In Defense Of China-Pakistan Friendship And CPEC – OpEd

C. Christine Fair in her recent opinion article titled “Pakistan Can’t Afford China’s ‘Friendship’” has tried to muddle the clarity of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) reflective of enduring mutually beneficial friendship between the two countries. Her analysis on Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and CPEC reflects the colossal loss of objectivity for venting opaque views. The concocted incidents cited from history of Pakistan China bilateral relations shows the failed attempt by an intellectual mercenary who would sacrifice objectivity to vindicate her biased rhetorical disposition under the garb of analysis.

Her “analysis” shows the ignorance of the Chinese model of foreign assistance. Unlike the US that has historically used the foreign aid as a tool to corrupt the local elite for buying their loyalties to serve its interest, Chinese employ foreign economic assistance for capacity building of the recipient state. Such strategy has been highly effective and has helped China to connect and secure goodwill with the people of economic assistance recipient country. Non-interference and development projects instead of cash driven foreign economic assistance strategy by China has bought it huge approval for its enhanced role in developing countries in Asia and Africa.

Economic consensus between Pakistan and China reflected in CPEC is structured on a decades old all-weather friendship that has lasted the test of time. As the Chinese model, both for military and economic assistance is banked on developing domestic capabilities instead of building perpetual reliance on China, Pakistan has received immense assistance in this regard from its all-weather friend. In Pakistan, the ongoing process of indigenization of military hardware technologies is achieved through sustained support from China.

Christine Fair argues that China failed to help Pakistan especially in 1971 war with India. When Indian proxy war by arming and training terrorist organization Mukti Bahni in East Pakistan reached its peak, to avert Indian aggression of direct war, the US foreign policy elite favored the idea that China’s mobilization of forces along Indian border would dissuade India from starting full scale war with Pakistan. Christine Fair deliberately fails to mention the rift between USSR and China at that time and Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation signed between USSR and India on August 9, 1971 whereby USSR pledged to come to rescue of India in case of war against any state. It was this treaty that forced China not to play the role it wanted to help Pakistan.

Destabilization through terrorism sponsoring leading to Balkanization of other states in South Asia is Indian strategy for dominating the region as the largest state carving its sphere of influence riding on the economic rise. India has long history of state sponsored terrorism for destabilizing the region through use of non-state actors. In China, the territorial integrity is closely linked to the legitimacy of Chinese Community Party, which is reflected in its foreign policy as well. The BRI is aimed at creating stable and economically prosperous neighborhood that will augment the dividends of Chinese economic rise at home.

Pakistan and China have offered India to join CPEC for regional connectivity and economic development. Christine Fair who has historically argued that India has the instrument of accession by the rule of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, hence Indian claim of sovereignty over the state is stronger than Pakistan. She blatantly ignores the fact that sovereignty belongs to the people of land. The popular uprising against Maharaja Hari Singh before signing of instrument of accession with India meant that he had lost the legitimacy to conclude any agreement on behalf of people of Jammu and Kashmir. Maharaja Hari Singh had ceased to be legitimate ruler of princely state Jammu and Kashmir.

Argument for Indian sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of such instrument of accession is in complete disregard of human rights covenants especially those dealing with civil and political rights. Kashmir is recognized as disputed territory between India and Pakistan under United Nations Security Council resolutions, hence opposition of CPEC by India on baseless claims of territorial sovereignty over Kashmir is not justified. Pakistan wants that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be given right to self-determination integral to the basic of human rights and promised by Indian leadership when they themselves took this dispute to the UN.

CPEC will become the engine of peace and stability for Pakistan. The benefits of energy generation projects and communication network for mobility of goods and services will reinforce the efforts by Pakistan to counter terrorism and extremism through economic uplift of least developed areas of Pakistan. Often rhetorical, devoid of empirical evidence charge labelled by the detractors of CPEC is that the project is not commercially viable. Such argument ignores the fact that China initiated this project because China stands to gain massively through CPEC. Reducing the cost of importing and exporting goods through BRI connectivity projects, and securing access to markets, achieving further competitive advantage that Chinese firms already enjoy will ensure that China becomes the driver of world trade and development in near future.

While the Western Scholars presume that China is developing Gwadar port as redundancy in case of blockade of Malacca Strait, such narrative ignores the logic of economics. China is diversifying supply routes for reducing the cost of imported raw material especially petrochemicals. For China, the proximity of oil rich Middle East makes Gwardar port natural cost effective choice for imported energy.

Early harvest energy under CPEC are coming online and are helping Pakistan tackle the chronic shortage of electricity for domestic and industrial purpose. In the past, the US announced plans for giving preferential access to industrial units established in militancy hit areas of Pakistan especially Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the US came up short on its promise of helping Pakistan to counter terrorism through economic uplift of the society. Instead of giving meaningful market access to Pakistan’s industry, the US has relied on misdirected, meagre and inefficient foreign aid that is often squandered. Recent visit by high level delegation from Chinese National Development and Reform Commission for reviewing the progress on CPEC related projects especially Special Economic Zones(SEZs) shows that this project is driven by market considerations helping Pakistan and China achieve economic development. In Pakistan, the consensus at societal and state level about CPEC shows the confidence that developing states pose in China led BRI that is structured on geo-economics rather geopolitics strategies of the US that have created nothing but destruction and destabilization around the world.

*The author works as Senior Research Associate with Strategic Vision Institute, a think tank based in Islamabad. The author can be reached at [email protected]


Enjoy the article?

Did you find this article informative? Please consider contributing to Eurasia Review, as we are truly independent and do not receive financial support from any institution, corporation or organization.


 

5 thoughts on “In Defense Of China-Pakistan Friendship And CPEC – OpEd

  • July 17, 2017 at 6:08 pm
    Permalink

    A biased rebuttal of Christine Fairs observations. Pakistan is becoming a satellite of China. China uses its own material on personal to develop the infrastructure with Chinese businesses taking advantage of the opportunities afforded. Over 70% of the funds going back to China. The government of Pakistan is very corrupt and inefficient, with the PM Sharif trying to hold on to the job after Panamagate. The division between the civilian government and the military prevents Pakistan from deuveloping benefical policies.

    Reply
    • July 18, 2017 at 9:46 am
      Permalink

      I think you don’t understand business. Of course people and groups look for benefits and this is the only way for Pakistan to invest in critical infrastructure upgrades. Pakistan is looking at down market dividends as trade goods and materials get shifted to the Chinese mainland. It’s easier for traders to set up stations in Pakistan then in Dubai or other far off places. but its going to be a slow and sometime painful process for all parties since development isn’t like a fairy tale. And while the political parties are far from perfect, they have a series of checks and balances which are forcing change, some of it good.

      It’s very different from a system where there is no functional or effective opposition and the centre bulldozes through any and all plans because the premier thinks it feels right and the headlines will look nice on a marketing poster come election day. I think the Demonetization exercise should have brought some sense to the the sensible. But then again, it’s very successful according to some sycophants and hacks close to the sarkar so good luck with that.

      Reply
  • July 20, 2017 at 12:36 pm
    Permalink

    An excellent rebuttal on Christine Fair’s biased observations. The author has given very genuine and relevant reasons to support the arguments.

    Reply
  • July 22, 2017 at 4:53 pm
    Permalink

    C. Fair wrote a convoluted, confused diatribe against CPEC. It was a sad meltdown in real-time. Her article starts off arguing that Pakistan cannot afford China’s largess because it will burden Pakistan with debt, rambles about Baloch insurgency, and odd comparison to a non-existent North-South corridor ‘aspirational’ project betraying her low grasp of regional geography; but then slowly she begins to counter her own title as the article rambles along until at conclusion she ruefully states that “If China took on the responsibility of managing Pakistan, Washington might be happy to wash its hands of the problem and let the civilians in Islamabad and the uniformed men in Rawalpindi stab someone else in the back for a change.”!!!!
    So then can Pakistan afford China’s friendship, Ms Fair?…..She even finds something to be happy about herself- a woman who constantly uses undiplomatic language against Pakistani people and has a personal vendetta like a woman scorned. She is a rank propaganda hack.

    As for Chinese dragon stepping into Pakistan when everyone else labeled it “basket case”, has already achieved a significant gain- the narrative has changed from pundits predicting what is the due date for collapse of the Pakistan state to how China will profit in Pakistan!!

    The key question to be asked here is; if it was this easy for China to cook up a plan to profit in Pakistan while making Pakistan a stepping stone, why did the western geniuses (like Fair) could not come up with a plan to buy Pakistan and make it a satellite of US strategy in Central Asia for the last 17 years?

    A more balanced read is Robert Hathaway’s “America’s Pakistan Policy Could Make
    or Break Trump’s Legacy” in The National Interest.

    Reply
  • July 23, 2017 at 2:36 pm
    Permalink

    India is on a clusion course with Pakistan and China having illegally occupied Kashmir and Bhutan on false pretenses. It’s all on assumed backing of US President Obama and now China. CPEC will be game changer to both Pakistan and China and cannot be stopped by India fueling insurgency in Baluchistan. The pandits should put their head together the internal prejudice and hatred that is prevalent in India against minorities due embolden Hindevta venom. Yet the idiots in US government cannot see their divide and rule policies learnt from their masters U.K. Will fail. We all know what goes around comes around to hollow these schemers from within in not too distant future.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CLOSE
CLOSE