Pakistan’s Response to Hybrid War on CPEC?

[MultaniGuy]

^^ We're glad you enjoyed it. Now back to the toiletless hole you crawled out of.

What do you expect from jealous Indians.

There is no counter or alternative for CPEC.

China needs CPEC. Pakistan also needs CPEC. Jealous Indians.

Surprised you have Modi as your profile picture, isn't he the butcher of Gujarat.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Here is UNSC resolution for you
The Resolution
The final resolution adopted had two parts. Five members of commission and asked to proceed to the Indian subcontinent at once to mediate between India and Pakistan. The second part dealt with the Security council's recommendations for restoring peace and conducting a plebiscite. This involved three steps.

• In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
• In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.
• In the third step, India was asked to ensure that all the major political parties were invited to participate in the state government at the ministerial level, essentially forming a coalition cabinet. India should then appoint a Plebiscite Administrator nominated by the United Nations, who would have a range of powers including powers to deal with the two countries and ensure a free and impartial plebiscite. Measures were to be taken to ensure the return of refugees, the release of all political prisoners, and for political freedom.

There is no Indian involvement in any of the Pakistan terrorist attacks. If so, then show some proof rather than few edited video evidence. Another being a terrorist confession (minimum credibility). In fact there is no proof suggesting Indian made weapons used in the attacks. We have no problem in ratifying the current border but when we say that Pakistani's go into strike mode. So, we still continue that CPEC passes through disputed territories.

Kashmir is disputed territory.
Its not Indian territory. lol

CPEC goes on our side of the LOC.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Yeah! You took a blind side on the resolution/plebiscite song. Please answer that.
LOL!!!For us Azad Kashmir is disputed territory Kashmir is on our side of LOC
CPEC is not our issue. The route is

Your post makes no sense.
LOL.

It is on our side of LOC, we will do whatever we want on our territory.

As for you. fuc(k off!

 

[Jackdaws]

Besides the objection to the part of CPEC in disputed territory - India really should not have a problem with CPEC - firms in the East Europe and China would happily use CPEC to tap the Indian market and India too would use it to supply its goods to various markets. It reduces costs and time and a long maritime journey.

 

[Shoaibali2021]

Pakistan needs to secure it borders from all sides especially Afgan and Indian side. And then we should send back Afgan refugees who are living here from many years. Full offensive at all levels should be lauched to destroy malicious designs buy our enemies. Kabul government is never going to partner with Islamabad with truthful intensions as they are de facto client to US/Indian hegemony. We should engage with our allies to create a pragmatic solution to this Indian/US led hybrid warfare. Its time to expand operation Zarb-e-Azb to enemies' territories which will ultimately make them to think twice before being aggressive. I personally appreciate Russian response to White house's demands to return Crimea to Ukraine when they officially told them that they can risk all out war when it comes to Crimea. This kind of aggressive rhetoric cautions your enemy effectively.

 

[kabooter_maila]

Here is UNSC resolution for you
The Resolution
The final resolution adopted had two parts. Five members of commission and asked to proceed to the Indian subcontinent at once to mediate between India and Pakistan. The second part dealt with the Security council's recommendations for restoring peace and conducting a plebiscite. This involved three steps.

• In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
• In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.
• In the third step, India was asked to ensure that all the major political parties were invited to participate in the state government at the ministerial level, essentially forming a coalition cabinet. India should then appoint a Plebiscite Administrator nominated by the United Nations, who would have a range of powers including powers to deal with the two countries and ensure a free and impartial plebiscite. Measures were to be taken to ensure the return of refugees, the release of all political prisoners, and for political freedom.

There is no Indian involvement in any of the Pakistan terrorist attacks. If so, then show some proof rather than few edited video evidence. Another being a terrorist confession (minimum credibility). In fact there is no proof suggesting Indian made weapons used in the attacks. We have no problem in ratifying the current border but when we say that Pakistani's go into strike mode. So, we still continue that CPEC passes through disputed territories.

Same old non-sense that has no link to reality. All tribals/Pakistani nationals have left the area for long ago. The next step was/is to make arrangements for an impartial plebiscite. Indians don't come to direction. The whole point is to arrange an impartial free and fair plebiscite in the whole state. Obviously you need to sort out arrangements (that might include deployment of UN forces in the whole state including Indian occupied part too at an appropriate stage) and define a mechanism for a systematic withdrawal of Pakistani/Indian forces. If you want Pakistan removing its forces without any guarantee against the possibility of rogue Indian military occupying the territory, you're clearly mistaken. That in fact indicates that you are turning rogue on your promise to the world community.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

With India taking an open stand to disrupt CPEC at any cost Pak's job is now much easier. Signatures of recent events show that China and Russia aren't in a mood to let that happen....

 

[MultaniGuy]

Pakistan was attacked by terrorists over the past five days when eight separate blasts ripped through the country and reminded the world that Islamabad is on the front-lines in the War on Terror. Unlike after the end of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, this time it wasn’t just ‘wayward freedom fighters’ boomeranging back to their home base and setting off a chain reaction of blowback, but dyed-in-the-wool terrorists hell-bent on wreaking as much havoc as possible in order to offset China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Old Tactics for New Reasons

This major contextual difference is attributable to the redefined geostrategic significance of South Asia across the past couple of years. The CPEC has become the driver of China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity and the poster project for the emerging Multipolar World Order, thus making Pakistan the “Zipper of Pan-Eurasian Integration” at the “Convergence of Civilizations”.

The US and its unipolar allies such as India have a completely different conception for how the future should look, and are dead-set opposed to CPEC for the simple reason that it would undermine their hegemonic ambitions. Instead of joining the project and contributing to a win-win solution for all of Eurasia, Washington and New Delhi have decided to sabotage CPEC out of the pursuit of their own subjectively defined self-interests.

Pursuant to this goal, both actors utilize Afghan-based terrorists in order to destabilize Pakistan, understanding that this can in turn reduce the attractiveness of CPEC to international investors and partners. The thinking goes that if high-profile terrorist attacks capture the global media’s attention, they’ll inevitably succeed in leading the worldwide audience to once more inaccurately conflating Pakistan with instability, which in turn feeds speculation and thus creates a dire risk for the business vitality of CPEC.

It should be understood that no terrorist can ever stop the physical manifestations of this project even if they one day end up attacking or even destroying certain parts of it, but that the main goal behind waging unconventional warfare on CPEC is to negatively influence the global perception of Pakistan and thus scare others away from doing business there. If this state of affairs can be indefinitely prolonged, then the US and India anticipate that it would lead to CPEC under-performing in its economic expectations and thus becoming a ‘dud’ relative to the high hopes that were set on it. If the Chinese eventually come to think of CPEC as a major waste, then this might weaken the Pakistani-Chinese Strategic Partnership with time, at least according to American-Indian calculations.

Therefore, the Hybrid War on CPEC is conditioned on merging unconventional warfare (terrorism) with informational attacks (anti-business speculation) in order to undermine Pakistan’s domestic stability and drive a wedge between Islamabad and Beijing. The author doesn’t believe that this will succeed, however, owing to the time-tested experiences and steel-like qualities of this unshakeable relationship, but that doesn’t change the fact that US and Indian intelligence agencies have been cooperating with one another in trying to do so, as can be evinced from the latest terrorist spree which has swept over Pakistan.

The First Response

Thus far, Pakistan has responded by carrying out a series of raids which have already killed 100 terrorists. Islamabad also asked Kabul to extradite 76 terrorists hiding in the country, and took immediate security precautions by closing the border with its landlocked neighbor. Nevertheless, there’s no telling how many sleeper cells have already infiltrated the country, so the threat still exists that more attacks could be carried out in the coming future. Also, it’s not known exactly when these individuals entered Pakistan or became radicalized in the first place, and it can’t be ruled out that they were already in the country and ready to wage war against society during the years of former Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif’s tenure, but chose to lay low because they didn’t to risk drawing his ire and being completely annihilated.

Pulling Back the Curtain

It’s pertinently necessary to briefly review the broader context in which this latest terror wave has been unleashed, taking note of some of the lesser-discussed changes that have taken place lately aside from the headline-grabbing inauguration of CPEC and the game-changing military-strategic partnership between the US and India. This will help to reveal some of the hidden interconnected reasons behind why Pakistan is being once more targeted by foreign terrorists at this crucial moment in time. In any order, some of the latest changes in the chessboard are:

* India vowing revenge for the Uri Incident and other Kashmir-related clashes which it falsely blames on Pakistan;

* Lieutenant General Qamar Javed Bajwa replacing General Raheel Sharif as the COAS;

* Russia and Pakistan engaging in an accelerated rapprochement;

* Moscow becoming central to the conflict resolution process in Afghanistan;

* President Trump taking a hard line towards China and being pressured to ditch his plans for a new Détente with Russia.

Addressing each of these recent changes, it becomes clear how they each pertain to the latest spree of violence. Following the order set out above, it can be inferred that the terrorist attacks were meant to:

* Serve as India’s “answer” to Uri and the homegrown democracy movement in Kashmir;

* Test the new COAS and prompt a crisis situation which could be exploited to trigger tensions behind the military and political leaderships;

* Make Russia second-guess the wisdom behind its rapprochement with Pakistan;

* Complicate Moscow’s peace initiatives in Afghanistan by crafting the perception that the war is far from over and is uncontrollably spilling over into Pakistan;

* Punish Russia and China for their multipolar successes with Pakistan.

Striking Back

Having a more comprehensive and realistic understanding of the true reasons why Pakistan has been subjected to the latest onslaught of international terror, it’s now possible to brainstorm the most effective response to this aggression. The steps that have been taken thus far are insufficient in countering the full consequences of the joint US-Indian Hybrid War on CPEC, especially as it relates to the weaponized narrative that Pakistan is “on the defensive”, “paralyzed by indecision”, and therefore “at risk of being destabilized”.

These misleading talking points play directly to Washington and New Delhi’s desire to reduce the attractiveness of CPEC to Islamabad and Beijing’s international partners through the sort of rampant and unsubstantiated speculation which easily goes viral in today’s Mainstream Media-dominated information space, so accordingly, the only unambiguous and befitting response is one of decisive action, not symbolic moves and rhetoric.

It’s certainly a sensible idea to order anti-terrorist strikes on imminently dangerous targets receiving safe haven in Afghanistan, though this shouldn’t be done out of blind and seething rage, but as part of a prudent, restrained, and sustained policy which seeks to advance Pakistan’s larger strategic interests while at the same time satisfying the public’s growing demand for justice. If enough forethought is put into this, then it’s possible that Islamabad’s response could strengthen its relations with Moscow and all of Afghanistan’s neighbors while simultaneously improving its global image.

Here are the four suggested steps which need to be followed in order to progressively roll out this phased strategy

1.Unveil A Multilateral Intelligence-Sharing Mechanism:

Pakistan needs to immediately propose that all of Afghanistan’s neighbors (Iran, the Central Asian Republics, China) and Russia share their anti-terrorist intelligence with one another. The Kabul government, the US and NATO, and India could also be invited to participate in this mechanism for appearances’ sake.

2.Make A Case At The UN:

If Pakistan wants to regain control over its international image, it needs to make a case at the UN proving that terrorists are seeking shelter in Afghanistan.

The purpose behind this isn’t to gain UNSC approval for cross-border strikes (which it would be unlikely to receive), but to utilize this global platform to inform the world about its forthcoming actions (or recently conducted strikes if this step takes place after the fact) and raise awareness about US-Kabul-Indian intelligence complicity in this week’s terrorist attacks. For reasons of grand strategic sensitivity, Islamabad might opt instead to only draw attention to the role played by India’s Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) in the latest events.

3.Launch Cross-Border Counter-Strikes:

Pakistan can rely on airstrikes and/or commando raids to eliminate imminently dangerous threats along the Afghan border, acting on a combination of its partners’ intelligence and its own in order to simultaneously strengthen its regional partnerships.

Pakistan should not, however, deploy conventional ground troops in the conflict theater so as to avoid the impression that it’s “occupying” Afghan land and unwittingly sparking a nationalist reaction against its forces. The main objective of this campaign should be to exhibit an impressive show of force which can serve as a deterrent to future attackers and their patrons, as well as to dispel the false narrative that Pakistan is “on the defensive”, “paralyzed by indecision”, and therefore “at risk of being destabilized”.

4. Help Build Taliban “Safe Spaces”:

The only way to uphold the Pakistani military’s anti-terrorist gains in Afghanistan is to support the creation of Taliban “safe zones” along the border. Although it’s likely to be very controversial in the West and among the US’ international partners (especially India), it’s already de-facto accepted as a fait accompli that the only dependable anti-Daesh fighting force in the country is the Taliban, and Pakistan’s Eurasian partners in Russia, China, and Iran have each recently arrived at this conclusion.

Islamabad doesn’t have the resources or political will to promote this on its own, and it surely can’t do so conventionally in a direct manner, hence why this proposal must be explored more thoroughly.

Applying the Syrian Model to Afghanistan

Concept:

The latest trend in conflict resolution is the floated-around idea of building “safe zones” in the border regions of war-beleaguered states such as Syria, and perhaps even Yemen and Libya, in order to accelerate an eventual political compromise. The concept is that the delineation of secured territory for one of the parties would go a long way towards “legitimizing” them in the eyes of the other and the international community, as well as compelling their counterparts to finally negotiate with them as equals.

The author is not endorsing this policy in any of the three aforementioned theaters, but is instead pointing out the most basic elements of the model that’s being suggested in order to prepare the reader for envisioning its prospective applicability to Afghanistan.

Pakistan, nor any of its partners, wants to directly oppose the Kabul government in the same way as Turkey is doing to the democratically elected and legitimate one in Damascus, and this is both for reasons of international image but also military pragmatism. Simply put, none of them are capable of enforcing the requisite “no-fly” zone against the US and NATO which would be needed to protect the Taliban “safe zone”, which is why the Syrian model will have to be modified for use in Afghanistan if it’s ever seriously considered.

Working Details:

The specifics of such a proposal would have to be worked out by the relevant military experts, but the concept is that Pakistan would selectively intervene in the Afghan border region by providing air and commando support in helping the Taliban push back against Daesh offensives.

Islamabad would not, however, involve itself in Taliban-Kabul clashes, nor in any US-NATO attacks against the group. In any case, Kabul and its international patrons have been so woefully unsuccessful in fighting the Taliban over the past 16 years that it wouldn’t be necessary for Pakistan to intervene on its behalf anyhow. The larger purpose in promoting a de-facto or declared Taliban “safe zone” in the Afghan border region, though, is to set a precedent for Iran and the Central Asian Republics (the latter through potential CSTO and/or SCO coordination) to do so, too.

If this plan is ever implemented, then Iran would likely intervene whenever necessary in order to support the Taliban against Daesh, while the Central Asian Republics would do so in support of their eponymous ethnic militias.

Political Vision:

The objective behind the creation of Taliban and other “moderate rebel opposition” “safe zones” in Afghanistan should be to clearly delineate territory between all of the fighting groups in order to make it easier to reach a political solution. Per the Syrian scenario, Russia or a combination of outside powers might propose a similar foreign-written “draftconstitution” stipulating decentralization, “cultural autonomies”, and slyly hinting at the possibility for “Identity Federalism”.

Given the expected territorial breakdown of the country by that time between a weakened Kabul government in the center; the Taliban in the western, southern, and eastern parts of the country; and a mix of Tajik, Turkmen, and Uzbek militias in the north; it’s possible for all sides to come to a pragmatic agreement (however temporary) to give the above-mentioned constitution a try. This could ideally grant broad autonomy to the much more secular-inclined northern areas while allowing the Taliban to rule over the rest of the country through Islamic law.

The author is under no illusions about the difficulty involved in getting all sides to first agree to, and then abide by, this proposed constitution, and personally believes that it might only function as a temporary measure at best, but it could at the very least possibly result in a consensually agreed-upon political framework being advanced for the first time since the 2001 War on Afghanistan first started, which would in and of itself be a major victory.

Supporting Factors:

There are three crucial reasons why the timing is perfect for a series of regionally supported “safe zones” to be promoted in Afghanistan:

* Kabul Is Weak

The internationally recognized Afghan ‘government’ controls less than half of the country’s territory, therefore being powerless to fight Daesh terrorism in the other parts, let alone within its own domain. It’s unrealistic, then, for any actor to depend on Kabul to fight Daesh in the Afghan periphery where it’s recently been popping up, which is why it’s more important than ever to seek the help of the Taliban and possibly other groups for this important task in exchange for legitimizing their participation in any forthcoming political negotiations.

* Trump Is Distracted

President Trump is poised to double down on the US’ conventional ‘containment’ and ‘deterrence’ strategies against Iran and China in the Mideast and East & Southeast Asia respectively, with the possibility existing for him to retain and perhaps even expand the NATO presence in Eastern Europe right on Russia’s doorstep. Under these strategic circumstances of pan-Eurasian encirclement against the three multipolar Great Powers of the supercontinent, it’s highly unlikely that the Pentagon can afford to significantly deploy and sustain enough forces in Afghanistan to change the balance of power there in Kabul’s favor.

* Russia’s Ready to Help

Islamabad shouldn’t forget that Russian President Putin “affirmed Moscow’s readiness ‘to further enhance anti-terrorism cooperation with Pakistani partners, both bilaterally and in the framework of broad international efforts’” in a condolence message to his Pakistani counterpart following the Sehwan attack and declared that “[Russia] hope(s) that those behind it will not escape the punishment they deserve.”

Moreover, Pakistan wants to expand and broaden its procurement of military supplies from Russia, so if it takes the lead in resolving the War on Terror in Afghanistan, then given Russia’s existing diplomatic support for reaching a breakthrough in this conflict and its related embrace of military diplomacy, Moscow might support Islamabad by selling it more and better quality equipment, possibly even at discounted prices and/or with favorable lines of credit.

Concluding Thoughts

The over 100 Pakistani martyrs who were killed over the past week as part of the joint US-Indian Hybrid War on CPEC don’t need to have their sacrifices be in vain, as their deaths could instead set the stage for fundamentally transforming the ground game in the War on Terror in Afghanistan. The terrorist attacks which shook Pakistan over the past week were carried out in order to weaken its international image and scare away potential business partners who might otherwise be attracted to the country’s pivotal role in connecting South and East Asia through CPEC. The most effective way to dispel any false impressions that the global public might come under as a result of US-Indian information connivances is to resolutely strike back against the Afghan-originating terrorists which carried out the attacks.

This would disprove the artificial narrative that Pakistan “on the defensive”, “paralyzed by indecision”, and therefore “at risk of being destabilized”, and instead show the world that Pakistan is on the anti-terrorist offensive, decisive, and a stabilizing force in the region.

Having said that, a few high-profile anti-terrorist strikes won’t be enough to defend Pakistan from Afghan-originating threats forever, and any gains made in this regard must be secured by an on-the-ground component. Because it wouldn’t be too wise for Pakistan to deploy troops to Afghanistan in doing this itself, it should instead seek to build Taliban “safe zones” that could accomplish this goal for it while simultaneously advancing the prospects of reaching a political solution to the country’s long-running war.

If Pakistan takes the first step in this direction, then it might serve as a powerful example for Afghanistan’s other neighbors to do something similar as well, which could accelerate the territorial delineation of power between the country’s various “moderate rebel opposition” groups and consequently facilitate political negotiations to finally end the conflict.

Kabul is weak, Trump is distracted, and Russia is ready to help, so there’s no time more opportune than the present for Pakistan to finally take the initiative in securing its historically troublesome border with Afghanistan. China, Iran, and the Central Asian Republics are also expected to rally behind Pakistan, especially if it takes its case before the UN in explaining to the world what it’s doing and why.

Ultimately, the author trusts the judgement of the Pakistani military and fully supports whatever decision they choose to make, whether it’s to commence cross-border strikes in Afghanistan or to hold off on doing so for the time being, so the recommendations expressed in this article should be understood as what they are, which are creative suggestions designed to inspire strategists and decision makers to think outside the box in finding a way to turn a nationwide tragedy into a global anti-terrorist triumph.

There are of course certain risks involved with what the author is proposing, but there are also many opportunities as well, which is why the suggestions elaborated on in this research should be deeply thought about before acting upon them. It’s impossible for Pakistan to accomplish and uphold all of its security goals unilaterally, however, so it must nonetheless also consult with its regional partners if it eventually chooses to partake in decisive action.


Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko is Moscow-based political analyst, journalist and a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the People’s Friendship University of Russia. He specializes in Russian affairs and geopolitics, specifically the US strategy in Eurasia. His other areas of focus include tactics of regime change, color revolutions and unconventional warfare used across the world.

http://regionalrapport.com/2017/02/17/pakistans-response-hybrid-war-cpec/

Hope Pakistan and Russia become allies one day.

 

[kabooter_maila]

May be you forgot the history. The tribal and Pakistani origin settled there. The main reason why resolution was withheld is because Pakistan denied to backoff it's army. So, India decide neither it will do go that way. In fact the resolution is long gone. It's not an option now. Only a bilateral solution can be evolved out and not some plebiscite.

Any proof or evidence of your claim? Have some shame and stop lying. You are trying to call your wishful but silly thinking as history. Let me tell you though that truth cannot be buried under piles of lies from idiots like you. No tribals/Pakistanis settled there. As opposed to Indian occupied part of the state, the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir have their own, president, PM, Supreme Court, etc. It's rather Indian government ever since trying to change demographics of the occupied J&K for prolonging illegal Indian occupation in continued violation of UN resolutions.

 

[Lurch Adams]

More provocative drivel meant to fan the flames. Where exactly did India swear revenge for Uri?

Please focus on the extremely dangerous cocktail of madrasahs, idealogues and willing participants WITHIN Pakistan and deal with them. And if there is any need felt to do something beyond that, then focus on how these factors were allowed to grow for so long and by whom?

Except for the handful of Indians who visit PDF and read Dawn, Indians have no time or interest in Pakistan and its internal affairs. We are in an extreme minority in India. Indian government neither has the will not the political incentive to orchestrate such elaborate attacks.

Despite what some Indians on PDF try to portray, geo-strategic calculations have ZERO political relevance in India. And here, political relevance is everything. There is much political capital in bad-mouthing Pakistan, but what is the point of attacks which the government cannot even take credit for?

For once instead of assuming the worst, think like a greedy politician only interested in retaining power. Just as Sharif has nothing to gain politically for attacks on India, Modi has nothing to be gained by such covert ops.

Which is why the entire surgical strike scenario emerged, because the government could then take credit for it. Expect more of the same in the future.

 

[Shoaibali2021]

More provocative drivel meant to fan the flames. Where exactly did India swear revenge for Uri?

Please focus on the extremely dangerous cocktail of madrasahs, idealogues and willing participants WITHIN Pakistan and deal with them. And if there is any need felt to do something beyond that, then focus on how these factors were allowed to grow for so long and by whom?

Except for the handful of Indians who visit PDF and read Dawn, Indians have no time or interest in Pakistan and its internal affairs. We are in an extreme minority in India. Indian government neither has the will not the political incentive to orchestrate such elaborate attacks.

Despite what some Indians on PDF try to portray, geo-strategic calculations have ZERO political relevance in India. And here, political relevance is everything. There is much political capital in bad-mouthing Pakistan, but what is the point of attacks which the government cannot even take credit for?

For once instead of assuming the worst, think like a greedy politician only interested in retaining power. Just as Sharif has nothing to gain politically for attacks on India, Modi has nothing to be gained by such covert ops.

Which is why the entire surgical strike scenario emerged, because the government could then take credit for it. Expect more of the same in the future.

IAF chief considered CPEC as military threat to India and then promised asymmetrical response to counter such development. India has shamefully become US vassal and do what ever they are ordered. Look how US war ships routinely patrol in south China sea to undermine China's sovereignty and that atleast 11000 km from their mainland. Modi government is simply following orders from uncle sam.

 

[Lurch Adams]

IAF chief considered CPEC as military threat to India and then promised asymmetrical response to counter such development. India has shamefully become US vassal and do what ever they are ordered. Look how US war ships routinely patrol in south China sea to undermine China's sovereignty and that atleast 11000 km from their mainland. Modi government is simply following orders from uncle sam.

The way I see it, India gravitating towards US was an economic process to begin with. After 1991, when our economy started opening up, relations with US improved greatly. The shift towards diplomatic ties followed FDI. However, the shift towards greater military cooperation is rather new. After 9/11, Indo-US policy goals coincided for the first time. For once, the US saw the issue of terrorism as not just our problem. Our gradual drift towards each other has its roots right there.

As for becoming a US vassal, while it is true that the current government has fast tracked the relationship, we are yet far from it. And you have to understand that from our perspective, China is a much larger factor in this equation. While we are no way part of any anti-China alliance as yet, it doesn't hurt to be good friends with the biggest croc in the lake.

Despite claims otherwise, our relationship with US is transactional as of now. We do not share the same Anglo Saxon heritage which makes UK, Canada, Australia and NZ eternal US allies. The US is interested in us for certain short/medium term economic, diplomatic and military objectives, and so are we. The US does not have a great track record of consistent friendship with non-NATO countries and India is well aware of that.

As for CPEC, yes India is concerned about it. Your part of Kashmir is still disputed territory according to us, just as our part is according to you. CPEC in that area would necessitate a strong protest from us as it is a de jure (as opposed to de facto) infringement of our territory. And the other major reason is of course that Gwadar will become a Chinese naval base. This could give them a potential means of disrupting our sea trade through the Arabian Sea. Who knows what will follow next, maybe a PLAF base?

You can obviously hope and try your best for the success of CPEC, but how can you expect us to simply nod in pleasure at such developments which undermine our security and territorial claims?

As for South China Sea, again, it is a shipping lane. Any country whose trade or energy imports pass through there will have an issue with one country controlling the entire sea. We are not directly involved in South China Sea. All of China's Western neighbors and US are involved in that dispute.

Our friendship with US has got no significance for Pakistan, unlike your friendship with China. When has the US done anything against Pakistan at our behest or vice versa? Any improvement or deterioration in US-Pak relations has little to do with India.

 

[Shoaibali2021]

The way I see it, India gravitating towards US was an economic process to begin with. After 1991, when our economy started opening up, relations with US improved greatly. The shift towards diplomatic ties followed FDI. However, the shift towards greater military cooperation is rather new. After 9/11, Indo-US policy goals coincided for the first time. For once, the US saw the issue of terrorism as not just our problem. Our gradual drift towards each other has its roots right there.

As for becoming a US vassal, while it is true that the current government has fast tracked the relationship, we are yet far from it. And you have to understand that from our perspective, China is a much larger factor in this equation. While we are no way part of any anti-China alliance as yet, it doesn't hurt to be good friends with the biggest croc in the lake.

Despite claims otherwise, our relationship with US is transactional as of now. We do not share the same Anglo Saxon heritage which makes UK, Canada, Australia and NZ eternal US allies. The US is interested in us for certain short/medium term economic, diplomatic and military objectives, and so are we. The US does not have a great track record of consistent friendship with non-NATO countries and India is well aware of that.

As for CPEC, yes India is concerned about it. Your part of Kashmir is still disputed territory according to us, just as our part is according to you. CPEC in that area would necessitate a strong protest from us as it is a de jure (as opposed to de facto) infringement of our territory. And the other major reason is of course that Gwadar will become a Chinese naval base. This could give them a potential means of disrupting our sea trade through the Arabian Sea. Who knows what will follow next, maybe a PLAF base?

You can obviously hope and try your best for the success of CPEC, but how can you expect us to simply nod in pleasure at such developments which undermine our security and territorial claims?

As for South China Sea, again, it is a shipping lane. Any country whose trade or energy imports pass through there will have an issue with one country controlling the entire sea. We are not directly involved in South China Sea. All of China's Western neighbors and US are involved in that dispute.

Our friendship with US has got no significance for Pakistan, unlike your friendship with China. When has the US done anything against Pakistan at our behest or vice versa? Any improvement or deterioration in US-Pak relations has little to do with India.

I appreciate your kind way of responding to my comment on this topic because some of the users resort to using foul language.

You mentioned that India is not a part of any anti-China alliance that is true but India recently signed military logistics pacts with US which to some extent alarmed Chinese and even Russians did not welcome this kind of move.

Secondly regarding Kashmir just appreciate the fact that Azad Kashmir is not witnessing any anti-government protests as those in IoK. We do not hurt or kill any of our citizen unlike Indian army which has been using brutal force and their constant use of pellet guns had injured and blinded many. You should atleast accept the fact that India has misreably failed to maintain peace and harmony there and that in more than five decades. The UNSC resolution of 21 April 1948--one of the principal UN resolutions on Kashmir—stated that “both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. We Pakistanis and all other countries of the world fully support this resolution and expect India to conduct impartial plebiscite under the watch of UN inspectors. But as of now no such step has been taken. And since we share same religion we do have a soft corner for Kashmiris. If Kashmiris decide independence or vice versa we will surely support and stand with them.

 

[Lurch Adams]

I appreciate your kind way of responding to my comment on this topic because some of the users resort to using foul language.

You mentioned that India is not a part of any anti-China alliance that is true but India recently signed military logistics pacts with US which to some extent alarmed Chinese and even Russians did not welcome this kind of move.

Secondly regarding Kashmir just appreciate the fact that Azad Kashmir is not witnessing any anti-government protests as those in IoK. We do not hurt or kill any of our citizen unlike Indian army which has been using brutal force and their constant use of pellet guns had injured and blinded many. You should atleast accept the fact that India has misreably failed to maintain peace and harmony there and that in more than five decades. The UNSC resolution of 21 April 1948--one of the principal UN resolutions on Kashmir—stated that “both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. We Pakistanis and all other countries of the world fully support this resolution and expect India to conduct impartial plebiscite under the watch of UN inspectors. But as of now no such step has been taken. And since we share same religion we do have a soft corner for Kashmiris. If Kashmiris decide independence or vice versa we will surely support and stand with them.

Thanks for the appreciation. It's nice to keep our communication polite.

Yes there is a military logistics agreement with US. The way I see it, it is a subtle hint to China, and nothing else. We ourselves gain nothing from its reciprocal nature. Not that we intend to send a carrier group to the Atlantic. It is the same sort of pinprick as CPEC passing through disputed territory, that's all.

About Kashmir, let us look at it in two ways. In the first part I will explain my understanding of the technical aspects in short and then the more practical part.

As far as the Security Council Resolution is concerned, it has a condition precedent attached to it. If you read the entire resolution, you will understand that the aim was to de-escalate the hostility at that time. The aim was not to decide Kashmir's fate.

The condition precedent was that both sides remove their military presence from the area before the next clauses could operate. Neither side did that. Since Pakistan was so keen on the entire resolution being implemented, it was for Pakistan to propose and then unilaterally remove its military from the LOC for them to be able to make a claim under the resolution.

So why has the world not shown any interest? Well, firstly, too much time has passed for anyone to care. And secondly, there is always the convenient excuse that the resulting was under the non-mandatory Article of UN Charter, so there is no actual requirement to act on it.

However, the ground reality is entirely different. Yes it is true that India has had a poor record in the Valley in recent years. But you are entirely misinformed that your side of the LOC does not have protests. Are you aware of exactly how much media coverage is given to what goes on in your side of Kashmir? What do you think is the reason? Because everyone is happy?

Wouldn't it make sense for Pak government to invite media from all countries and diplomatic staff to AJK and Gilgit Baltistan to see how happy the people are? That would be the perfect PR victory. Yet they don't do it.

If, your side of Kashmir had been really Azaad, then those on the Indian side who are willing to consider alternatives to the present situation would have a voice. But the fact is it is not independent. Of there is a plebiscite, and the Kashmiri people vote for independence, Pakistan will promptly move in and turn the valley also into Azaad Kashmir.

India simply cannot allow that situation, wherein our border with Pakistan is redrawn to Jammu or even North Punjab/Himachal. It has grave security implications, as well as handing control of fresh water sources which we cannot simply hand over to Pakistan.

If there was even an iota of chance that the Pakistan Army would actually respect the mandate of the people of Kashmir, this option could be considered. But really, if Pakistan believes in Azaadi of Kashmiris, then why not start with those in so-called Azaad Kashmir?

Meanwhile, all this does is that if Kashmir remains the central issue, relations can never really improve. Asking India to do something that Pakistan itself is unwilling to do is not fair.

Even we host the Dalai Lama, but we understand that any direct support for the independence if Tibet will incur China's immediate enmity. So how come Pakistanis think it is okay to make Kashmir the main issue without consequences?

 

[RescueRanger]

Here is UNSC resolution for you
The Resolution
The final resolution adopted had two parts. Five members of commission and asked to proceed to the Indian subcontinent at once to mediate between India and Pakistan. The second part dealt with the Security council's recommendations for restoring peace and conducting a plebiscite. This involved three steps.

• In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
• In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.
• In the third step, India was asked to ensure that all the major political parties were invited to participate in the state government at the ministerial level, essentially forming a coalition cabinet. India should then appoint a Plebiscite Administrator nominated by the United Nations, who would have a range of powers including powers to deal with the two countries and ensure a free and impartial plebiscite. Measures were to be taken to ensure the return of refugees, the release of all political prisoners, and for political freedom.

There is no Indian involvement in any of the Pakistan terrorist attacks. If so, then show some proof rather than few edited video evidence. Another being a terrorist confession (minimum credibility). In fact there is no proof suggesting Indian made weapons used in the attacks. We have no problem in ratifying the current border but when we say that Pakistani's go into strike mode. So, we still continue that CPEC passes through disputed territories.

Indian Quoting UN resolution, I can taste the irony!

Back on topic very good analysis, anyone remember the "BLA" Sui Gas pipe blasts when BP and Shell were engaged in exploration work back in 05-08? Wonder where bugti tribesmen learnt how to use shaped charges? Same tactics, , different prey!