Reconditioned patronage?

Beijing bankrolls domestic projects to benefit its own companies irrespective of the recipient’s absorption capacity


Ayesha Siddiqa April 22, 2015
The writer is an independent social scientist and author of Military Inc. She tweets @iamthedrifter

It is certainly not rocket science to understand the behaviour of an infant being weaned from its mother’s milk if it is in a state of hunger: it will suckle at anything — from its own thumb to whatever can be picked up and thrust in its tiny mouth. It seems that Pakistan is now moving away from its dependence on the US to depending on China. In this situation, the mother may continue to feed out of fear so that the child doesn’t howl and make her life miserable.

While we are not about to abandon the US, we are excited to move towards China in search of another patron that can fulfil some different kinds of needs and add to our sense of much-needed security. But this is meant to be a comprehensive patronage. It includes military and economic components with no apparent pressures to implement democracy or have a political system that Beijing likes. The promise of $46 billion in investment in infrastructure development and in the economy is attractive. This adds to the existing strong security relations. We needn’t forget that over the years, our armed forces have turned to the Chinese as far as their conventional weapon needs are concerned. Surely, the US has pitched in with the decision to supply Pakistan with weapons worth $1 billion, but the fact is that we are now shifting increasingly towards China for meeting our major weapons systems needs. The army uses a lot of Chinese equipment, followed by the navy and the air force. The Pakistan Navy’s (PN) initial engagement with Beijing for missile and gunboats has expanded to include the F-22P frigates and around six to eight submarines. Irrespective of the fact that the PN is inconsequential for our land-based military doctrine, we have switched from Western to Chinese platforms. The co-developed and co-produced JF-17 Thunder is now the mainstay of the PAF, which means the service is slowly moving away from its dependence on Western sources for its equipment. While Chinese weapons systems are said to have some quality issues, they at least keep the three services satisfied.

The power equation in Asia is re-calibrating with Pakistan having the option of building ties with traditional rivals, operating independently, or seeking a partnership with a stronger regional player. Islamabad has opted for the latter. The $46 billion is certainly not free lunch. Pakistan seems to have now joined the group of states that are attracted to Chinese investment and influence. Other countries in the region include Sri Lanka and Myanmar. During a visit to Colombo last year, it was interesting for me to find out the extent of Chinese investment in non-profitable projects or those that may ultimately become expensive for Colombo. Beijing bankrolls domestic projects to benefit its own companies irrespective of the recipient’s absorption capacity. The new Colombo harbour makes little money and the new highway from the airport to the capital city has several issues. However, who cares, as it is developing infrastructure which can be sold relatively easily to the common man. Be it Myanmar, Sri Lanka or Pakistan, the Chinese government is also not concerned about domestic political changes as all political and military stakeholders are on board. The Chinese embassy in Islamabad, for instance, may not reach out to the civil society but it is formally connected with almost every major political party. In any case, a general perception internationally was that the only country that could effectively convince Pakistan to abandon its support to militants is China.

From Islamabad’s military-strategic perspective, the decision sounds quite logical. In a volatile situation with an uncertain future, it is logical for a state that has little appetite for strategic independence to join a strong regional alignment or partnership.

Nevertheless, this new patronage arrangement is being drawn without keeping in view domestic consequences. As mentioned earlier, nothing is for free. The $46 billion investment package does not indicate the extent of resources that China will extract from Pakistan. Surprisingly, there is no discussion of the impact of the dumping of Chinese goods on the market or our industry. So, even if we get tons of electricity, if we are not competitive, then we may not get the advantage we hope for. The Chinese almost have a monopoly in key areas like oil and gas drilling. This is not due to superior technology but Pakistan’s permanent indebtedness to Beijing as far as help in developing the nuclear weapons programme is concerned. Also, no one in the media seems ready to discuss the fact that there is so little human interaction between average Chinese and Pakistanis. In Pakistan, like Sri Lanka, Myanmar or other places, we now see a lot of Chinese but with very little interaction with the populace. The situation is that we are as alien to their culture as they are to ours.

This is problematic as this means that the Chinese will have little interest in understanding our domestic complexities and compulsions. This is especially in reference to areas like Balochistan where Beijing now has the contract to develop and manage Gwadar for the next 40 years. From Islamabad’s perspective, this seems like the best option to develop an area that may prove too expensive to explore on its own. The Chinese have little patience for violence against their interests. In any case, the Baloch nationalist struggle is in a phase where it can only harm unarmed and insignificant workers. The rest, be it the military or religious militants, remain unharmed. So, while human rights groups may protest against the situation in Balochistan, the fact is that the territory now represents Beijing’s interests — from mineral resources to infrastructure. Gilgit-Baltistan is another area which has greater Chinese influence than Pakistan’s.

Perhaps, this is the only way Pakistan can frame its partnerships. The ideal option, of course, is to conceive national interests independently.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 23rd,  2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (19)

Rex Minor | 9 years ago | Reply @Yo2da2: Please do not give credit to the United States Of America for wrong reasons. Its leaders have always served the domestic interests and quite right so!! Not istakes but Wars and Sanctions and setting up Military bases have been the key ingrediants of the American administration since the end of WW2. Rex Minor
Yo2da2 | 9 years ago | Reply @Sane: IMHO, you, Sir/Madam, are wrong. US has supported democracy wherever it could (Japan, Germany, Eastern Europe, Southeast and East Asia, parts of Africa, Turkey, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Latin America, Australia), but not where people had no desire or experience with it (MIddle East, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, North Korea, China, and a few others). Second intervention in Iraq (2003) was the only mistake. That experience has confirmed that most Arabs/Muslims can only live peacefully under autocracy headed by a strongman. (Remember Iran? True, the American overthrow of a democratically elected Mossadegh in 1953 was a big mistake. But the Shah was replaced, not by a democrat,but by an even worse form of dictatorship The theocracy of the Mullahs and supported by their Army.)
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ