Cybernetics
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 841
- Reaction score
- 48
- Country
- Location
No, entering a formal military alliance (that has any integrity) is a bad idea for the time being. Official announcement of a military alliance won't be in the interest of Pakistan or China, even if its just a superficial alliance, if that is the case then the costs out weigh the benefits for the sum of the system in the long run. Cooperation and coordination is expected to continue to deepen regardless of announcing an alliance or not.
China's past, current, and future success hinges upon its strategic ambiguity and flexibility within the international system. If that is taken away then it will greatly effect the degree to which Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, maybe even Europe and others can have their strategic flexibility. These countries will lose leverage, lose a hedge against the costs of their own geopolitical ventures and lose any hope of seeing a long term global arrangement alternative to a US dominated one within the foreseeable future. The world cannot enter into a multi-polar world (safely) if China stood in the camp that is countering US interests, it would be a return to the cold-war. China will pursue its own interests, the objective is not to counter US interests.
Many of China's neighbours see benefit in having a dollar/SWIFT alternative and is nudging China to launch such systems while China seems less active in promotion, even though ground work is being done. Its called strategic ambiguity. It is unwise to be cocky when you are not ready to take the burden.
The unspoken arrangement within this system is that Russia and middle east take the brunt of the geopolitical risks while giving time and strategic flexibility for China to build up economic/military strength to even have hope of an alternative or multi polar world. China's role is to carry majority of the economic burden of building this system because it is one of the few (only one?) that can have the desire or capability. The reason why China needs to have strategic ambiguity is that if it doesn't then China will enter into the game of balance of power. If it enters a state of real balance of power then it will have a harder time breaking the power equilibrium that is present with most countries in Eurasia. Balance of power is designed to exhaust the country's resources/surplus upon consumption activities with little direct future economic value like military expenditure. For China to rise it needs to break the global power equilibrium, for China to break the global power equilibrium it needs strategic ambiguity, for it to have strategic ambiguity it needs to be relatively independent. Its a symbiotic relationship.
Pakistan is in a state of quasi-power equilibrium with India. Pakistan (3.4% of gdp) exhausts a large portion of its budget on defence, giving less resources to develop itself, same can be said of India (2.5% of gdp) although to a lesser degree. China took the bold step of basically abandoning state funding for the military during the most rapid parts of its development in 1980-1990s, telling the military to find their own money so they started businesses to fund the budget. Even now China only spends $145 billion or 1.3% of GDP on defence. Strategic ambiguity gave China the luxury of abandoning its military for 20+ years and focus on development. I know China makes a big deal out of being "contained" by Taiwan, SK, and Japan but that is just rhetoric, its not real balance of power, China cooperates deeply with all those countries. China's surplus is what will enable rapid development in those countries that are trapped in the state of balance of power.
Bangladesh is smart in staying away from geopolitical risks thus having the luxury of spending less on defence (1.4% of gdp) and more on development. 20 years down the road they will be well equipped economically to have more flexibility.
A NATO like alliance in Asia that includes China at this time would mean the delay or possibility death of a dollar replacement system or new regional/global order. I understand the desire for such an alliance but my argument is for timing. An alliance between Pakistan and China won't just effect these two countries but the world dynamic.
China's past, current, and future success hinges upon its strategic ambiguity and flexibility within the international system. If that is taken away then it will greatly effect the degree to which Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, maybe even Europe and others can have their strategic flexibility. These countries will lose leverage, lose a hedge against the costs of their own geopolitical ventures and lose any hope of seeing a long term global arrangement alternative to a US dominated one within the foreseeable future. The world cannot enter into a multi-polar world (safely) if China stood in the camp that is countering US interests, it would be a return to the cold-war. China will pursue its own interests, the objective is not to counter US interests.
Many of China's neighbours see benefit in having a dollar/SWIFT alternative and is nudging China to launch such systems while China seems less active in promotion, even though ground work is being done. Its called strategic ambiguity. It is unwise to be cocky when you are not ready to take the burden.
The unspoken arrangement within this system is that Russia and middle east take the brunt of the geopolitical risks while giving time and strategic flexibility for China to build up economic/military strength to even have hope of an alternative or multi polar world. China's role is to carry majority of the economic burden of building this system because it is one of the few (only one?) that can have the desire or capability. The reason why China needs to have strategic ambiguity is that if it doesn't then China will enter into the game of balance of power. If it enters a state of real balance of power then it will have a harder time breaking the power equilibrium that is present with most countries in Eurasia. Balance of power is designed to exhaust the country's resources/surplus upon consumption activities with little direct future economic value like military expenditure. For China to rise it needs to break the global power equilibrium, for China to break the global power equilibrium it needs strategic ambiguity, for it to have strategic ambiguity it needs to be relatively independent. Its a symbiotic relationship.
Pakistan is in a state of quasi-power equilibrium with India. Pakistan (3.4% of gdp) exhausts a large portion of its budget on defence, giving less resources to develop itself, same can be said of India (2.5% of gdp) although to a lesser degree. China took the bold step of basically abandoning state funding for the military during the most rapid parts of its development in 1980-1990s, telling the military to find their own money so they started businesses to fund the budget. Even now China only spends $145 billion or 1.3% of GDP on defence. Strategic ambiguity gave China the luxury of abandoning its military for 20+ years and focus on development. I know China makes a big deal out of being "contained" by Taiwan, SK, and Japan but that is just rhetoric, its not real balance of power, China cooperates deeply with all those countries. China's surplus is what will enable rapid development in those countries that are trapped in the state of balance of power.
Bangladesh is smart in staying away from geopolitical risks thus having the luxury of spending less on defence (1.4% of gdp) and more on development. 20 years down the road they will be well equipped economically to have more flexibility.
A NATO like alliance in Asia that includes China at this time would mean the delay or possibility death of a dollar replacement system or new regional/global order. I understand the desire for such an alliance but my argument is for timing. An alliance between Pakistan and China won't just effect these two countries but the world dynamic.
Last edited:
