Pakistan and China: Sweet as can be?

[rcrmj]

In China on Chinese forums we all call them '巴铁' (Ba Tie), literally means 'Pakistan Iron Friend' so in short it means 'pakistan Iron'`` this says very much about our relationship, no matter what kind of 'facts' Economist put on wont change the fact`

 

[luckyyy]

The person who wrote it sounded like someone who's parents left them at an early age and is jealous that he or she is not loved the same.

If this is breaking news then we will never have any trivial news.
Spent countless hours to write up a lengthy page only try explain one point? That China and Pakistan are not firends but the Americans are?

As a matter of fact, for every 1 dollar the U.S. spends, 42 cents comes from the China. So are they trying to sell the American brand of good will with the money they borrowed from China?

but the flood aid figures show that all..
US donates 690ml$.
india given 25ml$
china just 19ml$ against the promise of 250ml$

anyway it dodn't say that China and Pakistan are not firends , but atleast it gives a hint that there are more hype in it then reality ..,,

 

[wmdisinfo]

on money u have to material but its better when u get material then money and china gave 1.2 billion worth of material aid.cz people eat food not dollars

 

[wmdisinfo]

pakistan and china are best friends and we know how to treat our friends and we know how to protect our friends.no need for any economist or anythin coz at the end of the day westren news media are propaganda machine for west and using india as a pet but unloyal pet coz they know you can change with time like when ussr was there u were thier friend but now u us friend while pakistan and china are best friends from 60 years.long live china long live pakistan

 

[roadrunner]

but the flood aid figures show that all..
US donates 690ml$.
india given 25ml$
china just 19ml$ against the promise of 250ml$

anyway it dodn't say that China and Pakistan are not firends , but atleast it gives a hint that there are more hype in it then reality ..,,

aid isn't anything too important imo. however you have your figures wrong.

The 19 million dollars from China was for relief goods only. The remainder (around 200 million) was for project reconstruction aid.

The economist does have its figures wrong.

 

[muse]

Economist is applying figures that further the spin it is selling

 

[Renegade]

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?

If you had gone through the official GoP link that i had provided, you would have noticed that the remarks column against the China contribution only says that "US $ 19.81 M worth of relief goods received". This column does not talk of any other infrastructure or cash contribution made by China. Unlike the US remarks colum which along with the money US $ 571 M goes on to say " 24 flights plane load of goods, including Boats, Shelter & settlements, water sanitation & hygiene, plastic sheetings & blankets delivered".

Either China has not kept its commitment or the Pak Govt is lying, either way the truth is hard? These are official statisctics from Govt of Pakistan, so maybe "The Economist" was right after all.

 

[Renegade]

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.

Hey CD, hope you have stopped your subscription to 'The Economist', which at one point you had described as an intelligent & a reliable news source. You can instead subscribe to the "Global Times" many describe it as the new "Pravda" but that besides the point is it.

 

[roadrunner]

If you had gone through the official GoP link that i had provided, you would have noticed that the remarks column against the China contribution only says that "US $ 19.81 M worth of relief goods received". This column does not talk of any other infrastructure or cash contribution made by China. Unlike the US remarks colum which along with the money US $ 571 M goes on to say " 24 flights plane load of goods, including Boats, Shelter & settlements, water sanitation & hygiene, plastic sheetings & blankets delivered".

Either China has not kept its commitment or the Pak Govt is lying, either way the truth is hard? These are official statisctics from Govt of Pakistan, so maybe "The Economist" was right after all.

Lets clear this up.

The column says "US $ 19.81 M worth of Relief goods received."

But it also says " The use of US $ 10 Million is FOR CDCP . US $ 190 is project aid for reconstruction to be spent by their development agencies."

This does not mean that none of the reconstruction aid has been received.

It also means that China's contribution is not just $18 million. That ignores its reconstruction aid. How much of this has been given is not specified.

This means that the economist is incorrect when it says "China's contribution is $18 million". It is ignoring the reconstruction aid and the amount reconstructed so far is not given.

(US $18 million wasn't the final figure for relief goods)

 

[Renegade]

Lets clear this up.

The column says "US $ 19.81 M worth of Relief goods received."

But it also says " The use of US $ 10 Million is FOR CDCP . US $ 190 is project aid for reconstruction to be spent by their development agencies."

This does not mean that none of the reconstruction aid has been received.

It also means that China's contribution is not just $18 million. That ignores its reconstruction aid. How much of this has been given is not specified.

This means that the economist is incorrect when it says "China's contribution is $18 million". It is ignoring the reconstruction aid and the amount reconstructed so far is not given.

In a hurry to save face you forgot to look at the figures carefully: Under the Disbursed column it says $ 0.19 M and under the Delivered colum it says $ 19.81 M. The Disbursed & Delivered colum added up totally comes to what has been received on ground, not what has been promised. Its simple english.

The remarks colum merely states the commitment that different players have made & the nature of the commitment. Its not too hard to understand.

 

[roadrunner]

In a hurry to save face you forgot to look at the figures carefully: Under the Disbursed column it says $ 0.19 M and under the Delivered colum it says $ 19.81 M. The Disbursed & Delivered colum added up totally comes to what has been received on ground, not what has been promised. Its simple english.

The remarks colum merely states the commitment that different players have made & the nature of the commitment. Its not too hard to understand.

.... so look under the US column. It says nothing has been delivered. According to your logic, the delivered column is how much the country has delivered, and so the US has delievered US $0?

If you read the Economist article, it gives the impression, or tries to give the impression, that China will only contribute $18 million, the US $600 million.

The reality is that China is willing to contribute a lot more but it is structured in long term contributions, the US contribution is (was) not long term. So the article is written with a bias, and bias is inaccurate.

 

[Obambam]

More important. China DIDN'T want give more AIDS to beggers (Zardari, PPP, etc), they only prefer to use wise choice to build up infrastructure.

US GIVE more aids to please beggars, and more attacks innocent people. See differences !

Hopefully Islamabad's newly found relationship with Moscow will further help Pakistan grow and reach a stage where Pakistan have never reached before. Carrots in the form of aids are nothing. It is all about wise long term investments such as infrastructures and creating business opportunies. Those are the much needed ground work that is being laid down for Pakistan. It is going to be those things that will help money grow and creates better future prospects. Shame to see such bs article divert away the attention with its selective reporting of what was only an iota of truth.

 

[Obambam]

but the flood aid figures show that all..
US donates 690ml$.
india given 25ml$
china just 19ml$ against the promise of 250ml$

anyway it dodn't say that China and Pakistan are not firends , but atleast it gives a hint that there are more hype in it then reality ..,,

Nope, that was merely a selective article made to attack the Sino-Pakistan friendship. It emphasized on the short term aids and conveniently ignored what China did for Pakistan that are long term. We Chinese are not ashamed nor do we feel guilty about what the article was trying to portray us to be, because in our hearts we know our Pakistani brothers and sisters already knew what we did for them. True help comes from our hearts not about making glorifying headline stories.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

.... so look under the US column. It says nothing has been delivered. According to your logic, the delivered column is how much the country has delivered, and so the US has delievered US $0?

LOL, good work in busting Renegade's faulty logic.

 

[kawaraj]

the aid from the US is conditioned, and by recent development, it means 0$.

do you guys seriously ingore the cost by the war of uncle sam upon Pakistan? that could be 100 billion. USA should compensate for that.

See how many constructions China has built in Pakistan over last half century. and China's aid to africa is a huge amount. and do you think China give Pakistan less than that amount?

Stir up as always, this time, stiring up is using stiring up source. funny.