This will provide an ideal opportunity for the leaders to not merely share their thoughts as regards future expansion and enhancement of their ties, but to also exchange views on major regional issues that are likely to have a powerful impact on their countries and the region.
There is no doubt that the foundations of Sino-Pakistan relations are strong and durable. They have withstood the test of time and events, which is why the Chinese call it an “all-weather” friendship. In Pakistan, there is national consensus on the importance of forging exceptional ties with China. The latter, too, shares this view, convinced that consistently deepening cooperation with Pakistan is in their interest as well. After all, Pakistan has not only remained a reliable friend, but is an important neighbour of nearly two hundred million, with a location pivotal to peace and stability in a sensitive region.
But it is not enough to base foreign policy objectives on happy memories of past successes. Instead, hard-headed assessment of current realities and future potential are called for. Emotions and sentiments have no place in the pursuit of national interests, but this is one aspect where Pakistani leaderships have traditionally been weak, even confused. Given our cultural orientation, we have continued to live in the past, oblivious to the remarkable changes that have taken place on the global scene, which inevitably have had a powerful impact on China’s outlook to the world.
China is no longer a poor, underdeveloped country, isolated from the international community and desperately seeking solace in the company of its few friends, which included Pakistan. As the world’s second biggest economy, marching rapidly towards overtaking the US in the not-too-distant future, it is the much sought-after friend and partner of virtually the entire world. Ideological considerations are passe, with pragmatism and realism the lodestars in determining objectives, ever since Deng Xiaoping in 1978, brought about a revolution in the leadership’s thinking and approach, permitting the people the opportunity to give free rein to their inherent genius.
The result is right before our eyes. The world is lining up outside the Great Hall seeking Chinese assistance, especially investment, because economic ties are increasingly dominating the political discourse. On the other hand, we continue to count on political camaraderie to bolster our ties. This may have sufficed in the past, but is increasingly losing its relevance in the face of current challenges.
The reasons are many and varied. Admittedly, our leaderships have been enthusiastic advocates of comprehensive, meaningful ties, and to this end, have also visited China, often more times than warranted. They have also loved to sign agreements, seeing them as photo ops, but then failed to execute them or occasionally, to even honour the commitments made. Resultantly, the Chinese are disappointed but too polite to say that we lack both the focus and capacity, to the required degree, to bring these projects to fruition. But more than anything, it has been China’s deep misgivings about our less than categorical commitment to confronting the menace of extremism and militancy that continues to raise doubts and misgivings in Beijing.
If the incoming political leadership can, however, demonstrate the required degree of vision and resolve on this issue, there is no reason why this ‘time-tested’ relationship cannot be raised to new heights. With China’s concerns regarding the US “pivot” growing and its worries about India’s muscular attitudes on border disputes and Tibet out in the open (notwithstanding massive increase in their economic ties), Pakistan remains the one country that China can count on, in an increasingly uncertain regional scenario, that could worsen should the situation in Afghanistan spin out of control.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 22nd, 2013.
COMMENTS (37)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Rakib "Most healthy & long lasting relationships are based on the fact that love need neither be mutual nor in equal measure."
Almost prophetic.And there you have with you, Maughm again; "The love that lasts longest is the love that is never returned."
There is a saying that Adam and Eve were neither chinese nor Indians. The chinese would have eaten the snake and the Idians would have started worshipping it. China is not a country but a Nation first, then the Civilisation and lastly more than one country. They ae the most hard working resilient people from the East with entrepreneurial culture. They are embarked on the social + free market ecenomy policies as practiced by the German republic, Commune +captial and this has benifited not only the poor but the middle class as well. Their foeign policy is based on non-interfearance in the domestic affairs of other Nations and their invesment projects in foreign counries are designed for mutual benefits and these factors have gained them the acceptance among the developing countries. Pakistan benefits from the relationship which has developed over a long period and this is good for the region and good for world peace.
Rex Minor
Pakistan-China comradeship always long live and we are proud of Pakistan-China comradeship..
@3rdRockFromTheSun: Most of what you say is factual. But Gandhara is present day Swat which is in Pakistan. IT should not be confused with Kandhar.
Pakistan remains the one country that China can count on
China? Counting on Pakistan? For what?
Minerals?
Technology?
Nuclear Fuel?
Trained Manpower?
Economic Aid?
Large Market?
Elimination of the Uighur Terrorists?
What exactly can China count on Pakistan for? Not counting the Six escort fighters that is.
@3rdRockFromTheSun: The point you made is valid. Pakistanis had seen their 'strategic' relationship with US based on keeping USSR at bay unravel once USSR disintegrated. The same could happen with China if India and China are able to resolve their issues and focus on collaborating for growth. This is just common sense and all the deeper / higher/sweeter stories are not worth much.
I was under the incorrect impression that Pakistan benefited by a veto cover from China but clearly as pointed out by @BlackJack that is not the case. Under the circumstance, it is not at all evident what Pakistan gets for all that it has given up.
This does not mean I or any of my other compatriots have a problem if Pakistan wants to behave in a self effacing manner with China e.g. Giving the highest civilian honour to a newly installed visiting Chinese premier with no track record with Pakistan, unreciprocated protocol to visiting dignitaries and so on. Knock yourself out.
Nicely summed up. Pakistan views this relationship through a pair of 45 year old spectacles.................its seriously time for a re-evaluation, in our own interest.
@sterry: "Now that Pakistanis ramping itself up for development while India’s growth is ebbing away, why shouldn’t Pakistan do what is in its best interests?"
Not just Pakistan, every country should do what is in its best interest - so certainly Indians do not have any issues with that. If you do not find it cringeworthy that your nation's highest civilian honour is being provided to a visiting dignitary with absolutely no track record - then good for you.
India's growth constraints are being tackled with determination and focus with a slew of policy reforms in the past 10 months since Chidambaram took charge as finance minister. Everyone expects growth in India next year to be between 6-6.5% from a bottom of 5% last year. While 5% is lowest growth there has been in the past 10 years, compared to the situation in the world, it is not what you seem to imply.
Pakistan does have many serious constraints to growth of which load shedding, terrorism and low investment levels and balance of payment crisis appear to be the biggest. Of course if the leadership is able to address these issues and prosperity returns to Pakistan, that would be good for everyone. Fewer unemployed = fewer strategic assets. India will no complain.
@3rdRockFromTheSun:
This is just a cheap jibe, and nothing more.The Pakistan-China Alliance goes back half a century. It exists for very good practical reasons. There are warm relations between the people of the two countries. It is certainly something of a lop sided love affair but by no means an unrequited one.
@3rdRockFromTheSun:
Which still doesn't prove that the United States shares a common culture, language or ethnicity with Asia Pacific, which you claim are the foundations of alliances between nations. You are tying yourself up in knots by attempting to defend a very weak initial thesis.
Judging by the deluge of Indian commentators on this article, it seems that China Pakistan relations seem to really bother India! Must be that the author has hit the right chord. Now that Pakistanis ramping itself up for development while India's growth is ebbing away, why shouldn't Pakistan do what is in its best interests?
@entropy I do not understand what point you are trying to make with the US / UK relationship. US gained independence from the UK, and its constitution, laws, culture etc are on purpose NOT meant to be like UK's.Yes they are close, share a language. By the way, some Brits still do not consider American English as "English" ;-)
"...US begins to focus on Asia Pacific, a region with which the United States shares absolutely nothing." May I remind you that the US has a very large Pacific coastline and has been in the Asia Pacific region for a very long time - their ships ended the Japanese isolation in the 1800s by blockading the Tokyo harbour and the US during the 1800s ruled Phillipines after throwing the Spanish out.
Here endeth the lesson!
PS - I am Canadian
@entropy Thank you for validating my point :
Your quotes do just that : "The United States forges strong alliances based purely on strategic interests with countries with which it does not share a culture, language or ethnicity." and "The moral: strategic interests bind countries together like nothing else. " >> That "Strategic Interest" of mutual benefit was "Keeping the USSR at bay" - I don't think the Japanese / Koreans and others were looking forward to living under Communist rule.
"...why the Pak-China alliance is somehow inferior ..." - I don't think it is inferior at all, read my first comment - I think it is logical and practical, the common strategic benefit being "Keeping India at bay" - my point was of Pakistanis fawning over the relationship and giving it the status of “higher than mountains, deeper than oceans” - more like unrequited love from the Pakistani side, while the Chinese see this as a practical alliance.
Buddhism went to China from Nepal / India and visits of Chinese scholars to Lumbini and Bodh Gaya - the birthplace and final resting place of Buddha. Also, Gandhara is in Afghanistan, not Pakistan; and the time when Gandhara was Buddhist was over a 1000 years back and there has not been much 'religious / cultural' exchange between 'Buddhist' China and Gandhara since the advent of Islam to the area.
QED and my logic still stands.
@ss: "@gp65: dear whatever your name is, I am from GB and let me assure you GB has not been handed over to China, "
Thank you for responding. Here are a couple of news items that I based my statement on. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27iht-edharrison.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Chandigarh/Pak-s-Gilgit-lease-to-China-catches-Indian-army-unawares/Article1-815671.aspx
@Jackdaw:
Not only the port Pakistan gave away, lot of border land was also given away to Chinese. I bet Chinese must have claimed the land like they do with India and threaten Pakistan. I however think Pakistan was wise in giving away land for what they think "Forever Friendship" instead of tensions with China like India has
@3rdRockFromTheSun:
In fact your logic is very weak. The United States forges strong alliances based purely on strategic interests with countries with which it does not share a culture, language or ethnicity. On the other hand, the United Kingdom is the mother country of the United States from which it inherited a language, literature, culture, work ethic, science, law and institutions. And yet many in the UK feel that relationship is weakening as the US begins to focus on Asia Pacific, a region with which the United States shares absolutely nothing. The moral: strategic interests bind countries together like nothing else. I fail to see therefore why the Pak-China alliance is somehow inferior to others as you and other Indians like to argue. Besides there are historical links between the two countries too. China adopted Buddhism through the influence of the Gandahara region of Pakistan.
@entropy Yes, and the mutual benefit in the aftermath of WW 2 was to keep the erstwhile USSR and the Eastern bloc out of Asia Pacific - hence American presence in Japan, S Korea, Phillipines, Micronesia, Aus, NZ and for Japan specifically, also to ensure that they did not have any further delusions of restarting a glorious "empire" which could destabilize the region and provide the East bloc an entry point (just as they did for Germany in the West) .
The US also knew that there cannot be 2 dominant players in a group - there were already signs of friction between USSR and China in the sixties (they had a brief border war) and they used a similar strategy with China in the seventies, to break it away from the USSR's sphere of influence by using trade as the sweetener.
So yes, my logic and argument still stands valid.
@3rdRockFromTheSun:
So the United States post war alliance with Japan and the new alliances it is attempting to forge in Asia Pacific are based on a common, language, religion and ethnicity?
@gp65: dear whatever your name is, I am from GB and let me assure you GB has not been handed over to China, we are atoot ang of Pakistan.
@BlackJack: You are right about actual voting record of China. I stand corrected.
It appears that most of the comments appear to have come from across the border. They reek of the usual prejudice and hostility. The fact is that this is a excellent piece, written by a person who knows China and has a very good understanding of its diplomatic practices. His advice and suggestions should be taken note of by the country's foreign policy establishment.
One reason why Pak-China relationship has endured is not only absence of one-upmanship but lack of demands for equality even. That which is true of humans is true of nations like Pak-China too. Most healthy & long lasting relationships are based on the fact that love need neither be mutual nor in equal measure. There's always one who loves and one who lets himself be loved. (to quote Maugham).
@gp65: In turn China provides a security council veto to Pakistan (something that at one point we counted on Russia for). This is not correct - China has never provided veto cover of Pakistan, and the only veto with peripheral linkage was in blocking the membership of Bangladesh to the UN (which hardly did any good for Pakistan). In fact, China has used the veto in a far more circumspect and mature manner than any other UN member (e.g. 8 times vs 82 by the US and 124 by the USSR), and Pakistan cannot count on it unless the subject is one of human rights violations (which would be more to protect China's own tender underbelly than any love for their dear neighbor). On the other hand, you are correct to the extent that the USSR supported India by vetoing repeated 'India-Pakistan question' resolutions as well as any criticism of India's action in the 1971 war. Since then (during the actual glorious period of Soviet-India embrace) we have never needed their support in the UN.
"and its worries about India’s muscular attitudes on border disputes and Tibet out in the open"
Huh? India's muscular attitude? Rest of us read something else i.e. China had encroached 19 miles onto the Indian side of LOC. Or perhaps standing up for oneself and not having the crap beaten out of you as in 1962 amounts to 'muscular attitudes' in the author's estmation?
Eternal Ghazis lining up to serve yet another master. Carrying the water for US and Saudis blindly was not bad enough. Now the emotional and prickly have boxed themselves into serving yet another power. The Chinese have been given Gilgit and now Gwadar. There goes the strategic north and the coast. Whatever room you had to swing at India is neutralized because a large power with global and regional interests (with India) sits inside your country now. It will use you to contain India - if it can, but not give Kashmir to you and that is what you want. Yet one more time checkmated by emotion.
The most charitable interpretation of this Oped is that the Chinese Pakistani relationship is heading to becoming increasingly irrelevant in future +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ No more Peking duck.
"Pakistan remains the one country that China can count on, in an increasingly uncertain regional scenario," ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Now replace Pakistan with North Korea!
Pakistani nations leaders are richest look at the properties of Nawaz, Zardari, Imran khan. So why would they bring change?
I have always wondered, how does it feel to be a satellite of another state? Perhaps you can write a oped about that the next time?
@abc: Giving them control over Gilgit Baltistan, Gwadar, denying support to the Ulghurs. In turn China provides a security council veto to Pakistan (something that at one point we counted on Russia for).
But this is by no means the type of elevated relationship that Pakistanis think it is. Half the time when Zardari or Gilani used to go to China they would not get any protocol whereas junior functionaries from China get the red carpet rolled out in Pakistan. The relationship from Pakistani angle can be described as Friends not, masters.
The bedrock of any relationship is built on a common shared interest - which in this case happens to be culture? language? religion? ethinicity? ...a common desire to keep India at bays - seems like the only option! And there's nothing wrong with that - "My enemy's enemy is my friend"; it is but logical for China to cultivate friendship with Pakistan and vice versa.
Where the fault lies is in Pakistanis getting starry eyed and putting this relationship on a pedestal by according it a (one sided) status of "higher than mountains, deeper than oceans" friendship.
Remember, this "friend" did not come to your help during the 65, 71, 99 conflicts with India nor the US "W o T" nor did they give you a multi billion $$ loan, which could have prevented Pakistan going to the IMF and only provided token help in the aftermath of the recent natural calamities. Because doing so would have been against China's own interests.
@Water Bottle: I agree with your opinion on China i.e. China does not have any goodwill for anyone but is guided by its national interests. But I do not have any inside knowledge, so my opinion is just that - an opinion of a reasonably well read person - no more and no less.
@ Author: Pakistan remains the one country that China can count on,"
Count on what? Will you or someone like to list few things which are +ive and don't fall into anti-India category?
Sir, you only deceive yourself. I think visiting Pakistan after going to India as his first ever foreign visit after taking office, muscular attitudes (?) and Tibet notwithstanding, is as good a snub as I have seen from one "all weather" friend to another. China can be counted by Pakistan for military supplies assuming that you can pay for them - and that sums up the entire relationship, despite signing away a strategic port to them and kowtowing in a cringe-inducing manner whenever they deign to visit.
"The latter, too, shares this view, convinced that consistently deepening cooperation with Pakistan is in their interest as well."
I doubt this very much. China has always looked after its own interest. in fact, China doesn't care about Chinese, anymore than other countries care abt their citizens.
I think every single policy of China, only looks after strengthening the communist party of China and nothing else.
China doesn't care about Pakistan any more than it cares about India.
@G.P. 65 : From your experience and inside knowledge, what do you say?