourke notes that the PLAN’s relatively noisy Shang class nuclear submarines (SSNs) are to be replaced with the quieter and more sophisticated Type 095 guided-missile nuclear submarines (SSGNs).[13] Significantly, China has begun operating its existing submarines in the Indian Ocean, much to the concern of India. Erickson also notes that more advanced surface vessels would be a key indicator. The PLAN is deploying the sophisticated Type 052D Luyang III guided missile destroyer (DDG), but is developing an even more capable Type 055 Cruiser, designed to protect aircraft carriers as part of a battle group and with the first potentially commissioned by 2017.

Finally Erickson notes the importance of long-range air power. China is developing a new stealthy long-range bomber known as the H-20 which is designed to “allow the Chinese air force to complement aircraft carrier and amphibious projection capabilities of the [PLAN]” in conjunction with long-range J-20 stealth fighters. More significant is the role of PLASAF’s Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) capability. The DF-21D ASBM has generated concern in regards to its ability to undertake A2AD against US and allied forces within the First Island chain, but future longer range systems could extend A2AD south towards the Malacca and Lombok-Makassar Straits. Mark Stokes suggests that a follow-on capability to the DF-21D would extend PLASAF’s reach against adversary naval capabilities out to 3,000 km.[14] Such a capability, cued by ocean surveillance satellites, would enable China to strike at naval vessels from Hainan Island to well south of the Malacca Strait and just north of the Lombok Strait.

In conclusion, the essential requirement to ensure China’s energy security, and the prestige invested in building the Maritime Silk Road argues for China to begin building the means to protect its interests. From Beijing’s perspective, it cannot merely focus on countering intervention in the event of a conflict over Taiwan, or as a result of maritime disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea. The task of ensuring China’s maritime trade and energy security, and countering the risk of a distant blockade is emerging as an important strategic interest that must shape the PLA’s future to a greater degree. As has happened before, China may yet surprise us as its military modernisation surges ahead to meet new challenges.

Dr. Malcolm Davis is an Assistant Professor and Post-Doctoral Research Fellow in China-Western relations at Bond University, Queensland, Australia. He is finishing up a book for Routledge UK on Chinese military modernisation in the 21st Century. Image credit: CC by Naval Surface Warriors/Flickr.


https://cpianalysis.org/2014/11/21/chinas-malacca-dilemma-and-the-future-of-the-pla/
 
.
Couple of things here to note.

1. China is not going "rip off" Pakistan. I say this not because I think China is a saint but because I know they are smart. Pakistan is important to China in a geo-strategic sense and is only one of few countries that are inside Chinese "close circle". For a few billion dollars to wreck a stategic allies economy which would send Pak into a tailspin would be suicidal thing to do for Beijing. China for it's own strategic strength needs Pakistan as a strong, prosperous country, that it can trade with, build military alliance with and have a long term strategic alliance with. Do you chop a apple tree for short term benefit or do you nurture it to gain fruit year after year?


2. Having looked at CPEC few things have become apparent to me. I always felt it difficult to comprehend exactly how Gwadar would act as a port for China. The location is too far from mainland China and given the huge distance only high quality rail link would offer any chance of this happening - even at lower levels. I now understand that CPEC is not about finding a alternative route to the Arabian Sea that gives competition to the sea route through the Straits of Malaca. The real intention behind CPEC appears to be a Chinese effort to bring Pakistan into Chinese economic engines influence. That is it is a way for Chinese to enter Pakistan's economy and drive standards up which has win win effect for both Pak and China. In other words Pakistan has to open up to China and learn to walk the walk Chinese style. This will requite culltutal change inside Pakistan.

The full details of CPEC are in the link below. It's important to note that lot of sensitive details are left out and Chinese are subtle with teir language but you can read in between the lines what they want and what they expect of Pakistan. As long as Pakistan plays ball there is no chance of Pakistan losing. Indeed it will come out better even while it has to surrender some space to Chinese wishes and habits. Pakistan will by definition have to chill with Islamic rhetoric and move gently toward secularism without openly saying so.

I see nothing wrong with this. I see similarities in how America brought poor European countries into it's arc of influence (resulting in significant US influence and culture permeating ) after WW2. Here I am thinking of Greece, Spain, Italy etc and I would even include Turkey in this category. These countries gave space to US and in return were assured entry into American economic/military order which assured kiving standards and military security through NATO. Presently countries like Poland etc are getting the same benefits from Uncle Sam.Economc investment/trade is normally linked with military agreements entailing opening of US military bases under NATO architecture. Turkey has also been recipient of this and we know NATO has bases in Turkey.

In the same way I see CPEC as a vehicle for Chinese economic ingress into Pakistan which will tie Pakistan economically within the Chinese arc. This down the road will mature into full spectrum economic, military (expect Chinese bases ) and social relationship. For instance Chinese see Baloch coast as a place for Chinese holiday makers to visit as they do for instance Antalya in Turkey. Presumably full scale resorts that cater for Chinese holiday makers including drinks, food and other pursuits will be needed further down the road. It's all exciting stuff and I see Pakistan changing over the decades.

In short CPEC appears to be way for Chinese to move into Pakistan and help Pak economy on a road to development using Chinese technology and skills that they have learned in the miracle that country has witnessed in last 3 decades. CPEC will harvest the potential Pakistan has that at the moment lies latent. CPEC is not aboy funneling Chinese trade through Pakistan but switching on and turboboosting Pak trade and economy which has lied dormant all this time.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1333101/exclusive-cpec-master-plan-revealed

@Sinopakfriend @Chinese Bamboo @Chinese @KediKesenFare

Totally agreed to yours point regardingthe purpose of gwader port. It is not to support the trading of China. Instead it is to facilitate the transportation demand from the emerging manufacture industry of Pakistan, which will be developed once the infrastructure is in place. Obviously in the medium to long term, gwader along will not be enough to serve a much larger Pakistani economy. many more new ports and new transportation system will be built in the future.

Regarding your commont about adding Pakistan into China's economical influence, I agree but like to supplement a bit. IMHO, China's intention is very simple–making Pakistan a prosperous and advanced country. Merely from a economical perspective, China likes Pakistani consumer to be able to buy our products and at the same time Chinese consumer like to buy your products/creation, ranging from real products like fruits, garment and cars to culture products like movie and music. so the citizens of both countries can travel to other country freely to enjoy food, culture, scenery and architecture. Sentimently, China is not a nation that would leave friends behind economically, particularly that she is in a position to help with her large financial and engineering resources. She likes to see both our civilizations back to the prosperity we had in the past. Obviously I cannot speak for all but they are just my little view as a keen student of history.:pakistan::china:
 
.
China as a friend may be critical to Pakistan but What China needs is that China remains the only friend of Pakistan. Anything less is suicidal from China's perspective.
No, anything but that. China respects different inroads it can get from Pakistan due to its various relationships.
West already has a grand plan to move businesses out of China. Many businesses are moving back onshore due to automation/robots. West no longer needs cheap Chinese labor. Wherever they need, businesses are moving to South and South east Asia.
Debating Chinese business model here is not what I came for, but the investments made have secured Chinese economy is well pegged with the world economy. And if the world economy does wobble, with it's reserves China will have the best cushion to rely on.
China now wants to play the big boys game of competing with the West instead of being the manufacturing shop of the West. This is where the shipping lanes and OBOR/BRI/CPEC comes into picture.
The big boy thing you said needs a strong Pakistan to deal with issues in the area so the Chinese can concentrate further out, you finally get there. Now read my other posts and it might sink in.
An independent Pakistan would mean that China cannot rely on Pakistan. Just think why in spite of many incidents involving people of Pakistani origin why does West give a pass to Pakistan? West knows that any harsh action may make Pakistan more insecure and push further into tight Chinese embrace. On the other hand sanctions against Pakistan is the best that China could hope as that would make Pakistan completely dependent on China.
People of Pakistani origin were not Pakistani nationals, and any finger raised towards Pakistan would be an insult on their own countries. The west has nothing to sanction with anymore, there is nothing the can say that will really matter. They know the dependant era is fading and they will get rebuked. West has never given a pass on Pakistan, even the US report lays out every failing. But if they push too hard they get a direct answer like the one given yesterday that denies whatever the west has said. Rejecting their reports is nothing less then an insult.
What you consider a Chinese embrace is actually friendship. 10 billion dollars at a 2 percent interest rate while the world is charging us 7 to 8 percent on average and you think they want control.

This report you posted is outdated, the Chinese mix has completely changed, with Russia topping the list of exporters of crude to China. With Russia, the supply and demand issue has completely cut out any need of sea trade in areas which can be dangerous. With the falling of oil prices, reserves have peaked, extra reserves have been built.

All throughout all your points are going back to the same thing, no facts just a lot of assumptions.

What a strong Pakistan will do is balance out Indian armed forces, and keep them tied up or divided at the very least even in peace times.
It will support the Chinese weapons industry with orders, from tanks to ships to air planes, keeping them financially stable and funding their R n D, and spreading their weapons to other nations.
It will provide China with industrial spaces nearer to their intended markets increasing their profits, while helping us along the way.
It will help China with diplomatic inroads, a strong Pakistan will be able to project power in a more substantial way in the Middle east and other Muslim countries.
It will be a road for technology to reach China through Pakistan in different spheres.
It will help Pakistan increase agricultural yields freeing up money from road projects diverted to agriculture, which will help China import from Pakistan rather then other areas.
But no, you do not learn from Kashmir, occupying people is not the way to go, your nation can not understand mutual trust. I should have listened when they said i was arguing with people who have nothing else to do.
Mutualism is the way two organisms of different species exist in a relationship in which each individual benefits from the activity of the other. Similar interactions within a species are known as co-operation.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom