Xi Jinping in Pakistan: Shifting Alliances in South Asia

[Riaz Haq]

“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” Henry Kissinger

Rapidly unfolding events confirm shifting post-cold-war alliances in South Asia. Chinese President Xi Jinping is starting his first state visit to Pakistan to commit investment of over $45 billion in Pakistan, representing the single largest Chinese investment in a foreign country to date.

This investment is part of China's “One Belt, One Road” initiative, which is a global project in character and scope representing China’s inexorable rise on the world stage as a superpower. The Pakistan part of it is variously described as Pakistan-China "economic corridor", "industrial corridor", "trade corridor" and "strategic corridor".

Pak-China Industrial Corridor Source: Wall Street Journal

Chinese and Pakistani naval forces have also agreed to boost maritime security cooperation in the Indian ocean with the sale of eight diesel-electric AIP-equipped submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons. This cooperation is aimed at defending against any threats to shipping lanes in and out of Pakistani ports serving the planned Pak-China Corridor.

Russia, too, has lifted arms sales embargo on Pakistan and agreed to sell weapons and make energy infrastructure investments.  Plans are in place for first-ever Pakistan-Russia military exercises.

These development come on the heels of US President Barack Obama's second visit to India and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent tour of Western capitals with the signing of deals confirming Modi's India's status as the West's latest darling.

How strategic are China-Pakistan ties? I am reproducing the following post I published about two years ago:

China's new Prime Minister Mr. Li KeQiang has just ended a two-day visit to Pakistan. Speaking to the Senate, Li declared that "the development of China cannot be separated from the friendship with Pakistan". To make it more concrete, the Chinese Premier brought with him a 5-points proposal which emphasizes "strategic and long-term planning", "connectivity and maritime sectors" and "China-Pakistan economic corridor project".

 

Source: China Daily

 

From L to R: Premier Lee, President Zardari and Prime Minister Khoso

Here's a recent report by  China's State-owned Xinhua News Agency that can help put the Chinese premier's speech in context:

“As a global economic power, China has a tremendous number of economic sea lanes to protect. China is justified to develop its military capabilities to safeguard its sovereignty and protect its vast interests around the world."

The Xinhua report has for the first time shed light on China's growing concerns with US pivot to Asia which could threaten China's international trade and its economic lifeline of energy and other natural resources it needs to sustain and grow its economy. This concern has been further reinforced by the following:

1. Frequent US statements to "check" China's rise.  For example, former US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a 2011 address to the Naval Postgraduate School in California: "We try everything we can to cooperate with these rising powers and to work with them, but to make sure at the same time that they do not threaten stability in the world, to be able to project our power, to be able to say to the world that we continue to be a force to be reckoned with." He added that "we continue to confront rising powers in the world - China, India, Brazil, Russia, countries that we need to cooperate with. We need to hopefully work with. But in the end, we also need to make sure do not threaten the stability of the world."

 

Source: The Guardian

2. Chinese strategists see a long chain of islands from Japan in the north, all the way down to Australia, all United States allies, all potential controlling chokepoints that could  block Chinese sea lanes and cripple its economy, business and industry.

 

Karakoram Highway-World's Highest Paved International Road at 15000 ft.

Chinese Premier's emphasis on "connectivity and maritime sectors" and "China-Pakistan economic corridor project" is mainly driven by their paranoia about the US intentions to "check China's rise" It is intended to establish greater maritime presence at Gwadar, located close to the strategic Strait of Hormuz, and  to build land routes (motorways, rail links, pipelines)  from the Persian Gulf through Pakistan to Western China. This is China's insurance to continue trade with West Asia and the Middle East in case of hostilities with the United States and its allies in Asia.

 

Pakistan's Gawadar Port- located 400 Km from the Strait of Hormuz

As to the benefits for Pakistanis, the Chinese investment in "connectivity and maritime sectors" and "China-Pakistan economic corridor project" will help build infrastructure, stimulate Pakistan's economy and create millions of badly needed jobs.

Clearly, China-Pakistan ties have now become much more strategic than the US-Pakistan ties, particularly since 2011 because, as American Journalist Mark Mazzetti of New York Times put it, the  Obama administration's heavy handed policies "turned Pakistan against the United States". A similar view is offered by a former State Department official Vali Nasr in his book "The Dispensable Nation".

Related Links:

Haq's Musings 

Haier Pakistan to Expand Production From Home Appliances to Cellpho...

Pakistan Bolsters 2nd Strike Capability With AIP Subs

3G, 4G Rollout in Pakistan

Pakistan Starts Manufacturing Tablets and Notebooks

China-Pakistan Industrial Corridor

US-Pakistan Ties and New Silk Route

Can Pakistan Say No to US Aid?

Obama's Pakistan Connections

Seeing Bin Laden's Death in Wider Perspective

China's Investment and Trade in South Asia

China Signs Power Plant Deals with Pakistan

Soaring Imports from China Worry India

China's Checkbook Diplomacy

Yuan to Replace Dollar in World Trade?

[Riaz Haq]

#Pakistani troops to receive #training at #Russian #military institutes as #Trump policies push #Pakistan closer to #Russia and #China. #Pakistan https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pakistani-troops-to-rec...

Pakistan and Russia have signed an agreement to allow Pakistani troops to receive training at Russian military training institutes, a move aimed at boosting their bilateral defence ties.

The agreement was signed on Tuesday at the conclusion of the first meeting of Russia-Pakistan Joint Military Consultative Committee (JMCC), according to Pakistan’s defence ministry.

“Both countries signed the Contract on Admission of Service Members of Pakistan in RF’s (Russian Federation) Training Institutes,” the ministry said.

The Russian side was led by Deputy Defence Minister Col Gen. Alexander V. Fomin who visited Pakistan from August 6-7 to attend the first session of Russia-Pakistan Joint Military Consultative Committee (JMCC).

Lt. Gen (retd.) Zamir ul Hassan Shah, Secretary Defence, led the Pakistani delegation during the JMCC meeting.

Prior to the inaugural meeting, held on Tuesday at the Ministry of Defence in Rawalpindi, the visiting dignitary called on the defence secretary and the defence minister.

During the meetings, the two sides discussed the present status of their bilateral defence relations with the aim to further strengthen, expand and diversify mutual cooperation.

JMCC is the highest forum of defence collaboration between Pakistan and Russia.

During the inaugural session of the JMCC, both sides exchanged views on bilateral and major international issues including situation in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

A comprehensive issue based review was also carried out during which the two countries expressed satisfaction on the milestones achieved since the signing of ground breaking Agreement on Defence Cooperation in 2014. The two sides also held in depth discussions on avenues of future cooperation, the defence ministry said.

Col. Gen. Fomin also met Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and the three services chiefs.

An Army spokesman said that Col Gen Fomin met Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa and discussed the regional security situation and matters of mutual interest including enhancement of bilateral defence and security cooperation.

Gen. Fomin expressed his appreciation for Pakistan Army’s achievements against terrorism and expressed requirement of greater cooperative and collaborative approach among global community to defeat extremism.

Pakistan’s defence ties with Russia have moved past the bitter Cold War hostilities in recent years and the chill in the relations between Pakistan and the U.S. has further pushed the country towards Russia and China.

Pakistan has shown eagerness to build military-to-military level ties with Russia.

Earlier this year, the then foreign minister Khawaja Asif visited Moscow during which the two sides agreed to set up a commission to boost military cooperation.

Russia has over the past three years provided four Mi-35M combat and cargo helicopters to Pakistan and the militaries of the two countries also held joint drills codenamed ‘Friendship’.

[Riaz Haq]

#US cuts International #Military Education and Training program (IMET) with #Pakistan as Trump cracks down. #American officials worried the decision could undermine a key trust-building measure.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1777725/1-us-cuts-military-training-pr...

The Pentagon and the Pakistan Army did not comment directly on the decision or the internal deliberations, but officials from both countries privately criticised the move. US officials, speaking to Reuters on the condition of anonymity, said they were worried the decision could undermine a key trust-building measure.

Pakistani officials warned it could push their military to further look to China or Russia for leadership training. The effective suspension of Pakistan from the US government’s International Military Education and Training program (IMET) will close off places that had been set aside for 66 Pakistani officers this year, a State Department spokesperson told Reuters.

The places will either be unfilled or given to officers from other countries. Dan Feldman, a former US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, called the move “very short-sighted and myopic”. “This will have lasting negative impacts limiting the bilateral relationship well into the future,” Feldman told Reuters.

The State Department spokesperson, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the IMET cancellations were valued at $2.41 million so far. At least two other programmes have also been affected, the spokesperson said. It is unclear precisely what level of military cooperation still continues outside the IMET programme, beyond the top-level contacts between US and Pakistani military leaders.

The US military has traditionally sought to shield such educational programmes from political tensions, arguing that the ties built by bringing foreign military officers to the United States pay long-term dividends. For example, the US Army’s War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, which would normally have two Pakistani military officers per year, boasts graduates including Lieutenant General Naveed Mukhtar, the Director-General Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).

The War College, the US Army’s premier school for foreign officers, says it has hosted 37 participants from Pakistan over the past several decades. It will have no Pakistani students in the upcoming academic year, a spokeswoman said. Pakistan has also been removed from programmes at the US Naval War College, Naval Staff College and courses including cybersecurity studies.

[Riaz Haq]

#UniteStates tilts toward #India in shifting #SouthAsia policy "risks polarizing the regional order in which #Washington looms as a condescending and partisan actor which #Pakistan hates to engage" #COMCASA #Pompeo #Mattis - Global Times http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1118949.shtml#.W5fZKOclhuM.twitter

It seems that the US' South Asia policy has witnessed significant developments in the past few weeks. On the one hand Washington announced it would cancel $300 million in military assistance to Pakistan and named Zalmay Khalilzad, a long-time critic of Pakistan, as a special envoy to Afghanistan. On the other Washington signed with New Delhi a long-due major military communications agreement which allows them to closely coordinate on a compatible network just like the US and its closest allies do.

According to the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy, the Trump administration recently indicated that Washington's strategic focus has shifted from dealing with global terrorism to managing major power rivalries. So, when it comes to its South Asia policy, this sea change in concept has also been materialized into concrete policy options toward both Pakistan and India: Pakistan can no longer enjoy a special status like it did during the war on terror, whereas India, sharing common anxieties against a rising China with the US, assumes new importance on Washington's radar screen. 

As a result of Washington's strategic focus shift, the US-Pakistan relationship has been troubled for some time. In his first talk about South Asian policy in August 2017, Trump went so far as to openly denounce Pakistan as the "safe havens" for terrorist organizations. Again, Trump's very first tweet in 2018 was a surprising and scathing attack on Pakistan, accusing the country of providing "nothing but lies and deceit" in return for multi-billion US aid over past 15 or so years. Since then, Washington suspended more than $1.1 billion in security assistance to Pakistan. The final cancellation of $300 million assistance announced on September 1 was actually part of Coalition Support Funds which had been suspended initially at the beginning of the year.

In the post-9/11 era, the US offered billions of dollars to Pakistan in order to support counterterrorism mission against Al Qaeda, to operationalize robust intelligence cooperation and to equip Pakistani army with the capacity to target militants from all around. But, as Al-Qaeda has been decimated over time and threat from other radical groups have grown, Washington found its aid to Pakistan increasingly hard to justify.

The focus of the struggle has been the terrorist groups. While the US and Afghanistan accuse Pakistan of offering sanctuary to Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network, Islamabad categorically denies the charges and emphasizes that it has acted indiscriminately against all armed groups on its soil, turning to accuse Kabul of allowing elements in the Pakistani Taliban to operate in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan.

While the transactional nature of US-Pakistani relationship has indeed been discovered and discussed, Trump, whose characteristics have been best illustrated in his book The Art of the Deal, simply exacerbates the situation by more transactional moves. The situation is rather clear now: with rapidly shrinking strategic common ground between Washington and Islamabad, bilateral relations are increasingly reduced to one single issue—Afghanistan. And, the issue of Afghanistan seems transactional and tactical rather than strategic. What now concerns Washington the most is settling the Afghan conflict after 17 years of painful attrition. To win the war in Afghanistan, Washington needs Islamabad for supply routes and to negotiate a lasting settlement and peace, meaning that neither side can afford to snap relations.

[Riaz Haq]

Here's Michael Lewis, author of "The Fifth Risk" on a potential threat that could destroy US credit and its economy: 

"Assuming Donald Trump remains president for a while, I think there's at least the possibility of the risk that he will try to default on the American debt selectively. Like, he'll say, the Chinese are trying to sell their treasury bonds, and it's causing disruption in the treasury bond market; they stole all that money in the first place from us; we're not going to pay the Chinese back." 


https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/653607732/michael-lewis-trumps-appro...

Michael Lewis, welcome back to FRESH AIR. Explain what "The Fifth Risk" is.

MICHAEL LEWIS: Short answer is it's the risk that you fail to imagine. It's while you're worried about what you're worried about, it's the thing that's actually going to come and kill you. And the longer answer is, when I'm working on this book about the federal government under Trump, I come to see the federal government as really a portfolio of risks that are being managed.

And as I'm wandering around the federal government trying to figure out what these risks are, over and over again when I'm asking people in the Energy Department or the Agriculture Department or even the White House to name kind of the top risks on the tip of their minds, they all come up with kind of three or four, and then they can't think of the fifth. So I thought that's the moment where the mind fails to imagine what it needs to imagine.

GROSS: Since your book is about the federal government under Trump, focusing on the energy, agriculture and commerce departments, why did you name it "The Fifth Risk" now that you've explained with "The Fifth Risk" means?

LEWIS: Well, it was a response to what I'd found about how the Trump administration had gone about taking over the federal government. What kind of lights a fire under me is when I discovered that the Obama administration had spent the better part of a year and thousands of people's lives preparing essentially the best course that had ever been created in how to run the federal government or what was going on inside the federal government and that this course was meant to be delivered to whoever won the election the day after the election - starting the day after the election.

And they were expecting hundreds of people to roll in to receive these briefings, and nobody showed up. Nobody - in many cases, when I go get these briefings, I'm the first person to have got them. And I thought, well, this enterprise that's managing all these risks it imagines but we as a society don't spend much time thinking about. It's being neglected, ignored and is operating on the basis of ignorance. So I thought, what happens when you do that across a big portfolio of risks like the federal government runs? And what happens is you amplify the risks. You increase the probability of these risks actually causing problems.

GROSS: So you write about three different departments - energy, agriculture and commerce. In all three or at least in two of the three, data has been removed, and the public can no longer access it. Can you give us some examples across the agencies of data that's been removed?

LEWIS: Yeah, so this is a theme. You know, trying to - wants to tease out some of the themes of the Trump administration. And one of the themes is it's going dark, or it's got a very loose or sometimes hostile attitude towards the data the government is supposed to collect and make available. Just a couple of the examples - in all three agencies, anything having to do with climate was removed. And then in several cases, it was kind of odd removal of data.

[Riaz Haq]

How #India Is Benefiting in the #Trump Era. India policymakers often seem not only comfortable with President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, but enthusiastic about it. #Islamophobia #Modi #BJP https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-india-benefiting-trump-era...

Over the last fifteen years or so, no area of American foreign policy has been more promising than U.S.-India relations. The relationship has gone from strength to strength since the end of the Clinton administration. Today, India policymakers often seem not only comfortable with President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, but enthusiastic about it.

No doubt this has something to do with his tough approach to Pakistan. But it’s also about China. The Indians finally have a partner in Washington who sees China in the same geopolitical terms they do. More than that, they see an American administration willing to risk its relationship with China in furtherance of a balance in the region.


New Delhi should understand, however, that there are limits to the benefits they can expect from American geostrategy. Access to American military technology, yes. Ever closer security cooperation, yes. Exemption from America’s pressure on Iran, yes. Even, eventually, exemption from sanctions for Indian military cooperation with Russia.

But not trade concessions. Appealing to the China threat will not call off the Trump administration’s pressure on longstanding trade complaints. There may have been some uncertainty about this early on in the new administration. Not now. New Delhi must come to grips with American trade concerns on their own terms—unrelated to broader strategic convergence.

This relates directly to current trade negotiations. In a nutshell, India wants continued access to the General System of Preferences (GSP), i.e. duty-free treatment for roughly $6 billion of the $50 billion in goods India ships to the United States every year. And the United States wants better access to Indian markets.

These discussions cover several product areas—such as medical devices and dairy products. They also encompass issues not directly related to exports, such as differences over where investors store their digital data. That’s a big issue for American credit card and Internet companies, and part of a major global debate.

At this point, however, the key to unlocking a deal is India’s tariffs on high tech goods—seven tariff lines, including smartphones, smart watches and telecommunications networking equipment.

The impasse stems from the “Make in India” initiative. As the name implies, this is an effort to encourage the manufacturing of more products in India. It is industrial policy—no different, except perhaps in effectiveness, than Beijing’s “China 2025” program. No different, except in terms of scale, than America’s use of tariffs to promote its steel and aluminum industries—something India has rightly protested.

In the specific cause of promoting investment in the information and communications technology (ICT), New Delhi has enacted a series of new tariffs. The problem is that this violates commitments it made under the WTO’s 1996 Information Technology Agreement.
----------------

The fact that final assembly for many of these products is in China does not matter. Appeal to common U.S.-India geostrategic interest vis à vis China is not going to win the day. American companies support the administration’s push for market access. Their interests and the interests of the people they employ will shape the Trump administration’s approach. If India wants to become a leader in ICT manufacturing, it should do so in keeping with its WTO commitments. It will not find in America a partner willing to help it compete with China to the detriment of Americans’ own commercial interests.

[Riaz Haq]

Afghan war helped Pakistan keep nuclear option: US papers

https://www.dawn.com/news/1453065

Torn between preventing Pakistan from going nuclear and fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, the United States appears to have decided that pushing the Russians out of Kabul was more important, shows a set of documents released by the US State Department.

Official US memos and letter — released under an arrangement to make public official documents after 30 years — show that Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (in office from 1978 to 1989) also played a key role in convincing Washington to continue to support Islamabad despite its nuclear programme.

A confidential State Department report, dated Aug 20, 1984, shows that by 1984 Washington knew Islamabad had acquired the capability to build nuclear weapons.

“Despite public and private assurances by President Zia (ul Haq) that Pakistan has neither the intention, means, nor capability to acquire nuclear explosives, we have extensive and convincing intelligence that the Pakistanis are pressing forward to perfect the design of a nuclear weapon, fabricate nuclear weapon components, and acquire the necessary nuclear material for such a device,” the report says.


“Recent progress in Pakistan’s uranium enrichment programme may … soon create a situation in which we could not rule out the possibility that Pakistan was taking all of the steps required to assemble a nuclear device, or even to stockpile nuclear weapons.”

The document notes that the development forced Washington to make “a stark choice” between: (1) Acquiescing in Pakistan’s nuclear activities and thus incurring almost certain Congressional action against US security assistance to Pakistan, the possibility of an Indian pre-emptive strike against the Pakistani nuclear facilities, and seriously undermining the credibility of US global non-proliferation policy. (2) Terminating the US-Pakistan security relationship, thereby imperilling the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation, doing grave and long-term harm to US political and security interests in Southwest Asia and with China, and convincing Pakistan it had nothing further to lose by building nuclear weapons or even conducting a nuclear test.

“Either outcome would constitute a serious foreign policy defeat,” the report warns.

It notes that Washington concluded a $3.2 billion, six-year security and development assistance package with Pakistan to obtain its restraint in the nuclear area. Washington also hoped that a security relationship with the US would “eventually convince Pakistan, that it could forego a nuclear weapons option”.

Other documents show that Deng Xiaoping not only convinced Washington to tolerate Pakistan’s nuclear programme but also persuaded it to start giving more military and financial aid to Islamabad.

Deng worked closely with Zia to convince the then Jimmy Carter administration that India under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi would be pro-Soviet.

“There are limits on our ability to aid Pakistan because of their nuclear explosive programme. Although we still object to their doing so, we will now set that aside for the time being, to facilitate strengthening Pakistan against potential Soviet action,” the then US Defence Secretary Harold Brown said in a Jan 8, 1980 meeting with Deng.

The documents show that the Chinese leader called this “a very good approach”, telling Washington that “Pakistan has its own reasons for developing a nuclear programme”.

Deng points out that India started the nuclear race in South Asia, causing Pakistan to start its own programme.

“Pakistan has its own arguments, i.e., India has exploded a nuclear device but the world has not seemed to complain about this,” Deng told Brown.

“So, now you have decided to put this aside and solve the question of military and economic aid to Pakistan. We applaud this decision,” said Deng.

He also convinced the US not to equate India and Pakistan when it comes to giving aid.

[Riaz Haq]

Afghan war helped Pakistan keep nuclear option: US papers

https://www.dawn.com/news/1453065

“You may recall that I raised the question of aid to Pakistan with President Carter. He said the US will give aid in proportion to the population of the two countries. I said this was not feasible.”

Deng explained to Brown why he thought it was a bad idea.

Afraid of each other
“The Pakistanis and Indians are afraid of each other. If the population ratio formula should be used, Pakistan will be in an increasingly inferior position. We hope that since the United States decided to give aid to Pakistan, it will really satisfy Pakistan’s requirements. We hope your aid to Pakistan will not be affected too much by India’s reaction,” he said.

“With regard to question of South Asia, there is no other way except giving aid to Pakistan. It has always been our view that the US policy giving more attention to India than Pakistan is not an appropriate policy.”

Deng argues that India was not a stabilising factor. Perhaps you already know the general election results,” he said. The elections brought Indira Gandhi to power.

“Perhaps after Pakistan has been strengthened, India will become a more stabilising factor. What one should try to achieve is to make Pakistan a genuine stabilising factor in South Asia,” he argued.

Urging the United States to “give earnest and sincere thought” to this question,” Deng says, “If one does not keep this clear in one’s mind, then one’s attitude toward India will make one vacillate in one’s position toward Pakistan.”

Deng notes that in the past the US had refrained from, perhaps under Indian influence. “Since you now have decided to aid Pakistan, I am sure India will send you one note after another, strongly objecting,” he added.

Another memo of a Jan 14, 1980, meeting between Zia and the then US ambassador to Pakistan, shows the general urging Washington to ignore its nuclear programme because Pakistan was playing a key role in the Afghan war.

President Carter’s statement of Jan 4 “gives impression that nuclear issue need not be an obstacle, and Pakistan needs to know precisely what America proposes to do to help Pakistan,” Zia was quoted as saying in a readout of the meeting.

[Riaz Haq]

#China trying to create its own globally decisive #naval force through #BRI. “These actions are not only directed at the #UnitedStates: China and #Russia are working to redefine the norms of the entire international system" #CPEC #Pakistan #Gwadar #India https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/china-trying-to-create-...

China is trying to create its own globally decisive naval force through the ambitious multi-billion dollar Belt and Road Initiative, the Pentagon has told the US Congress, warning that Beijing’s “unfavourable deals” strangle a nation’s sovereignty like an Anaconda enwrapping its next meal.

Touted as President Xi Jinping’s pet project, China is vigorously pursuing the Belt and Road initiative (BRI), offering billions of dollars of loans for infrastructure projects to different countries as it looks to expand global influence.

“China’s Belt and Road Initiative in particular is blending diplomatic, economic, military, and social elements of its national power in an attempt to create its own globally decisive naval force,” John Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations, told members of House Armed Services Committee during a Congressional hearing on Thursday.

“China’s modus operandi preys off nations’ financial vulnerabilities. They contract to build commercial ports, promise to upgrade domestic facilities, and invest in national infrastructure projects,” he said.

The BRI focuses on improving connectivity and cooperation among Asian countries, Africa, China and Europe.

The project has become a major stumbling block in India-China relations as the controversial $60 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has been listed as its “flagship project“.

“Slowly, as the belt tightens, these commercial ports transition to dual uses, doubling as military bases that dot strategic waterways. Then, the belt is cinched as China leverages debt to gain control and access,” Richardson said.

“In the final analysis, these unfavourable deals strangle a nation’s sovereignty -like an Anaconda enwrapping its next meal. Scenes like this are expanding westward from China through Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Djibouti and now to our NATO treaty allies, Greece and Italy,” he told members of the House Armed Services Committee.

In his testimony, the top naval official said despite the United States’ persistent work over two centuries to keep the seas open to every nation and every mariner, there are those who seek to upend this free and open order and stem the tide that has steadily lifted all boats.

“As discussed in the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), China and Russia are deploying all elements of their national power to achieve their global ambitions,” he said.

China and Russia seek to accumulate power at America’s expense and may imperil the diplomatic, economic, and military bonds that link the United States to its allies and partners, Richardson added.

“These actions are not only directed at the United States: China and Russia are working to redefine the norms of the entire international system on terms more favourable to themselves,” he said.

China and Russia are determined to replace the current free and open world order with an insular system, Richardson asserted.

“They are attempting to impose unilateral rules, re-draw territorial boundaries, and redefine exclusive economic zones so they can regulate who comes and who goes, who sails through and who sails around.

“These countries’ actions are undermining international security. This behaviour breeds distrust and harms our most vital national interests,” he told the lawmakers.

[Riaz Haq]

#Russia Competes With #China for #Arms Sales to #Pakistan. Total bill could top $9 billion with likely purchase of Russian heavy and medium fighter #jets, medium and short-range air defense systems, combat helicopters, tanks, and warships. https://www.theepochtimes.com/russia-competes-with-china-for-arms-s... via @epochtimes

or years, Beijing has been the biggest arms supplier to Islamabad, with defense purchases as a key element of their close ties. Now, Russia is looking to make inroads into the Pakistani weapons market.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported on April 15 that Pakistan has expressed interest in making a huge purchase of Russian military hardware, citing comments from Konstantin Makienko, deputy director of the Moscow-based defense think tank Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

The total invoice could top $9 billion, according to Makienko, who added that Pakistan would likely purchase Russian heavy and medium fighter jets, medium and short-range air defense systems, combat helicopters, tanks, and warships.

Makienko named two types of Russian military hardware that would likely be on Islamabad’s shopping list: the new Russian fighter jet MiG-35 and the heavy transport helicopter Mi-26T2.

Pakistani authorities haven’t confirmed this planned purchase, nor have Pakistani media reported on it thus far.


But Makienko noted that given the low-competitive nature of the military market in Pakistan, which is dominated by China, Russia would likely receive extremely favorable terms on the purchase contracts.

He added that Pakistan has not made requests such as technology transfer or localization of production as terms for any purchases.

China supplied weapons worth over $6.4 billion to Pakistan from 2008 to 2018, making it Pakistan’s biggest supplier, according to data from the independent arms research institute SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), followed by the United States with $2.5 billion, and Italy with $471 million worth of weapons.

Currently, Chinese-made jets make up the bulk of Pakistan’s fleet of fighter jets: the Chengdu J-7, and JF-17 Thunder. The former was modeled after the Russian jet MiG-21, while the latter was developed jointly by the Pakistani state-owned aerospace company Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and China’s state-owned Chengdu Aircraft Corp.

In 2016, one of the biggest arms deals between China and Pakistan was signed, with the sale of eight Chinese diesel-electric attack submarines manufactured by state-run China Shipbuilding Trading Corporation, to be delivered to the Pakistan Navy by 2028, according to Pakistan’s English-language newspaper The Express Tribune.

Aside from arms sales, there have been other recent signs that Russia and Pakistan plan to enhance their military ties.

On March 24, Russia’s Federal News Agency (FAN) reported comments by Pakistani Major General Asif Ghafoor about expanding defense cooperation between Moscow and Islamabad. Ghafoor said that there could be more military contracts between the two countries, as Pakistan had just received its orders of Russian attack helicopters Mi-35, a purchase made in 2015.

A week later, on March 30, unnamed senior officials at Pakistan’s foreign ministry told local English-language daily newspaper The Nation that Islamabad and Moscow had agreed to exchange high-level visits more frequently, with defense being the main component of growing ties between the two countries.

Russia and China are competing for customers for their military equipment worldwide. Russian news agency TASS, in an editorial published on March 29, noted that China was a market competitor in the sale of submarines, citing the case of Thailand’s navy choosing to buy submarines from China over shipbuilders in Russia, South Korea, and Germany.

[Riaz Haq]

#BRF2019: #Pakistan-#China ties are on a firmer footing. Being in this unique position of maintaining close ties with China versus a security dialogue with the #UnitedStates, albeit a reduced one, Pakistan is able to talk to both the countries. #CPEC http://bit.ly/2ZBehHD

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s keynote speech in China at a global forum last week to discuss Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, highlights Pakistan’s very close ties to the world’s fastest growing country.

For Pakistan, the stakes surrounding its relationship with China are also central to its future as the country pursues the China Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC with Beijing’s backing. At least $60 billion (Dh220 billion) earmarked for CPEC related investments across Pakistan marks a historic milestone. Never before has a foreign power committed such a large investment in Pakistan during the nation’s 72-year history.

The relationship also has a vital dimension related centrally to global security interests which must be considered in gauging this relationship. Pakistan continues to maintain security related ties with Washington, notably over events in Afghanistan, notwithstanding the friction unleashed after US President Donald Trump ended virtually all defence related assistance to Pakistan. Being in this unique position of maintaining close ties with China versus a security dialogue with the US, albeit a reduced one, Pakistan is able to talk to both the countries.

This is a powerful and a telling relationship. In about three years, China will begin supplying up to eight new submarines to Pakistan over the subsequent six years with half of them due to be assembled in Pakistan. The submarines are part of what is widely acknowledged as the largest defence contract in dollar terms, ever signed by Pakistan.

Meanwhile, by next year, the Pakistan Air Force is expected to get nearer to deciding on a new contract for the purchase of its next batch of advanced fighters. Though the cost of that purchase and its source remain a matter of speculation, many seasoned analysts have noted that a Chinese aircraft supplier will likely win that contract.


If true, that would partially be driven by not only the affordability of Chinese military hardware by comparison to western suppliers but also a long history. Unlike a country such as the United States, China has never blocked the supply of military hardware to Pakistan on any pretext. In sharp contrast, the US in 1990 suspended the sale of F16 fighter planes to Pakistan on the grounds that the country was close to producing nuclear weapons.

In subsequent years too, Washington’s relationship has hovered between being the closest ally to a suspected foreign partner. It has only been in recent months that the US appears to have once again warmed up to Pakistan after American officials concluded that the US backed war with the Taliban in Afghanistan is unwinnable. Meanwhile, president Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan following a peace agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban has yet again prompted the US to seek Pakistan’s help for a face saving end to that conflict.

There are also lessons to be learnt from past US pressure on Pakistan. Not only did Pakistan become a nuclear power just eight years after the 1990 blockage of the sales of F16 fighters to Islamabad, the country began working with China to eventually produce its own fighter plane, the JF-17 ‘Thunder’, in a journey that helped reduce dependence on the US in this area.

Taken together, Pakistan’s emerging economic relationship with China under CPEC and its history of defence ties with China have only helped cement Islamabad’s most important foreign relationship. Though Khan chose the right moment to compliment China for its support to Pakistan, his words also reflect a powerful longer term reality. Any Pakistani leader in Khan’s place would have chosen the moment to similarly praise Beijing’s support to the country.