Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 207

Thread: Overwhelming majority of Baloch favour being part of Pakistan: UK survey

Share             
  1. #21
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    14,322
    Thanks
    8763
    Pakistan England
    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post
    Not interested it seems according to article by Asian Times
    CHINA AND INDIA: A RIVALRY TAKES SHAPE

    By Harsh V. Pant

    June 2011

    Harsh V. Pant is Reader in International Relations at King’s College London in the Department of Defence Studies. He is also an associate with the King’s Centre for Science and Security Studies and an affiliate with the King’s India Institute. His current research is focused on Asia-Pacific security and defense issues. His latest book is The US-India Nuclear Pact: Policy, Process, and Great Power Politics (Oxford University Press, 2011).


    With the world riveted by Chinese aggressiveness against Japan and Southeast Asian states in recent months, one country has not been surprised: India. After all, New Delhi has been grappling with the challenge of China’s rapid rise for some time now. Bilateral ties between China and India nosedived so dramatically in 2009 that Indian strategists were even predicting “the year of the Chinese attack on India”; it was suggested that China would attack India by 2012 primarily to divert attention from its growing domestic troubles. This suggestion received widespread coverage in the Indian media, which was more interested in sensationalizing the issue than interrogating the claims.

    Meanwhile, the official Chinese media picked up the story and gave it another spin. It argued that while a Chinese attack on India is highly unlikely, a conflict between the two neighbors could occur in one scenario: an aggressive Indian policy toward China about their border dispute, forcing China to take military action. The Chinese media went on to speculate that the “China will attack India” line might just be a pretext for India to deploy more troops to the border areas.
    RHETORIC AND REALITY

    This curious exchange reflects an uneasiness that exists between the two Asian giants, as they continue their ascent in the global inter-state hierarchy. Even as they sign loftily worded documents year after year, the distrust between the two is actually growing at an alarming rate. True, economic cooperation and bilateral political as well as socio-cultural exchanges are at an all time high; China is India’s largest trading partner. Yet this cooperation has done little to assuage each country’s concerns about the other’s intentions. The two sides are locked in a classic security dilemma, where any action taken by one is immediately interpreted by the other as a threat to its interests.

    At the global level, the rhetoric is all about cooperation, and indeed the two sides have worked together on climate change, global trade negotiations and demanding a restructuring of global financial institutions in view of the global economy’s shifting center of gravity. At the bilateral level, however, mounting tensions reached an impasse last year, when China took its territorial dispute with India all the way to the Asian Development Bank. There China blocked India’s application for a loan that included money for development projects in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which China continues to claim as part of its own territory. Also, the suggestion by the Chinese to the U.S. Pacific fleet commander last year that the Indian Ocean should be recognized as a Chinese sphere of influence has raised hackles in New Delhi. China’s lack of support for the U.S.-India civilian nuclear energy cooperation pact, which it tried to block at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), and its obstructionist stance about bringing the terror masterminds of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks to justice have further strained ties.

    Sino-Indian frictions are growing, and the potential for conflict remains high. Alarm is rising in India because of frequent and strident Chinese claims about the Line of Actual Control in Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, where Indians have complained of a dramatic rise in Chinese intrusions into Indian territory over the last few years, most along the border in Arunachal Pradesh, which China refers to as “Southern Tibet.” China has upped the ante on the border issue. It has been regularly protesting against the Indian prime minister’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh, asserting its claims over the territory. What has caught most observers of Sino-Indian ties by surprise, however, is the Beijing’s vehemence in contesting recent Indian administrative and political action in the state--even denying visas to Indian citizens of Arunachal Pradesh.

    The recent rounds of boundary negotiations have been a disappointing failure, with a growing perception in India that China is less willing to adhere to earlier political understandings about how to address the boundary dispute. Even the rhetoric has degenerated to the point that a Chinese analyst connected to China’s Ministry of National Defense claimed, in an article last year, that China could “dismember the so-called ‘Indian Union’ with one little move” into as many as 30 states.
    A NEW ASSERTIVENESS

    The possibility of an intimate U.S.-India military relationship has generated fears of encirclement in Beijing. India’s position astride China’s key maritime shipping lanes has made the prospect of a Washington-Delhi axis particularly worrisome.

    Pakistan, of course, has always been a crucial foreign policy asset for China, but with India’s rise and U,S.-India rapprochement, its role in China’s grand strategy is bound to grow even further. Not surprisingly, recent revelations about China's shift away from a three-decades’ old cautious approach on Jammu and Kashmir, its increasing military presence in Pakistan, planning infrastructure linking Xinjiang and Gwadar, issuing stapled visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir and supplying nuclear reactors to Pakistan, all confirm a new intensity behind China’s old strategy of using Pakistan to secure its interests in the region. China has gone even further than Pakistan in defining the Kashmir issue. While Pakistan insists that Kashmir is a disputed territory, recent Chinese positions have made it clear that Beijing believes Pakistani Kashmir is Pakistani territory with India’s Kashmir state is the only part of the province that is disputed. Pakistan seems to have ceded responsibility for the Gilgit-Baltistan area to China as the reported presence of 7,000-10,000 PLA troops there. [1] The real concern for India, however, is the number of projects that China has undertaken in these areas and that footprint is likely to increase much larger.

    Though Indian political leadership continues to believe that Beijing is not a short-term threat to India but needs to be watched over the long-term, Indian defense officials have increasingly been warning bluntly about the growing disparity between the two Asian powers. The Indian naval chief has warned that India neither has “the capability nor the intention to match China force for force” in military terms, while the former Indian air chief has suggested that China posed more of a threat to India than Pakistan.

    China’s economic transformation has given it the capability to emerge as a major military power, spending as much as $65 billion a year on its defense forces. China’s military may or may not be able to take on the United States in the next few years, it will surely become the most dominant force in Asia. As a consequence of its growing capabilities, China has started asserting its military profile more significantly than before. In 2009, Chinese vessels tackled Somali pirates in the Middle East, the first time Chinese vessels operated outside Asia. Beijing is also considering sending combat troops abroad in support of United Nations peacekeeping efforts. Chinese military officers are openly talking of building the world’s strongest military and displacing the United States as global hegemon, by means of a war if need be. This might be a bit premature, as the U.S. military still remains far more advanced than China’s, which does not yet possess the capability to challenge the United States far from Chinese shores. It’s China’s neighbors, however, who are bearing the brunt of China’s new assertiveness.

    China’s sustained military build-up will continue over the next few years and will pose a challenge to Indian military planners as the Indian military’s modernization program is fast losing momentum. India needs to urgently review its defense preparedness vis-à-vis China. As the policy paralysis post-Mumbai has revealed, it seems to have lost even its conventional superiority over Pakistan. The real challenge for India, however, lies in China’s rise as a military power. India is speeding up its defense procurement but the process remains mired in bureaucratese and lacks any sense of strategic direction. Between 2010 and 2016, India is expected to spend $112 billion on capital defense acquisitions in what is being described as “one of the largest procurement cycles in the world.” The Indian Army is raising two new specialized infantry mountain divisions (35,000 soldiers) and an artillery brigade for Arunachal Pradesh, designed to redress the imbalance on the Sino-Indian border. It is also revising its conventional war-fighting doctrine that is aimed at deterring—as opposed to dissuading—China, though its meaning in operational terms remains far from clear. The Indian military is currently refining a “two-front war” doctrine to fend off Pakistan and China simultaneously. [2]

    According to an estimate by the Indian government’s own China Study Group, China now possesses the capability to move more than 10,000 troops to the Indian border in twenty to twenty-five days compared to three to six months a decade back. This is possible because of China’s efficient border management, and it has forced India into constructing border roads urgently. By engaging in repeated, though controlled, provocations, the Chinese military is carefully probing how far it can push India. The new military restiveness on the Sino-Indian border does not bode well for India as the military balance along the long and contested border is rapidly altering in Beijing’s favor. It is not without reason that China has upgraded its military and civilian infrastructure in Xinjiang and Tibet. As a consequence, Tibet has become a militarized zone.
    CHINA’S POWER PROJECTION

    China’s enhanced military prowess is leading to an assertion of its interests more forcefully, more often than not, adversely affecting Indian interests. As China becomes more reliant on imported oil for its rapidly growing industrial economy, it will develop and exercise military power projection capabilities to protect the shipping that transports oil from the Persian Gulf to China. The capability to project power would require access to advanced naval bases along the sea lines of communication and forces capable of gaining and sustaining naval and air superiority.

    China is acquiring naval facilities along the crucial choke points in the Indian Ocean not only to serve its economic interests but also to enhance its strategic regional presence. There is evidence to suggest that China is comprehensively building up its maritime power in all dimensions. Its growing reliance on bases across the Indian Ocean region is a response to its perceived vulnerability, given the logistical constraints that it faces due to the distance of the Indian Ocean waters from its own area of operation. Yet, China is consolidating power over the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean with an eye on India. This power consolidation was expressed in an oft-cited secret memorandum issued by the director of the General Logistic Department of the PLA: “We can no longer accept the Indian Ocean as only an ocean of the Indians … We are taking armed conflicts in the region into account.” [3]

    China deployed its Jin class submarines in 2008 at a submarine base near Sanya in the southern tip of Hainan Island in South China Sea, raising alarm in India as the base is merely 1,200 nautical miles from the Malacca Strait. The base will be its closest access point to the Indian Ocean. The base also has an underground facility that can hide submarine movement. The concentration of strategic naval forces at Sanya will further propel China towards a consolidating its control over the surrounding Indian Ocean region. The presence of access tunnels on the mouth of the deep water base is particularly troubling for India. This is because of the strategic implications, allowing China to interdict shipping at the three crucial choke points in the Indian Ocean. The choice of Hainan is poor, but no alternatives exist as other places are hemmed in by islands. So China’s chief maritime nuclear base is also currently her southernmost point. She would want the waters around clear so that, among other things, no one can track her submarines.

    As the ability of China’s navy to project power in the Indian Ocean region grows, India is likely to feel even more vulnerable despite enjoying distinct geographical advantages in the area. China’s presence there is troubling as it restricts India’s freedom to maneuver in the region. Of particular note is China’s so-called “string of pearls” strategy that has significantly expanded its strategic depth in India’s backyard.

    This strategy of bases and diplomatic ties includes the Gwadar port in Pakistan, naval outposts in Burma, electronic intelligence gathering facilities on islands in the Bay of Bengal, funding construction of a canal across the Kra Isthmus in Thailand, a military agreement with Cambodia and building up of forces in the South China Sea. [4] Some of these claims are exaggerated, as has been the case with the Chinese naval presence in Burma. The Indian government, for example, had to concede in 2005 that reports of China turning Coco Islands in Burma into a naval base were incorrect and that there were indeed no naval bases there. Yet the Chinese thrust into the Indian Ocean is gradually becoming more pronounced. The Chinese may not have a naval base in Burma but they are involved in the upgrading of infrastructure in the Coco Islands and may be providing some limited technical assistance to Burma. Given that almost 80 percent of China’s oil passes through the Strait of Malacca, it is reluctant to rely on U.S. naval power for unhindered access to energy. Consequently, it has decided to build up its naval power at choke points along the sea routes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea. China is also courting other states in South Asia by building container ports in Bangladesh at Chittagong and in Sri Lanka at Hambantota. Consolidating its access to the Indian Ocean, China has signed an agreement with Sri Lanka to finance the development of the Hambantota Development Zone, which includes a container port, a bunker system, and an oil refinery. It is possible that the China’s construction of these ports and facilities around India’s periphery can be explained away on purely economic and commercial grounds, but India views it as a policy of containment.

    China’s involvement in constructing the deep-sea port of Gwadar has attracted significant attention due to its strategic location—about 70 kilometers from the Iranian border and 400 kilometers east of the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil supply route. Some suggest that it will provide China with a “listening post” from where it can “monitor U.S. naval activity in the Persian Gulf, Indian activity in the Arabian Sea, and future U.S.-Indian maritime cooperation in the Indian Ocean.” [5] Though Pakistan’s naval capabilities do not, on their own, pose any challenge to India, the combinations of Chinese and Pakistani naval forces can indeed be formidable for India to counter.

    China’s aspirations to achieve naval domination of Indian Ocean remain a bit far-fetched in the short to medium term. China would certainly like to play a greater role in the region, and protect and advance its interests, especially Chinese commerce, as well as counter India. But given the immense geographical advantages that Indian enjoys in the Indian Ocean, China will have great difficulty in exerting as much sway in the Indian Ocean as India can. But China’s assertion of its naval prowess is raising vexing issues regarding the role of Indian naval power in the Indian Ocean. The Indian and Chinese navies are growing and acquiring the capability to operate at long distances. Maritime friction is likely to grow as the Indian Navy tries to expand its footprint in the South China Sea and the Western Pacific, even as the Chinese Navy increases its presence in the Indian Ocean.
    INDIA PLAYS CATCH UP

    The Indian Navy is aiming for a total fleet of 140-145 vessels over the next decade, built around two carrier battle groups: Admiral Gorshkov which will now be handed over to India only by 2013 and the indigenous carrier, the 37, 500-tonne STOBAR Air Defense Ship likely to be completed by 2015. India’s ambition to equip its navy with two or more aircraft carriers over the next decade, as well as its decision to launch its first indigenous nuclear submarine in 2009, is seen as crucial for power projection and to achieve a semblance of strategic autonomy. India’s emerging capability to put a carrier task force as far as the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf has given boost to Indian Navy’s blue-water aspirations and India hopes to induct a third aircraft carrier by 2017, ensuring that the Indian Navy has two operational carriers at any given point. The deployment of the Jin class submarine at Hainan by China will also force India to speed up its indigenous nuclear submarine project that has been in the making for more than a decade now with the Indian Navy, rather ambitiously, aiming at the induction of five indigenous Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) nuclear submarines. A submarine-based nuclear arsenal is considered critical by Indian strategists to retain a second-strike capability. While a focus on augmenting its platforms, systems and weapons is clearly visible in the Indian Navy, concomitant changes in doctrine and organization have been relatively slow to come by.

    India is using its naval forces to advance its diplomatic initiatives overseas and in particular towards shaping the strategic environment in and around the Indian Ocean. Indian interests converge with those of the United States in the Indian Ocean region and it is trying to use the present upswing in U.S.-India ties to create a more favorable strategic environment for itself in the region despite its historical sensitivities to the presence of U.S. forces in the Indian Ocean. The United States has also recognized the importance of India’s role in the region, viewing it as crucial in maintaining peace and stability in the Indian Ocean and its vast periphery. The U.S. and Indian navies have stepped up their joint exercises and the United States has sold India the USS Trenton (renamed INS Jalashwa), the first of its class to be inducted into the Indian Navy. The United States would like India to join its Container Security Initiative (CSI) and Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) but India remains reluctant. PSI is viewed as a U.S.-led initiative outside the United Nations mandate while the CSI would result in the presence of U.S. inspectors in Indian ports, making it politically radioactive. However, India has indicated that it would be willing to join the U.S.-proposed 1,000-ship navy effort to combat illegal activities on the high seas, given the informal nature of the arrangement. India is seen as a balancer in the Asia-Pacific where the U.S. influence has waned relatively even as China’s has risen. India’s ties with Japan have also assumed a new dynamic with some even mooting a “concert of democracies” proposal involving the democratic states of the Asia-Pacific working towards their common goals of a stable Asia-Pacific region. While such a proposal has little chance of evolving into anything concrete in the near term, especially given China’s sensitivities, India’s decision to develop natural gas with Japan in the Andaman Sea and recent military exercises involving United States, Japan, India and Australia does give a sense of India’s emerging priorities.

    India’s “Look East” policy, originally aimed at strengthening economic ties with its Southeast Asian neighborhood, has now led to naval exercises with Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia. The member states of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have joined the Indian Navy in policing the Indian Ocean region to check piracy, trafficking and other threats to sea-lanes. India has also accelerated its naval engagement with a number of Persian Gulf states, making port calls and conducting exercises with the navies of Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Djibouti. It has also engaged with the navies of other major powers in the region such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. To more effectively counter Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean and to protect its trade routes, India will have to seek access to the Vietnamese, Taiwanese, and Japanese ports for the forward deployment of its naval assets. India is already emerging as an exclusive “defense service provider” for smaller states with growing economies that seek to strengthen their military capabilities in South-east Asia and West Asia—such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Qatar, and Oman, providing it access to ports along the Arabian coast, Indian Ocean, and South China Sea.
    THE NUCLEAR DYNAMIC

    China remains the only major power that refuses to discuss nuclear issues with India for fear of implying a de facto recognition of India’s status as a nuclear power. It continues to insist on the sanctity of the UN resolution 1172 which calls for India (and Pakistan) to give up its nuclear weapons program and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon state. In sum, China has refused to engage in any nuclear dialogue with India that might give the impression it recognizes India as a nuclear power. For the same reason, China refuses to discuss nuclear confidence building and risk reduction measures with India. Interestingly, a large section of China’s political and military elite views India’s nuclear tests in 1998 not as an attempt by India to address its security concerns but rather one by the United States to contain China in so far as the United States “allowed” India to go nuclear.

    The U.S.-India civilian nuclear energy cooperation pact came as a shock to Beijing. China made every possible effort to scuttle the deal until the last minute. It made its displeasure with the nuclear pact clear by asking India to sign the NPT and dismantle its nuclear weapons. Since the U.S.-India deal is in many ways a recognition of India’s rising global profile, China, not surprisingly, was not happy with the outcome and quickly declared that it would be selling new nuclear reactors to Pakistan. This was a not so subtle message to the United States that if Washington decided to play favorites, China also retained the same right.

    Beijing viewed the nuclear deal through the lens of global balance of power and was perturbed about the U.S. desire to build India as a balancer in the region. China was opposed to an exemption to India from the NSG guidelines, even threatening to walk out of the NSG proceedings at Vienna in 2008 in its attempts to derail negotiations at the eleventh hour. The Chinese leadership refused to receive the Indian Prime Minister’s call during the crisis. Only when the other states were persuaded by the United States to support the deal and China realized that it would be last state standing, did it back off from its obstructionist stance. China’s actions regarding the nuclear pact have conveyed to India that even as India tries hard to break out of the straitjacket of being a South Asian power by forging a strategic partnership with the United States, China will do its utmost to contain India by building up its neighboring adversaries.

    To counter the U.S.-India nuclear pact, China has decided to allow its state entities to supply two new nuclear reactors to Pakistan. Chinese authorities have confirmed that the state-owned China National Nuclear Cooperation has signed an agreement with Pakistan for two new nuclear reactors at the Chashma site—Chashma III and Chashma IV—in addition to the two it is already working on in Pakistan. This action of China will be in clear violation of the NSG guidelines that forbid nuclear transfers to countries not signatories to the NPT or adhere to comprehensive international safeguards on their nuclear program. China has suggested that “there are compelling political reasons concerning the stability of South Asia to justify the exports,” echoing Pakistan’s oft-repeated compliant that U.S.-India nuclear pact has upset regional stability by assisting India’s strategic program. [6] Unlike the much debated U.S.-India nuclear pact, the Sino-Pakistani agreement is mired in secrecy, with Beijing even ready to short-circuit the NSG process. [7] Disregarding Indian and global concerns, China has contended that the sale of two new reactors is “grandfathered” from before it joined the NSG in 2004 and, therefore, an exemption from the NSG is not required. The decision to supply reactors to Pakistan, a non-signatory to the NPT and with a record of dealing with North Korea, Iran and Libya, reflects China’s growing diplomatic confidence and underscores its view of Pakistan as a prized South Asian strategic power.
    BORDER TENSIONS

    China has vigorously asserted its old claims along the border with India and has combined it with aggressive patrolling. Violating the 1993 India-China agreement on peace and tranquility on the Line of Actual Control, Chinese troops have been engaging Indian troops in verbal abuses, asking them to leave their own territory. Even as India considered the Sikkim border issue settled, repeated Chinese incursions in the Finger Area in northern Sikkim, in the past few years, are aimed at opening a fresh front against India. Beijing is also determined to put the historically undisputed border with Sikkim back in contestation. Concerns are growing about covert Chinese intrusions into the Indian territory to strengthen its claims on the disputed border areas. Chinese forces regularly intrude into Bhutanese territory at the tri-junction with India and destroy Indian Army posts. These incursions are strategic as they are precariously close to India’s “chicken-neck”—the Siliguri corridor which links the north-east passage. Chinese intrusions into the non-delineated parts of Bhutan’s northern border with Tibet are also aimed at forcing Bhutan to settle its boundary issue with China.

    In addition, China’s rapid expansion and modernization of its transport infrastructure across the border is forcing India to respond though India remains decades behind. The build-up of infrastructure in Tibet should have rung alarm bells in Delhi years ago. China’s transportation modernization plans across the Himalayas had been evident for decades. Yet India was lackadaisical demonstrating little sense of urgency to this issue of critical national security. Improved infrastructure helped China to rapidly deploy troops in Tibet when the riots broke out in 2008. The railway link between Beijing and Lhasa further tightens China’s grip on Tibet. China’s ambition is to extend the Beijing-Lhasa rail line to Yatung just a few miles from Sikkim’s Nathu La and subsequently extend this to Nyingchi, north of Arunachal Pradesh, at the tri-junction with Myanmar. China’s ambitions about developing its border areas contrast vividly with India’s tentative stance on infrastructure development.

    China’s transformation of the transport infrastructure in Yunnan, Tibet and Xinjiang—the provinces that border South Asia—and its decision to build road and rail networks across the borders of these areas, has changed or revolutionized geopolitics in India’s vicinity. India is struggling to cope with the decay in its border infrastructure. Only recently has it started building several tactically important roads along the China border in the eastern and western sectors.
    A FORMIDABLE CHALLENGE

    India’s challenge remains formidable. While it has not yet achieved the economic and political profile that China enjoys regionally and globally, India is increasingly bracketed with China as a rising or emerging power—or even a global superpower. Indian elites, who have been obsessed with Pakistan for more than 60 years, suddenly have found a new object of fascination. India’s main security concern now is not the increasingly decrepit state of Pakistan but an ever more assertive China. This shift is viewed inside India as one that can facilitate better strategic planning.

    India's defeat at Chinese hands in 1962 shaped the Indian elite's perceptions of China, and they are unlikely to alter them in the near future. China is, thus, viewed by India as a growing, aggressive nationalistic power whose ambitions will undoubtedly reshape the contours of the regional and global balance of power with deleterious consequences for Indian interests.

    China’s recent hardening toward India could well be a function of its own internal vulnerabilities, but that no consolation to Indian policymakers who must respond to an Indian public that increasingly wants its country to assert itself in the region and beyond. India is gearing up belatedly to respond with its own diplomatic and military overtures, setting the stage for a Sino-Indian strategic rivalry. Both India and China have a vested interest in stabilizing their relationship by seeking out issues where their interests converge. However, pursuing mutually desirable interests does not produce inevitably satisfactory solutions to strategic problems. A troubled history coupled with the structural uncertainties engendered by their simultaneous rise is propelling the two Asian giants into a trajectory that they might find difficult to navigate in the coming years. Sino-Indian ties have entered turbulent times, and they are likely to remain there for the foreseeable future.
    Notes

    [Text] Selig S. Harrison, “China’s Direct Hold on Pakistan’s Northern Borderlands,” International Herald Tribune, August 26, 2010.
    [Text] Dan Blumenthal, “India Prepares for a Two-Front War,” Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2010.
    [Text] Youssef Bodansky, “The PRC Surge for the Strait of Malacca and Spratly Confronts India and the US,” Defense and Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, Washington, DC, September 30, 1995, pp. 6-13.
    [Text] The term “string of pearls” was first used in a report titled “Energy Futures in Asia” that was commissioned by the US Department of Defense’s Office of net Assessment from defense contractor, Booz-Allen-Hamilton. For details, see David Walgreen, “China in the Indian Ocean Region: Lessons in PRC Grand Strategy,” Comparative Strategy, Vol. 25, No. 2 (January 2006), pp. 55-73.
    [Text] Ziad Haider, “Oil Fuels Beijing’s new Power Game,” Yale Global Online, available at http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5411
    [Text] Mark Hibbs, “Pakistan Deal Signals China’s Growing Nuclear Assertiveness,” Nuclear Energy Brief, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 27, 2010.
    [Text] Ashley J. Tellis, “The China-Pakistan Nuclear Deal: Separating Fact From Fiction,” Policy Outlook, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, July 16, 2010.
    The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aryan_B For This Useful Post: Neo,Pickwickian,Superkaif


  2. #22
    Member Pickwickian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,227
    Thanks
    1007
    Pakistan UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post
    How can one post whole article, you don't have respect for copyrights??. A link is given for the same reason that you can go to that linked page and read the whole article. I highlighted the points to make my point. If you want to make a point please quote the portion from that article and do it.

    Please tell me what is the progress after 2 and half years?. Pretty much still at the stame stage as it was 2 and half years ago if one goes by news articles.

    This is a article from 1 year ago (May 2011)



    Was there any improvement up on this?. Have commercial vessels started moving in and out of Gwadar?. If it is so, then I will stand corrected. Thanks.

    India and China's quest for clout and resources extends across the globe, but perhaps the best manifestation of this fierce competition, and possible sign of who will ultimately win, lies in a tale of two ports.

    The port of Chabahar in the southwest corner of Iran, which India is hoping will win it access to Central Asia and Afghanistan, is barely 72km (44 mile) from Pakistan's deep-water Gwadar port which China has built to secure its energy supplies.

    The dueling ports on the doorstep of Gulf shipping lanes are another strand in the race between the Asian giants to project influence beyond their shores, and seek resources to feed their fast growing economies, that has seen them compete for contracts from Africa to Latin America to even Afghanistan.

    "These civilian ports are about China and India trying to advance their interests and diversify their trade and access points," says Rory Medcalf, a specialist on international security at Australia's Lowy Institute.

    "But these could well become elements in a wider competitive dynamic between China and India."

    In trying to develop the two strategic ports, India and China are up against unsettled regional conditions in both Iran and Pakistan and their own limited resources and influence, more so in the case of India than China.

    For years, Indian officials say they have been urging the Iranians to expedite work on the Chabahar port facilities to handle specialised cargoes, warehouses and proper disembarkation arrangements so it can become a trading hub.

    While the port is functional, it has a capacity of only 2.5 million tons per year, against the target of 12 million tons. Iran has declared Chabahar, located in its Sistan-Baluchestan province, a free trade zone.

    At their last meeting in July, the Indian side told Iran a thriving port near one of the world's fastest growing regions was in the interest of Tehran, the Central Asian republics, Afghanistan and of course India. The Iranian side said they were committed to its development.

    "But this is exactly what we said four years ago," said an Indian government official. "There has been hardly any movement since then," the official, said on condition of anonymity because he was involved with the discussions.

    Indian officials now believe that Iranian reluctance to move faster on Chabahar may linked to its anxieties about the troubled Sistan-Baluchestan region where Shi'ite Muslim Iran is trying to put down a Sunni Muslim insurgency.

    "We think at the back of the mind there are some concerns that the external influences a thriving port will bring may percolate to the region," the Indian official said.

    India, meanwhile, has completed its end of the trilateral arrangement with Iran and Afghanistan. Indian engineers braved militant attacks to build a 200km-long road from Nimroz province in Afghanistan to the Chabahar port, offering landlocked Afghanistan an alternative supply route and reducing its dependence on trucking goods through Pakistan.

    Indian officials say they're willing to put in more money into Chabahar to get it going.

    "We are ready to go the extra mile to get this going because this is in everyone's interest, especially Afghanistan whose only access at the moment is Karachi and which is subject to the vicissitudes of Afghan-Pakistan relations," the Indian government official said.

    GWADAR

    A key factor driving India to promote the port in Iran, despite pressure from the United States, is the growing anxiety over the all-weather Gwadar port that the Chinese have built on Pakistan's Baluchistan coast.

    Beijing financed more than 80 percent of the initial development cost of $248 million for the port on the Arabian Sea, as part of a plan to open up an energy and trade corridor from the Gulf, across Pakistan to western China.

    So in theory China needn't ship all its oil supplies from the Gulf through the Indian Ocean and then up to Shanghai. Instead the oil tankers would drop off at Gwadar, and from there the supplies would be trucked through Pakistan and into China through the Karakoram Highway that China is trying to expand.

    It also gives China access to the Indian Ocean where India has long been the main player, after the United States.

    More worryingly for New Delhi, the strategic location of Gwadar, 180 km from the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz, offers Pakistan the chance "to take control over the world energy jugular and interdiction of Indian tankers," according to former Indian navy admiral Sureesh Mehta.

    "Gwadar has the potential to move much faster than Chabahar because the Chinese are involved. It will depend on how fast they can double the capacity of the Karakoram Highway," the Indian government official said, pointing to the pace with which China completed a port on Sri Lanka's southern coast last year which has added to India's fear of encirclement.

    With the Chinese completing the first phase of development in 2007, Gwadar port became operational shortly afterwards. But its progress, although faster than Chabahar, has been affected by worsening security in Baluchistan, a dispute with the port operator PSA of Singapore and the slow pace of road links.

    The port handled about $700 million in cargo in 2009, less than half of its cargo capacity. Under the agreement, the Baluchistan government was to develop a free-zone for warehouses and export processing zone and establish road and rail links.

    "Pakistan has not really worked on the infrastructure. It was built with a view to connecting the region. It is going to take off when the Afghan situation calms down - then countries will benefit from it with greater access," said Sakib Sherani, a former advisor to Pakistan's finance ministry.

    "There are a few commercial ships that come here, but it has not been fully developed yet. I think they planned a second phase to deepen the port to make way for larger ships," he said.

    A growing Baluch insurgency has added to the port's problems with several Chinese engineers attacked and kidnapped. Baluch nationalists see the port as another exploitation of the province's rich mineral resources by Pakistan's powerful Punjabi elite without any local benefit.

    The provincial government of Baluchistan, struggling to contain the insurgency, has meanwhile approached the Supreme Court seeking the cancellation of the contract with Singapore state-owned PSA International Ltd to run the port on the grounds that it is a "one-sided" deal.

    The Singapore company which was given management and operational control of the port in 2007 had neither brought in trade nor expanded the port, the local government said. PSA declined comment.

    Local media say Pakistani officials are in favour of the Chinese running the port in addition to helping expand it, which will only further feed Indian anxieties.

    "India will be watchful for any militarisation of Gwadar, though for now there are no signs of that," Metcalf said.

    http://www.sify.com/finance/india-ch...zokihiieg.html
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pickwickian For This Useful Post: Neo,Superkaif


  3. #23
    Member Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    254
    Thanks
    61
    India United States
    ^^Above is a hypothesis that Gwadar will be used as a naval base. But the reality is China has not expressed the interest of using Gwadar as a naval base.

  4. #24
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    14,322
    Thanks
    8763
    Pakistan England
    The thing is we have Gwador in Pakistan what we do is up to Pakistan. Bearing in mind Chabahur is in Iran which has been sanctioned and there seems no early resolution of sanctions. I think Indians may be in some difficulty. Keeping Iran happy whilst keeping Americans happy may not be possible. (Indians have to keep Americans happy cos they are scared of China as in above article I posted)

  5. #25
    Member Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    254
    Thanks
    61
    India United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarvin View Post
    "There are a few commercial ships that come here, but it has not been fully developed yet. I think they planned a second phase to deepen the port to make way for larger ships," he said.

    http://www.sify.com/finance/india-ch...zokihiieg.html
    So, still it has no completed functioning completely.

  6. #26
    Member Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    254
    Thanks
    61
    India United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Aryan_B View Post
    The thing is we have Gwador in Pakistan what we do is up to Pakistan. Bearing in mind Chabahur is in Iran which has been sanctioned and there seems no early resolution of sanctions. I think Indians may be in some difficulty. Keeping Iran happy whilst keeping Americans happy may not be possible. (Indians have to keep Americans happy cos they are scared of China as in above article I posted)
    Of course it is up to Pakistan. But it all depends on how efficiently will Pakistan develop it given the security situation in Balochistan.

    For Indians Chahbhar is not a life and death situation. It will be settled when the Iran situation settles.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Express's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    10,678
    Thanks
    7341
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Quote Originally Posted by Aryan_B View Post
    The thing is we have Gwador in Pakistan what we do is up to Pakistan. Bearing in mind Chabahur is in Iran which has been sanctioned and there seems no early resolution of sanctions. I think Indians may be in some difficulty. Keeping Iran happy whilst keeping Americans happy may not be possible. (Indians have to keep Americans happy cos they are scared of China as in above article I posted)
    India have history in showing a pretence of support for Iran. In reality when USA call --- India bow and simply become servant and follow their word as the gospel! This is a known fact --- Iran wont forget this time.
    The Following User Says Thank You to Express For This Useful Post: Neo


  8. #28
    Member Pickwickian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,227
    Thanks
    1007
    Pakistan UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post

    Was there any improvement up on this?. Have commercial vessels started moving in and out of Gwadar?. If it is so, then I will stand corrected. Thanks.
    "There are a few commercial ships that come here, but it has not been fully developed yet. I think they planned a second phase to deepen the port to make way for larger ships," he said.

    http://www.sify.com/finance/india-ch...zokihiieg.html

    Batman, this answered your question. Now either accept it otherwise I have no time for trolls.

  9. #29
    Member Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    254
    Thanks
    61
    India United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarvin View Post
    "There are a few commercial ships that come here, but it has not been fully developed yet. I think they planned a second phase to deepen the port to make way for larger ships," he said.

    http://www.sify.com/finance/india-ch...zokihiieg.html

    Batman, this answered your question. Now either accept it otherwise I have no time for trolls.
    Ok, I stand corrected . But the larger question still remains the same. The Gwadar port is still not functional completely since its opening in 2007. And here we have people dreaming about what it will be in future without any grounding in reality keeping in mind the security situation in Balochistan.
    The Following User Says Thank You to Batman For This Useful Post: Pickwickian


  10. #30
    Member Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    254
    Thanks
    61
    India United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Express View Post
    India have history in showing a pretence of support for Iran. In reality when USA call --- India bow and simply become servant and follow their word as the gospel! This is a known fact --- Iran wont forget this time.
    Duh...

    Unilateral sanctions by the US and EU will not impact India-Iran trade

    Describing Iran as a key trading partner for energy, India Thursday made it clear that unilateral sanctions by the US and European Union will not be allowed to impact trade between the two countries.

    External Affairs Minister S M Krishna had wide ranging talks with his Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Salehi on a wide range of issues that included Iran's nuclear programme, bilateral economic ties, energy cooperation and terrorism.

    http://articles.economictimes.indiat...i-akbar-salehi
    There is decrease in trade mostly due to sanction than anything else. India has an independent foreign policy and not a servant to other nations. You should think hard about who is the real servant of US in Asia.

  11. #31
    Senior Member Express's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    10,678
    Thanks
    7341
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post
    Ok, I stand corrected
    I stop reading after this because the rest doesn't matter--- you stand corrected meaning you was wrong. Thats all we needed to here --- im pleased you admitted this and we also forgive you this time!!

  12. #32
    Senior Member Express's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    10,678
    Thanks
    7341
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post
    There is decrease in trade mostly due to sanction than anything else. India has an independent foreign policy and not a servant to other nations. You should think hard about who is the real servant of US in Asia.
    USA say jump --- India say yes please how high please...

    http://pkdefence.com/showthread.php?...rom-its-waters

  13. #33
    Member Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    254
    Thanks
    61
    India United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Express View Post
    I stop reading after this because the rest doesn't matter--- you stand corrected meaning you was wrong. Thats all we needed to here --- im pleased you admitted this and we also forgive you this time!!
    Whatever floats your boat.

  14. #34
    Member Pickwickian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,227
    Thanks
    1007
    Pakistan UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post
    Ok, I stand corrected . But the larger question still remains the same. The Gwadar port is still not functional completely since its opening in 2007. And here we have people dreaming about what it will be in future without any grounding in reality keeping in mind the security situation in Balochistan.
    The exact same thing can be said for Chahbahar.

    "But this is exactly what we said four years ago," said an Indian government official. "There has been hardly any movement since then," the official, said on condition of anonymity because he was involved with the discussions.

    Indian officials now believe that Iranian reluctance to move faster on Chabahar may linked to its anxieties about the troubled Sistan-Baluchestan region where Shi'ite Muslim Iran is trying to put down a Sunni Muslim insurgency.

    "We think at the back of the mind there are some concerns that the external influences a thriving port will bring may percolate to the region," the Indian official said.
    No one is dreaming. Gwadar most veritably has great potential as does Chahbahar. Much work is still required on both.
    The Following User Says Thank You to Pickwickian For This Useful Post: Express


  15. #35
    Member Pickwickian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,227
    Thanks
    1007
    Pakistan UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Express View Post
    I stop reading after this because the rest doesn't matter--- you stand corrected meaning you was wrong. Thats all we needed to here --- im pleased you admitted this and we also forgive you this time!!
    Express, no need to rub it in his face. We're all here to learn. I just wanted him to accept that part.

  16. #36
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    14,322
    Thanks
    8763
    Pakistan England

    Overwhelming majority of Baloch favour being part of Pakistan: UK survey

    Ansar Abbasi
    Monday, August 13, 2012

    ISLAMABAD: A Gallup survey for the UK international official body, DFID, conducted on July 20, revealed that the support for an independent Balochistan is not popular even amongst a majority of the Baloch population.



    The survey reveals that among the Baloch, 37 percent favour independence whereas among the Pashtun population only 12 percent favour that option. The results of the survey have not been made public.



    The vast majority, according to the survey, opposes the idea of an independent Balochistan. However, 67 percent of the people of Balochistan, including Baloch and Pashtuns, support greater provincial autonomy.



    The survey says that 79 percent of the Baloch population and 53 percent of Pashtuns support the idea that the people of Balochistan should have greater control over their political affairs.Balochistan, which is generally a combination of Baloch and Pashtun tribes, through this survey reflects Pashtuns’ tilt to national mainstream as against the recent years increased tendency of Balochi separatism.



    The survey also covers the situation in Fata and shows that 41% of the people of Pakistan see Fata as less peaceful than before. As to who enjoys greatest influence in Fata, 29% think military, 20% believe local, 13% see federal government, 12% think US while 26% say others i.e. Taliban, political parties, NGOs and Afghan Taliban.



    About the perception of militancy, the survey said that militancy continues to be perceived as high threat in Pakistani society but the perceived causes of terrorism have shifted from militants to other factors like access to weapons, poverty, poor governance and rule of law.



    According to the survey, 31% think that poor governance is the reason for terrorism and militancy, whereas 23% hold terrorists responsible for the same. 17% think poverty produces terrorists, while 11% believe that weak rule of law is the cause of terrorism and the same percentage sees this problem because of the availability of weapons.



    On the foreign policy front, the survey shows that the balance has shifted from Taliban to Nato for creating hurdles for better relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan.



    To a question as what is the most significant difficulty between Pakistan and Afghanistan, 34% said the difficulty is Nato while 27% shifted the blame on Taliban. In 2011, greater number of people saw Taliban as the difficulty but in 2012 Nato emerged as the major villain.



    The survey shows that 65% of the people support Pakistan’s role as peacemaker in Afghanistan.



    The survey also reveals that the image of Afghan Taliban continues to be negative but is improving as 30% see them as a terrorist group, 26% take them as Islamic fighters, 24% think they are ignorant of Islamic values and 16% think they are a political group. Last year 31% saw them as terrorists, 22% saw them as Islamic fighters and 12% took them as a political group. Similarly though still small (19%) but rising number of Pakistanis see Taliban as the next power in Afghanistan.



    The survey also reveals that 90% Pakistanis oppose drone attacks while only 3% support them.



    About India, 73% believe that the Indian government is bad. However, 62% think that the relations between Pakistan and India are improving as against 42% in 2011 and 23% in 2010.



    The survey says that desire to normalise relations with India makes dramatic shift.



    The survey also covers the image of UK and DFID in Pakistan. It says that the image of UK is positive and has improved also in Pakistan.


    37pc Baloch favour independence: UK survey - thenews.com.pk


    In the UK the Scottish had a referendum where A proposal for Scottish devolution was put to a referendum in 1979, but resulted in no change, despite a narrow majority of votes cast being in favour of change. So we in Pakistan should concentrate on eliminating the Baloch feudals who are to blame for the Baloch peoples misery and that 67% will go up to 100% approval of Pakistan
    The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aryan_B For This Useful Post: bilalhaider,Express,Neo,Pickwickian,Wattan


  17. #37
    Senior Member Wattan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    6,198
    Thanks
    2713
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Good to hear. we must now address the issues faced by the minority who as op saying is fault of feudals

  18. #38
    Senior Member Express's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    10,678
    Thanks
    7341
    Pakistan Pakistan
    This is great news --- Dont forget most of the peoples in Balochistan are suppressed and bullied by the sardars and land owners in the poorest parts. When these people ask for a voice --- the Bugtis and Mengals then they get stamped on and even shoot them blaming third parties like government. I am surprised with all the bullying and suppression and lack of education i would have expected much bigger proportion wanting to break up!!

  19. #39
    Senior Member Neo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    11,721
    Thanks
    8138
    Pakistan Netherlands
    Did we, Pakistani's, ever doubt or question our Balochi brothers? It's the Indians, Jews and American's who keep spreading false propaganda.
    Happy wet dreaming!
    Last edited by Neo; 14th August 2012 at 03:54.
    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

  20. #40
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    14,322
    Thanks
    8763
    Pakistan England
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo View Post
    Did we, Pakistani's, ever doubt or question our Balochi brothers? It's the Indians, Jews and American's who keep spreading false propaganda.
    Happy wet dreaming!
    This should put to bed the incessant propaganda from America and west. But I doubt it when did facts on the ground ever effect the lies emanating from west and India.

    If those allegations were true it is inconceivable that the results of the pools would be such

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Pakistan - Baloch Insurgency
    By Superkaif in forum Pakistan's War
    Replies: 251
    Last Post: 18th November 2015, 21:30
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 31st July 2012, 14:18
  3. If we fail to get majority, will sit in opposition, says Imran
    By Superkaif in forum National Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17th July 2012, 21:11
  4. Sorry ally: Apology part of Pakistan game plan
    By Superkaif in forum Foreign Affairs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 15th July 2012, 22:36
  5. Democracy still ‘preferable’ in Muslim nations, survey says
    By Superkaif in forum National Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11th July 2012, 08:15

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us on twitter Follow us on twitter