Pakistan and China: Sweet as can be?

[Developereo]

The Economist has become little more than a sensationalist rag. They are always pumping up India as an upcoming superpower.

As for the original article, it's not about China and Pakistan at all. If you read carefully, it's about India, as usual. As if everything in the world revolves around India. It's always me, me, me...

 

[Renegade]

Even if the PDF also have this information, it is Pakistan's news, you can look for yourself.

Incidentally, since you later, I decided to withdraw the "thank"

Lack of credible & unbiased reporting usually leaves people susceptible to rumors & reliance on hearsay, something that seems to have clearly happened in your case.

i can only laugh at the suggestion of comparing a forum where people can nearly say anything & press in a tightly controlled environment to a free & credible news source like The Economist.

 

[Renegade]

The Economist has become little more than a sensationalist rag. They are always pumping up India as an upcoming superpower.

While i understand as to why that discomforts you; but then who is not. Any informed source of late has been predicting India's rise. The figures are there for everyone to see, it does not take a Nostradamus to make commonsense predictions.

As for the original article, it's not about China and Pakistan at all. If you read carefully, it's about India, as usual. As if everything in the world revolves around India. It's always me, me, me...

Sounds like "i will hear what i want to hear", India seems to surround you like a cold fog around your mind, where ever you look its just bloody there.

The only reference to India in the article was as to how Pakistan seeks support from China to prep them up against India. Again the conclusions come out the same, that this friendship is based on the anti-India mentality just like ideology of Pakistan is described as not being Indian. Its like my enemies enemy is my friend & i don't who i am, but i am not India.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

Lack of credible & unbiased reporting usually leaves people susceptible to rumors & reliance on hearsay, something that seems to have clearly happened in your case.

i can only laugh at the suggestion of comparing a forum where people can nearly say anything & press in a tightly controlled environment to a free & credible news source like The Economist.

He already showed you state media on it. That is more reliable then the economists poorly informed false second hand information.

 

[Developereo]

While i understand as to why that discomforts you; but then who is not. Any informed source of late has been predicting India's rise. The figures are there for everyone to see, it does not take a Nostradamus to make commonsense predictions.

Nobody's disputing India's rising economy, but the Economist often has sensationalist trash like India will surpass China in so many years, etc.

Sounds like "i will hear what i want to hear", India seems to surround you like a cold fog around your mind, where ever you look its just bloody there.

Not at all. The whole premise of the article can be summed up as "China is helping Pakistan to counter India, and China will go only so far because it doesn't want to offend India too much". It's all about India.

Typical Economist trash article.

 

[muse]

Typical of the Economist :

According to Zhu Feng of Peking University, such calculations based on “the traditional mentality of power politics” are misplaced. China’s robust, longstanding ties with Pakistan stand on their own merits, he says, and owe nothing to America’s standing in Pakistan. Both China and America want a stable Pakistan.

For all that, China’s dealings with Pakistan have always been conducted with one eye on India.

And what if it is asserted forcefully and frequently that India want a stable Pakistan - what then?? Will India's position be different from that of China and US? And if the position of the US and China are responsible and forward looking, why aren't India's??

Too many of us are not thinking, too many are locked into a mindset, a narrative that originates from the West -- China, Pakistan, India - a necessary relationship, for humanity, because it will also tie in Bangladesh - the largest block of humanity and the engine of the world's economy.

Lets work to make people aware of our narrative, one in which, it's not about bhai, Bhai, but a deepening relationship, growing warmer, a necessity for the world, with deep ties ties to brother Turkiye, to Iran, to Arabia, to Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia.

 

[Developereo]

You added this part later, so I will respond.

The only reference to India in the article was as to how Pakistan seeks support from China to prep them up against India. Again the conclusions come out the same, that this friendship is based on the anti-India mentality just like ideology of Pakistan is described as not being Indian. Its like my enemies enemy is my friend & i don't who i am, but i am not India.

You just proved my point. As if the China-Pakistan relationship is centered around India. As if Pakistan's ideology is defined by India.

It is not.

Despite what the Indians think. And what the Economist parrots Indian propaganda as usual.

It is this Indian narcissistic obsession as if everyone else in the world revolves around India. It's comical to watch it in Indians. It's sad to see a previously reputable publication like The Economist sink so low in the pursuit of readership dollars.

 

[Renegade]

He already showed you state media on it. That is more reliable then the economists poorly informed false second hand information.

It turns out that 'The Economist' has been right all along. The Chinese govt pledged $ 220 million & has yet only delivered only $ 19.8 million even after a year since the floods. The Saudis have done better with delivering $ 45 million till date. This is what the 'Ministry of Economic Affairs & Statistics, Govt of Pakistan' says. Here is the link:

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics

 

[Renegade]

As if the China-Pakistan relationship is centered around India. As if Pakistan's ideology is defined by India.

Indeed it is my friend - your Afghan & China policy are both driven by Indian paranoia. Lets have a look, Pakistan China relations really took off only after the 1962 Indo-China war, before that Pakistan had no worthy China policy to speak of forget friendship. Till then Pakistan was firmly allied with the US.

In the case of Afghanistan - strategic depth against who? India. Need of a friendly govt in Kabul against who? India. Pakistan joined the CENTO to get arms against India. Nearly all of Pakistan's policies have India written all over it.

As for ideology of Pakistan most neutral observers agree that it is defined by not being India. Read the books written by Owen Bennett Jones, Mary Ann Weaver, Brain Cloughley & even Ahmed Rashid, where they agree that Pakistan has failed to form a common identity & ideology except that it is "not-Indian". There is even a video of a professor of LUMS saying the same, in a documentary made by DAWN TV.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

It turns out that 'The Economist' has been right all along. The Chinese govt pledged $ 220 million & has yet only delivered only $ 19.8 million even after a year since the floods. The Saudis have done better with delivering $ 45 million till date. This is what the 'Ministry of Economic Affairs & Statistics, Govt of Pakistan' says. Here is the link:

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics

i was just about to ask how much of the pledged amount has been given to pakistan by china. but have answered my question.

thanx

 

[huzihaidao12]

Lack of credible & unbiased reporting usually leaves people susceptible to rumors & reliance on hearsay, something that seems to have clearly happened in your case.

i can only laugh at the suggestion of comparing a forum where people can nearly say anything & press in a tightly controlled environment to a free & credible news source like The Economist.

I'm not interested to find a false source as The Economist, The Economist has proved that he is not a reliable source. even the parties, the source of China and Pakistan, you decide not to believe, sir, you just believe in your own ideas. Economist to meet you, you are happy, you flatter Economist, simple, regardless of any source, I do not think I can satisfy your fantasies. I will not waste time.

 

[huzihaidao12]

It turns out that 'The Economist' has been right all along. The Chinese govt pledged $ 220 million & has yet only delivered only $ 19.8 million even after a year since the floods. The Saudis have done better with delivering $ 45 million till date. This is what the 'Ministry of Economic Affairs & Statistics, Govt of Pakistan' says. Here is the link:

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics

You know the calculation? China has a great deal of assistance in infrastructure rehabilitation and assistance to people in border areas, this calculated? do not have to worry , Indians, the Chinese people's commitment is commitment, we have plans to invest 35 billion dollars, do you think we will Sparing 200 million dollars?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Indeed it is my friend - your Afghan & China policy are both driven by Indian paranoia.

Wow, you think the world revolves around India?

India is not even considered a "great power", while countries like France are. Great power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only thing you got right, is that China and Pakistan started getting much closer after 1959. That was the year in which India hosted our largest separatist group, which eventually lead to the 1962 war. Nehru's ridiculous forward policy, was only the short term trigger.

China and Pakistan's relationship today, goes far beyond an annoying neighbour like India. Pakistan gives us a land-link to the Middle East for pipelines, access to Gwadar port in order bypass the Indian Ocean, and they are also our gateway into the resource-rich Islamic world.

 

[Obambam]

Pakistan and China: Sweet as can be?



PAKISTAN’S ambassador to Beijing, Masood Kahn, was this week fully armed with metaphors to describe the robust friendship between the two countries. “We say it is higher than the mountains, deeper than the oceans, stronger than steel, dearer than eyesight, sweeter than honey, and so on.”

The relationship is indeed a geopolitical keystone for both countries. Pakistan serves as China’s closest friend both in South Asia and among Islamic countries. So close, indeed, that many suspect China has asked Pakistan for the valuable remains of the American stealth helicopter abandoned during the bin Laden raid. Meanwhile, China can help counterbalance Pakistan’s arch-rival, India, including in Afghanistan.

Pakistan seems keen to foster the impression that new tensions with America might nudge it even closer towards China. In his blustery speech to parliament on May 9th Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani struck out on an odd tangent to praise China as an “all-weather friend”, providing Pakistan with strength and inspiration. Not to be outdone, President Asif Zardari issued an effusive statement of his own about a friendship “not matched by any other relationship between two sovereign countries”.

But if Islamabad is worried about falling out with Washington and hopes to get more out of Beijing, it may be in for disappointment. According to Zhu Feng of Peking University, such calculations based on “the traditional mentality of power politics” are misplaced. China’s robust, longstanding ties with Pakistan stand on their own merits, he says, and owe nothing to America’s standing in Pakistan. Both China and America want a stable Pakistan.

For all that, China’s dealings with Pakistan have always been conducted with one eye on India. Last year Beijing chose to supply Pakistan with two new civilian nuclear reactors, even though the deal appeared to violate Chinese non-proliferation commitments. It was a boon not only for Pakistan’s energy-starved economy. It was, as Mr Zhu points out, also a way for China to counterbalance a controversial nuclear deal reached earlier between America and India.

China and Pakistan have a lustily growing trade relationship, worth almost $9 billion last year. China provides military gear, including fighter jets and frigates. Some Chinese infrastructure projects in Pakistan have strategic implications. They include ports on the Arabian Sea and a proposed rail project which has yet to be approved, but which would arouse controversy, and Indian ire, by running through contested territory in Kashmir.

Still, China’s commitment to Pakistan has its limits. After devastating floods last year, America gave Pakistan $690m, 28% of all international aid. China’s contribution was a mere $18m.According to Andrew Small of the German Marshall Fund, an American policy institute, Pakistan may be “talking up the ‘China option’ beyond where the Chinese are willing to go.” China, he reckons, will be reluctant to tilt too far towards what might look like an anti-India alliance”. Despite border disagreements, China wants to keep its relations with India in reasonable order.

What is more, Pakistan’s chronic instability and its failure, whether by design or incompetence, to suppress extremism make Pakistan as hard a partner for China to trust as for America. “Sweeter than honey” may be plenty sweet enough.


Pakistan and China: Sweet as can be? | The Economist

What a piece of s*** bias article.
The only things worth focussing on are the ones highlighted. 'Abandoned' helicopter? Nice way to add a positive spin to the story
I wonder if America's carrots equates to the investments China made in Pakistan? Does the aid reach the people of Pakistan? Does it have long term benefits? Oh.. I think they should stop the bombing runs too.

Last but not least. Yes China-Pakistan are true friends. Our friendship is robust; it is higher than the mountains, deeper than the oceans, stronger than steel, dearer than eyesight, sweeter than honey. It might make one sick after hearing it, but that is the way it is and so what? Don't like it? then better stay out of it.

 

[Developereo]

Indeed it is my friend - your Afghan & China policy are both driven by Indian paranoia. Lets have a look, Pakistan China relations really took off only after the 1962 Indo-China war, before that Pakistan had no worthy China policy to speak of forget friendship. Till then Pakistan was firmly allied with the US.

In the case of Afghanistan - strategic depth against who? India. Need of a friendly govt in Kabul against who? India. Pakistan joined the CENTO to get arms against India. Nearly all of Pakistan's policies have India written all over it.

As for ideology of Pakistan most neutral observers agree that it is defined by not being India. Read the books written by Owen Bennett Jones, Mary Ann Weaver, Brain Cloughley & even Ahmed Rashid, where they agree that Pakistan has failed to form a common identity & ideology except that it is "not-Indian". There is even a video of a professor of LUMS saying the same, in a documentary made by DAWN TV.

I don't want to drag out this pointless discussion much further, so just a few points.

The Pak-China relationship blossomed because:
- China is our biggest neighbor.
- Any fool could have known that, sooner or later, China would become a major player and it's always best to start the relationship early.
- Geographic importance of Pakistan as China's gateway to the Middle East and Islamic world.
- Yes, the India/Russia factor was there, no doubt, but it was one of many considerations.

As for Afghanistan, only the Indians are obsessed with strategic depth. Our interests are primarily due to the Afghan reluctance to accept the Durand Line as an international border and their penchant to cause trouble in Balushistan. India only exploited that Afghan obsession. This indicates India's obsession with Pakistan, rather than the other way round. Same as what happened in Bangladesh.

Finally, about the dime-a-dozen columnists and op-ed writers, most of them are intellectually bankrupt and simply parrot each other. You can take any of their articles and, after shuffling words and phrases around a bit, you will have another article. It's meaningless and predictable babbling just to sell articles. Like the Economist article above.