Damming the Indus: 'hordes' of Chinese tourists will pour in to visit the 'last paradise on earth'

My article Damming the Indus: 'hordes' of Chinese tourists will pour in to visit the 'last paradise on earth' appeared in Mail Today/Mail Online

Here is the link...

On the occasion of the opening of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) forum in Beijing, President Xi Jinping urged countries across the globe to join hands with China in pursuit of globalisation: 'We have no intention to form a small group detrimental to stability. What we hope to create is a big family of harmonious co-existence.'
India has some doubts about the 'big family'. Take the example of the China- Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), an OBOR's offshoot; it crosses Gilgit- Baltistan (GB), considered by India an integral part of Jammu & Kashmir.
Not only has China pushed Islamabad to make GB a fifth province of Pakistan, but according to CNN-News18.com, 'Information and interviews exclusively accessed by CNN-News18 showed that the land was procured mostly by force by Pakistani generals for the CPEC and those resisting are either killed off or incarcerated without a trial.'
Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (L) shakes hands with China's President Xi Jinping, ahead of the Belt and Road Forum, in Beijing on May 13, 2017
Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (L) shakes hands with China's President Xi Jinping, ahead of the Belt and Road Forum, in Beijing on May 13, 2017
Wajahat Hasan, chairman of the Gilgit-Baltistan Thinkers Forum, told the same channel: 'Thousands had their land snatched and occupied by the military authorities and their agencies.
'Under this black draconian rule, nobody can raise their voices against the CPEC.'

Issue Another worrying issue: when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited China to attend the forum, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed to fund and build five mega hydroelectric power (HEP) projects.
The Pakistani press spoke of an Indus cascade of dams, two of them costing $27 billion (`17,000 crore), being located in GB.
The Pakistani newspaper, The Express Tribune, had earlier claimed that Pakistan and China would develop the North Indus River Cascade with an investment of $50 billion (`32,000 crore) to generate up to 40,000 MW hydro power.
According to Pakistan's Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), the Indus cascade will start from GB to reach the existing Tarbela dam downstream, not far from Islamabad.
At the MoU-signing ceremony, Nawaz Sharif affirmed: 'Development of the North Indus Cascade is a major focus of my government and the construction of Diamer-Basha Dam is the single most important initiative in this regard.'
He added, 'Water and food security are of paramount importance for Pakistan keeping in view the challenges posed by climate change.'
A 7,100 MW HEP project will be built at Bunji on the way to Skardu, the capital of Baltistan.
Though described by WAPDA as a run-of-the-river (RoR) project, it is clearly not one, as it will have a 22- km-long reservoir which will inundate 12- km of the road between Gilgit and Skardu.
The next dam is the Diamer-Basha HEP with a potential of 4,500 MW. The Diamer-Basha reservoir will submerge some 104 km of the Karakoram Highway and displace about 30,000 people, admits the WAPDA.
It will cost $15 billion(`965 crore). Both projects follow the Karakoram Highway in GB. Joydeep Gupta, a water expert, explained in a news portal: 'The Diamer- Basha dam is being promoted by WAPDA as a sediment trap and therefore good for downstream hydropower projects. But the same sediment — mainly silt — rejuvenates the soil downstream every year and has been the main reason why agriculture has been sustained in the Indus valley for millennia.'
But this does not bother the Pakistan politicians.

Projects
The other projects (the 4,320 MW Dasu HEP, the 2,200 MW Patan HEP, the 4,000 MW Thakot HEP using four headrace tunnels to divert waters and generate electricity) are located in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
A 'lost' Saraswati river in the making? It has now been scientifically proved that big dams are not sustainable for several reasons; the first one being the amount of silt retained behind the dam, which stops nourishing downstream areas.
Interestingly, there is a movement in the United States to progressively decommission all large dams, which 'kills' the river, with many species of fishes unable to migrate upstream.
Another important factor is the strong 'dam lobby' in China which smells the billion dollars; it has been active since the time of Premier Li Peng and his mega Three Gorges dam.
Nepal too seems to have fallen prey to this lobby. Nepal's ministry of energy recently signed an MoU with China Gezhouba Group Corporation (CGGC) for the development of a 1,200 MW Budhigandaki HEP, which will be the biggest hydro project in Nepal.
The agreement was signed at the prime minister's residence, with the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal in attendance.
The dam will be built under the 'engineering, procurement, construction and finance' model. It means that CGGC will help arrange soft or commercial loans from China.

Warning
Already in August 2010, warning bells have been ringing in the corridors of South Block in Delhi.
The well-informed journalist, Selig Harrison, then wrote in The New York Times that according to 'a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers', two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan were taking place: 'a simmering rebellion against Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the People's Liberation Army'.
Tomorrow, tens of thousands of Chinese workers (17,000 for the Daimer-Basha HEP only) will come to GB; a decade or so later, when the work is completed, many will 'buy' land from Pakistan and settle for good in the area.
Further, China is bound to develop GB as a 'special' tourist destination (once the basic infrastructure is in place for the dams) and ultimately hordes of Chinese tourists will pour in to visit the 'last paradise on earth'.
How will India react? The time has perhaps come to think about this. Does Delhi want a China Town in Skardu or Gilgit? One of the solutions is to renegotiate the Indus-Water Treaty, signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan. With the latest developments, it seems completely outdated today.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-4591970/Damming-Indus-hordes-Chinese-tourists-visit.html#ixzz4jkNB4trV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

How China could benefit from Pakistan's 'dream corridor'

My article How China could benefit from Pakistan's 'dream corridor' appeared in Mail Today/Daily Mail

Here is the link...

For Pakistan, it was a dream come true.
When President Xi Jinping visited Islamabad in April 2015, he pledged an eye-popping 46 billion dollars for the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). While for Beijing the mega project was a vital element of the One Belt, One Road (OBOR), it was a ‘game-changer’ for Pakistan which would bring prosperity to the entire region.
It is true that Xi brought with him munificent gifts for Pakistan: the Chinese billions would boost Pakistan’s flagging economy with massive energy and infrastructure projects. This included an additional 12,000 megawatts to Pakistan’s national grid through coal, hydro and renewable energy projects.
The Corridor would have railways, roads, optical fiber cables, dams, pipelines, you name it! Observers the marveled at Beijing generosity (and wealth), but lately, the ‘beneficiaries’ have started realizing that the project may first and foremost benefit Beijing!
The architects of CPEC plan to build a 2,700-kilometre corridor stretching from Kashgar to Gwadar, which will link Central Asia (via Xinjiang) to Europe and Africa (via the maritime route).
Is it a boon for Islamabad?
Not everyone agrees, even in Pakistan. Salman Rafi Sheikh, a research analyst wrote in Asia Times: “The CPEC continues to look like a mystery, wrapped in an enigma. In the absence of agreements stipulating and documenting both countries’ interests, the CPEC is creating problems that would strip Pakistan of whatever benefits the multi-billion-dollar project promises.”
He continued: “Claims about CPEC’s ability to change Pakistan’s economic outlook appear hollow and unreal. …The question remains: what’s the game changer for the region when CPEC is changing nothing in Pakistan?”
The author certainly has a point.

Security
It is true that the Corridor faces several serious issues, security for example. Now, suppose the scheme becomes ‘unstable’ due to terrorism (presently localised in Pakistan, but which can be easily exported to Xinjiang), the cost of the project could tremendously shoot up. This deeply worries Beijing.
Last month, The Dawn reported that Pakistan has deployed 15,000 military personnel, “as part of the Special Security Division (SSD) and Maritime Security Force (MSF) to protect projects under the CPEC”.
Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on CPEC, noted: “Both forces will work under the interior ministry, in coordination with the provinces.”
The question is who is going to pay the bill?
Quoting military sources, The South China Morning Post affirms that the PLA would soon increase its fighting force to 100,000 personnel, “allowing for deployment in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa and Gwadar in southwest Pakistan.” Chinese troops in Gwadar, the main entry to the CPEC, is worrisome, to say the least.

The economy of the corridor
Recently Pakistan’s Public Accounts Committee asked for the details of rate of interest for the loans obtained from China.
The secretary of the Ministry of Water and Power gave some figures: there were 19 power projects under the CPEC with the capacity of 12,114 MW; out of which 3,960 MW from coal, 2,714 MW from hydro projects, 900 MW from solar projects and 4,260 MW from imported coal.
The amazing part is that after the COP21 accords, the planet is abandoning coal, but China is financing new coal projects in Pakistan ….with Chinese coal!
Beijing has agreed to provide a $ 6 billion loan for road infrastructure and Rs 2.8 billion for Railways ‘on lowest interest rate’. While these loans are at a reasonable 1.6% interest, in some other cases, they can be as high as 6 or 7%. Will Pakistan be able to repay these loans?
By including the cost of insurance, also paid to a Chinese insurance company, the cost of borrowings could surge to 13%: “Adding insult to injury, the government has already exempted income of Chinese financial institutions from dividend income tax,” said The Pakistan Herald.
Another issue is regional disparity: on February 28, Sardar Akhtar Jan Mengal, president of the Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M), accused Islamabad of getting funds for the project in the name of Gwadar while using them in one province only, Punjab. Mengal argued that the people of Balochistan, a province through which a major portion of the Corridor passes, have neither been consulted nor taken into confidence on CPEC projects. Other provinces, particularly Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (for the western route of CPEC) and Gilgit-Baltistan have similar views.

India’s position
As the project crosses Indian territory in PoK, the CPEC is unacceptable for India. Delhi cannot pretend that nothing is happening and forget about the legality of the accession of Jammu & Kashmir State to India.
Beijing has hinted that India should join the ‘global’ project, but China does not seem to be ready to implement what it is preaching.
After Tibet was invaded by China in October 1950, the traditional Himalayan trade routes were progressively closed down. An effort was done in 1954 to regulate the flow of people and goods through the 'Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet region of China and India', i.e. the Panchsheel Agreement; however China was not ready to implement the letter or the spirit of the Agreement which eventually lapsed in 1962.
While China is adamant to not reopen the Himalayan land ports between India and Tibet, why ‘invite’ Delhi to join the CPEC bandwagon? There is no logic.
In any case, the Corridor is first and foremost a vital investment for Beijing, which is slowly ‘buying’ the strategic corridor; Beijing will soon control its new dominion, Pakistan. For India, it will be a game changer as it will then face China on two fronts, the northern and the western ones.
Modi Sarkar should ponder about this.

We shut our eyes once, let’s not do so again

My article We shut our eyes once, let’s not do so again appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.


Here is the link...

Nobody dares to question the viability of President Xi Jinping's dream of a ‘Revitalised China' through the mammoth OBOR initiative. But all the ancient trade routes between India and Central Asia remain closed

China is pressing India to jump on board the mega One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative. The Global Times recently complained: “New Delhi has yet to sign up for the OBOR, and has claimed that there is a sovereignty issue with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passing through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).”
The mouthpiece of Communist Party of China contemptuously added: “It should also be noted that New Delhi cannot prevent the growth of the OBOR’s influence. If India wants to exclude itself from the OBOR at a time when the initiative is receiving widespread support from the global community, India will end up simply watching the rise of China’s international reputation.” Beijing forgets to mention that for centuries, trade was flourishing between India and Central Asia, though not through a far-away corridor, but via the Himalayan passes.
Historians rarely mention an event which had the most serious strategic consequences for India. It is the 1953 closure of the Indian consulate in Kashgar (Xinjiang), which for centuries was the main trade hub between the sub-continent and Central Asia. China’s unilateral decision to close the consulate (and the trade) should have been seen as an ominous sign by the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his colleagues. Unfortunately, it was not.
As in several other cases, the Indian Prime Minister tried to justify the Chinese diktats, without taking any retaliatory or compensatory measures or even protesting. India’s interests were lost to the ‘revolutionary changes’ there.
In December 1953, Nehru declared in Parliament: “Some major changes have taken place there [Kashgar]… But when these changes, revolutionary changes, took place there [we had to close our consulate], it is perfectly true that the Chinese Government, when they came to Tibet, told us that they intended to treat Sinkiang [Xinjiang] as a closed area.” India had traded with Central Asia and more particularly Kashgar, Yarkand or Khotan for ages. But just because ‘revolutionary changes’ had occurred in China, New Delhi accepted the end of the trade as a fait accompli, without even a discussion. At that time, the Karakoram Pass still witnessed a large numbers of caravans carrying goods from Kashmir to Central Asia and back.
In April 1954, a few months after the closure of the consulate, India did not use the opportunity of the negotiations for the Panchsheel agreement to clarify the stoppage of the Central Asian trade, and the Chinese were allowed to walk away with making a vague statement. It was Beijing’s victory.
One of the main reasons for forcing Delhi to close its consulate in Kashgar was the road that China was building across the Aksai Chin area — on Indian territory. The communists did not want any witnesses. The Government of India never acknowledged it, but it had information about the Aksai Chin road as early as 1954-55. So did the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which recently released several lakhs of historical documents.
One of communist China’s main objectives was to control the trade routes to Central Asia. Two CIA Information Reports dating from 1953, throw some light on the issue. On July 15, 1953, a note deals with “Chinese Communist Troops, West Tibet” and “Road Construction, Sinkiang to Tibet and Ladakh”. It says that in late 1952, the 2 Cavalry Regiment, commanded by one Han Tse-min, had set up his headquarters at Gartok (the main trade centre in Western Tibet). It mentions that the regiment had 800 camels and 150 men garrisoned at Rutok, in the vicinity of the Pangong lake, shared with Ladakh. The same report affirms that another PLA regiment was stationed on the Tibetan side of the Tibet-Ladakh border, near Koyul in the Indus Valley in Ladakh.
The local Chinese commander, Han Tse-min, asserted that “when these roads were completed, the Chinese Communists would close the Tibet Ladakh border to trade”. They did it a few months later, by forcing India to close its Kashgar consulate. According to the same CIA source, Han had declared that “the Chinese Communists in Sinkiang [Xinjiang] were telling the people that Ladakh belongs to Sinkiang.” The Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai wave was most likely too strong; Nehru and his colleagues (BN Mullick, the IB chief in particular) had ‘more important’ isuses to deal with than a road!
Ten days later, another CIA note detailed the trade between Ladakh and Xinjiang, giving the coordinates for each place: “The Tibetan traders who visit Leh, are from the Chang Tang area, an arid plateau region in northern Tibet [plain between Xinjiang and Tibet]."
This shows how trade was still thriving in 1953. All this ended once the Aksai Chin road became fully operational. The CIA remarked: “The only Chinese in northwestern Tibet are the Chinese Communist troops, seven or eight hundred of whom are stationed along the Tibet-Ladakh border. They first appeared in northwestern Tibet in 1951, having come from the Khotan.” Though Delhi was still pretending not to know, the Aksai Chin road was opened on October 6, 1957. A Chinese newspaper, Kuangming Jihpao, reported: “The Sinkiang-Tibet has been completed. During the past few days, a number of trucks running on the highway on a trial basis have arrived in Gartok in Tibet from Yecheng in Xinjiang [near Yarkand]. The Xinjiang-Tibet Highway… is 1179 km long, of which 915km are more than 4,000 metres above sea level; 130 km of it over 5,000 metres above sea level, with the highest point being 5,500 metres.”
The reporter spoke of “thirty heavy-duty trucks, fully loaded with road builders, maintenance equipment and fuels, running on the highway on a trial basis” heading towards Tibet.
Once the Aksai Chin road officially opened, China did not need anymore the Indian trade; Tibet and Central Asia were linked.  It should have been obvious for everyone that India’s Kashgar consulate had been closed to hide the fact that the communists were building a road on Indian soil and that China did not want India to trade with Central Asia. In recent weeks, one question has often been raised by Indian think tanks: should India participate in the new trade routes initiated by China?
Nobody dares to question the viability of President Xi Jinping’s dream of a ‘Revitalised China’ through the mammoth OBOR initiative, which would connect Asia (read China) with Europe and Africa via the ancient trading centres of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. At the same time, all the ancient trade routes between India and Central Asia remain closed, particularly between India and Tibet and Xinjiang.
The time has perhaps come for India to ask China to re-open the Consulates in Kashgar and Lhasa, then India could sincerely think of participating in the Belt and Road project.

New Highways in Xinjiang ..for Pakistani fish?

Beijing has decided to invest US $ 24.8 billion (170 bn yuan) for constructing a network of highways in Xinjiang …for improving connectivity with Pakistan. This is the official justification.
China plans to also use this huge amount (some 50% the amount of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor) to build a “trade hub by linking countries along the Silk Road Economic Belt.”
Xinjiang will further invest some US $ 1.18 bn (8.1 bn yuan) in railways construction and US $ 0.7 bn (4.8 bn yuan) in civil aviation projects. It is said to be an increase of 50 per cent compared to 2015.
Zhang Chunlin, director of the Xinjiang Development and Reform Commission stated that the region “has never seen such a huge investment in road construction.”
This investment should surpass the total funding from 2011-2015 for transportation infrastructure in the restive Uyghur-dominated region.
Zhang added that building a highway network in a region, one-sixth of China's territory, is a priority: “Without the highways, oil, coal and agricultural products of Xinjiang cannot be shipped out of the region smoothly and logistics costs will remain high.”
Zhang remarked that Beijing “sees Xinjiang, which borders countries including Kazakhstan, Pakistan and Mongolia, as a key trade centre for the economic belt.”
In the mind of Beijing’s leadership, this massive investment is also linked to the presumed ‘separatist’ activities of Uyghur leaders such as Rebiya Kadeer, as well as the presence of the Indian front nearby.

Doubtful benefits
In the meantime, The Global Times, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party reported that for the first time, the Uyghurs will be able "to eat seafood imported from Pakistan by container cars through the Khunjerab Pass in January. This successful trial is expected to improve overland trade between China and Pakistan via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which accounts for 2 percent of the overall trade between the two countries."
But are the Uyghurs eating fish?
Nobody has asked this question.
The Global Times explains that the first batch of Indian Ocean seafood shipped by container cars arrived in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region through the Khunjerab Pass on January 13, marking the first time that ­Taxkorgan Tajik Autonomous county, ­Kashgar prefecture, has received imported seafood.
The article adds: "The highway, also known as China-Pakistan Friendship Highway, which connects Xinjiang and northern Pakistan, stretches more than 1,000 kilometers across the Karakoram, Himalayas and Hindu Kush mountains."
It also admits that though the CPEC is supposed "to bring earth-shaking changes to Pakistan's economy," it has yet to do so "due to factors including lack of necessary infrastructure and low consumer demand in western China."
It gives an example: "an oil and gas pipeline in Pakistan linking the Middle East and China has not been connected, and thus the country can't get oil transit fees, ...though the Karakoram Highway is expected to boost overland trade between the two neighbors, objective factors make it hard to measure to what extent the corridor will contribute to its bilateral trade," it concludes.
It is rather a frank assessment.

Restiveness in Xinjiang
Recently, the spokesperson of the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that China ‘resolutely’ opposes the visit of Rebiya Kadeer, the Uygur leader to Taiwan and her participation ‘in any activities on the island.’
An Fengshan, spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, had mentioned earlier China’s opposition to the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s invitation Kadeer to Taiwan in March: “It is a well-known fact that Rebiya Kadeer is among the heads of the separatist 'East Turkistan' forces. …The invitation by the 'Taiwan independence' secessionist force is intended to make trouble and will certainly harm cross-Strait relations."

Restiveness of the local Muslim populations is certainly one of the reasons for the mega infrastructure, but it is also necessary for Xi’s Dream project, i.e. the new Silk Roads, particularly a better connectivity between the Mainland and Central Asia …and Pakistan.
Xinhua admits: “Currently, there is one highway linking Xinjiang and other parts of China to the east.”
Does the news agency mean the NH 219 linking Xinjiang to Tibet?

The Defence of India's border
In any case, the strengthening of the defence of the Middle Kingdom, particularly the Western Theater Command facing India, is a vital issue for Beijing.
As mentioned a few weeks ago on this blog, Beijing plans a second highway between Tibet and Xinjiang. It will link the NH 219 to the NH 315 running south of Xinjiang towards Qinghai (via the ‘nuclear’ sites in Lop Nor).
It will be a game changer, but the Indian media and the government seem to be sleeping.

Impermanence, Impermanence

As President Xi Jinping arrived in Islamabad in April 2015, he was welcomed by huge billboards in Chinese and English: the friendship between China and Pakistan was ‘higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, sweeter than honey, and stronger than steel.’
In an article published in Pakistani papers before he landed in Islamabad, Xi wrote: “This will be my first trip to Pakistan, but I feel as if I am going to visit the home of my own brother.”
He added that the bilateral relationship ‘has flourished like a tree growing tall and strong’.
It was very touching!
More prosaically, The Washington Post remarked: “Xi arrived in Islamabad bearing real gifts: an eye-popping $46 billion worth of planned energy and infrastructure investment to boost Pakistan's flagging economy. This would include adding some 10,400 megawatts to Pakistan's national grid through coal, nuclear and renewable energy projects.”
It was a Chinese Dream for Pakistan!
Beijing had decided to set up a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor which would link up Xi's pet project, the two New Silks Roads (also known as ‘One Belt, One Road’).
The ‘corridor’ was to have railways, roads, optical fiber cables, dams (to produce the necessary electricity), pipelines and was to connect the port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea through the Karakoram Highway, to the Xinjiang province of China and then Central Asia …and later Middle East, Africa and Europe.
Since then the project has been inaugurated.

Impermanence
What political observers often forget is the impermanence of all things.
In 1953, The People’s Daily published an article criticizing Pakistan and the US for the ‘too’ close relations.
It is worth reading the translation sent by the Indian Embassy in Beijing to the Ministry of External Affairs in Delhi.
Incidentally, Shalabh Kumar, the Chairman of the US Republican Hindu Coalition recently affirmed that the US President-elect Donald Trump had told him that the new administration is “not going to tolerate a dual role from India’s neighbors.”
Kumar added: “The US President-elect made that policy very, very clear, that he is not going to tolerate a dual role from India’s neighbors. You need good defense cooperation among friends, which is happening but is going to accelerate dramatically in the common fight against terrorism.”
Of course, as I said, there is no such a thing as Permanence in politics.
Buddha has defined anicca (Pali) or anitya (Sanskrit) as one of the three marks of existence: all conditioned existence, without exception, is "transient, evanescent, inconstant".
All temporal things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction.
I presume it is true in geopolitics too.

Extracts from The People’s Daily (February 12, 1953)

WHAT FOR HAS [ADMIRAL JERAULD] WRIGHT COME TO PAKISTAN

The article points out that the recent visit of the Commander of the American Flagship, Pittsburg [Admiral Jerauld Wright], to Karachi marks a further step in the chain of American attempts to induce Pakistan to join the Middle East Defence Organisation and turn into a military base. Quoting the words of the Naval Commander spoken in a press interview on board the ship and the comments of The New York Times, harping on the strategic importance of Pakistan, the article states that America regards Pakistan as a worthy target fulfilling all conditions for its aggressive designs. The article then refers to visits by Mrs. Rosenberg, Assistant Secretary for Defence, high-ranking American military officers and the Deputy Joint Chief of Staff of Turkey made in 1951-52 – all to induce Pakistan to join the Middle East bloc.
The article then refers to a report emanating from Karachi and Delhi press circles in March 1951 saying that America was trying to exploit the Kashmir dispute to persuade Pakistan to join the Middle East Defence Command. The article further states that America also tried to use Pakistan’s food shortage to force her into her camp. In December 1952, according to the article, the American Ambassador in Karachi insisted that Pakistan authorities should change their attitude on certain matters, especially on the question of Middle East Command. The article finally refers to a “Commercial Navigation Treaty” proposed by America to Pakistan in April 1951 (and which is still in a draft stage) according to which Pakistan rupee was to get most favourable exchange rate vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar, goods imported from America would enjoy equally favourably treatment with the British goods, the American investments in Pakistan would receive protection and the Visa system for American visitors to Pakistan will be abolished. The article says that this American infiltration in Pakistan is bound to be resisted by the British with all their might. Moreover, it is already meeting with growing opposition from the people and public organizations of Pakistan.

For India, CPEC is a corridor to nowhere

My article For India, CPEC is a corridor to nowhere appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer

One fails to understand why Beijing is so adamant to not re-open the Himalayan land ports between India and Tibet, while at the same time, it is ‘inviting' New Delhi to join the CPEC bandwagon


Here is the link...

The Indian media always gets excited when there is a possibility of a thaw with Pakistan. One can’t do anything about it; it is too deeply engrained in the Indian psyche to dream of a rapprochement between the two neighbours.
The latest occasion was when Pakistan’s Southern Command Commander Lt Gen Amir Riaz remarked that India should join the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and enjoy its benefits. Riaz said “New Delhi should ‘shun enmity’ with Islamabad and jointly reap the benefit of the multi-billion dollar project.”
The CPEC is a Chinese ‘dream’; when he visited Islamabad in April 2015, President Xi Jinping pledged 46 billion dollars for it.
When asked about India joining the venture, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying replied:  “I wonder whether the Indian side takes this offer made by the Pakistani general as a goodwill gesture,” before adding: “The CPEC, as an important component of China’s Belt and Road initiative, is an open initiative. …China would like to discuss the possibility of introducing a third party.”
The Global Times, the Communist Party mouthpiece further commented: “New Delhi should consider accepting the olive branch Pakistan has extended in a bid to participate in the CPEC.”
The Indian press was quick to find a great opportunity to ‘dream’.
Nobody asked why this sudden kindness and why India was suddenly invited to reap the benefits?
The answer is that it might not be such a grand scheme after all, with Islamabad facing more and more difficulty to sell the Chinese ‘gift’ at home and Beijing slowing realizing that the project is more complicated than expected, mainly due the internal situation in Pakistan.
According to The Business Recorder, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif announced that his government had raised a Special Security Division (SSD), comprising of 15,000 military and civilian armed forces for ensuring the safety of Chinese ‘brothers’ working on the CPEC.
Who will pay? Pakistan for the time being, but many in Pakistan realize that the Chinese ‘gift’ is a costly one
While welcoming Zheng Xiaosong, the Vice Minister of International Department, Shariff remarked that “the CPEC and its related projects symbolise the people-centric approach of the two countries.”
Does Islamabad really need India’s help? It seems a bad joke.
Another rationale for India’s participation is given by Li Xiguang, a professor at Tsinghua University, who told The Hindu that India and Pakistan should be establishing soft borders “rather than go for a final settlement of boundaries in Kashmir,” Li added: “this could lead to New Delhi’s rapid integration into an expanded CPEC.”
The scholar explained that the concept of ‘soft borders’ is in tune with the approach of former ‘Core’ leader Deng Xiaoping.
The commentators here tend to forget that India had ‘soft borders’ with Tibet, its northern neighbour, for centuries.
In any case, China not is ready to implement what it is preaching.
After Tibet was invaded by China in October 1950, the traditional Himalayan passes progressively closed down. An effort was done in 1954 to regulate the flow of people and goods through the 'Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet region of China and India', the infamous Panchsheel Agreement, however China was not ready to implement the letter or the spirit of the Agreement which eventually lapsed in 1962.
The question is, today why is China so adamant to not reopen the Himalayan land ports between India and Tibet, while at the same time, ‘inviting’ Delhi to join the CPEC bandwagon?
The 1954 agreement stated that “traders of both countries known to be customarily and specifically engaged in trade between Tibet Region of China and India may continue to trade.”
Though a number of trade marts were named, as China increased its physical grip on the plateau, the trade progressively became thinner, more complicated, the Chinese authorities started harassing the Indian traders and finally in 1962, the trade exchanges completely stopped.
The entire Himalayan belt from the Kararoram Pass to eastern Arunachal had lived for centuries from the trade with Tibet. Why does Beijing never mention this?
As the result of the 1962 border war and the non-renewal of the Agreement earlier in the year, exchanges between Tibet and India came to an end.
It is only after the visit of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to China in December 1988 that a ‘Protocol for Resumption of Border Trade’ was signed.
It was followed by an accord for the ‘Resumption of Border Trade’ in 1991; in 1992, trade through Lipulekh Pass in the Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand was reopened on a small scale; and in 1993, a protocol to reopen Shipki-la in Himachal was signed. But trade never picked up due to the lack of interests of the Chinese authorities and the restricted list of tradable goods; further the agreements did not include pilgrims.
In July 2006, Nathu-la in Sikkim was added to the two other passes; it is today doing much better than the two others.
It is true that in 1954, despite the nice preamble (The Five Principles), the two delegations were miles apart, a story shows how already at that time there was little trust between India and China. In the Hindi version of the Agreement, the Indian translators had written chhota mota vyapar for ‘petty trade’. The Chinese Hindi expert could not reconcile chhota and mota, apparently two contradictory words. It took two weeks to convince the Chinese that the term chhota mota vyapar meant ‘petty trade’.
Today, while Beijing speaks of ‘soft borders’, it is tightening its grip on the Himalaya: a new ‘Border Resident New Identity Card’ (BRNIC) for people living near the Indian borders (as well as on the frontiers of Korea and Nepal) has been introduced.
Though the Chinese Public Security Bureau (Police) said that the BRNIC can be obtained online, its introduction will strengthen the Chinese control over the Himalaya border.
It is not only the goods which should circulate more freely, it is persons too. It was a good surprise when the concept of ‘open border’ received the unexpected support from the J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti last week; she declared: “I am in favour of opening of more routes. I strongly favour starting of Kailash Manasarovar Yatra through Leh so that the area gets a tourist and economic boost.”
Nawang Rigzin Jora, the Leh MLA admitted that it is China which blocks the issue: “[China] may have their own reasons,” however he noted: “the safest route [to the Kailash via Demchok] is through Leh. You can fly to Leh, take one or two days to acclimatize and then drive up to Kailash Mansarovar.”
Indeed, Demchok should be reopened soon.
It is up to Delhi to strongly pressurize Beijing on this sensitive acupuncture point; for India, it make more sense than joining a Corridor in Pakistan (and Occupied Kashmir).

Beijing cannot ignore Indian concerns now

My article Beijing cannot ignore Indian concerns now appeared in in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...

In the brouhaha created by Trump’s victory and Modi’s coup against black money, what the media missed was Xi Jinping’s Special Envoy Meng’s visit to India, wherein New Delhi conveyed an important message to Beijing

In the brouhaha created by the election of Donald Trump as President of the US and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s grand master coup against black money, an event of great international importance was missed by the Indian Press. Meng Jianzhu, Secretary of the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China (CPC) visited Delhi and met Prime Minister Modi and Home Minister Rajnath Singh.
Meng is not an ordinary official; he is a member of the CPC’s all-powerful Politburo. He replaced the disgraced Zhou Yongkang, the biggest tiger to fall in President Xi Jinping’s net in the latter’s fight against corruption and as such responsible for the ‘security’ and intelligence in the Middle Kingdom.
What was Meng here for? Probably two things: Beijing was nervous about Modi’s visit to Japan (two days later), and the China Pakistan Economic Corridor  (CPEC) is not progressing as smoothly as envisaged (though a first Trade Convoy reached the port of Gwadar on November 12). India had a message to convey too: The nation is tired of ‘Made in Pakistan’ terrorism. In these circumstances, can India and China find an understanding?
After Modi’s meeting with Meng, a Press release from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)  asserted: “The Prime Minister welcomed the intensive exchange of high-level visits between India and China over the last two years.” Nothing new or special in this!
Though Modi ‘fondly’ recalled his visit to China in May 2015, as well as his trip to Hangzhou in September 2016, to attend the G-20 summit, the PMO communiqué remained vague: “The two leaders discussed issues of mutual interest, including bilateral counter-terrorism cooperation.” The Prime Minister pointed out that “terrorism poses the gravest threat to international peace and security, and welcomed increased cooperation between India and China on counter-terrorism related matters.”
Before Meng Jianzhu’s arrival, the Indian establishment was caught in ‘a piquant protocol situation’: strictly speaking, Meng has no ‘counterpart’ in the Indian Government. Meng is said to be far senior to the Chinese Home Minister and in a way to India’s National Security Advisor. The Government finally opted for a meeting with Singh, the number two in the Indian Cabinet.
During his encounter with Meng, Singh appealed to Beijing “to support the international community’s efforts to designate Masood Azhar, the leader of the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), as a terrorist under the UN Resolution 1267.”
Singh reminded his interlocutor that Pakistan was patronising and financing terrorist groups, including Masood Azhar, Lashkar-e-Tayeeba and Hizbul Mujahideen. Their leaders still roam around freely in Pakistan; Meng was probably shown proofs.
Singh also argued that there is no good or bad terrorist: Terrorism can’t be one country’s problem alone, it is a threat to global peace and security. It had to be dealt globally…by China too!
The Home Minister mentioned the case of the ULFA leader Paresh Barua as well as the arrest of a Pakistani national in Guangzhou with fake Indian currency; Meng was asked to “clamp down on Pakistan’s nefarious designs to smuggle fake Indian currency into India through China.”
The Minister suggested that India and China should soon conclude negotiations on a bilateral Agreement on Security Cooperation; it would include tackling transnational and cyber crimes. Meng’s reactions are not known, though he is sure to have complained about the Dalai Lama’s forthcoming visit to Tawang and the ‘splittist’ activities of the Tibetan refugees in India.
We don’t know if the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, passing through Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) and if the recent developments on the border in Ladakh were discussed. Incidentally, a couple of days before Meng’s arrival, the Indian Army and the ITBP showed for the first time a great firmness when some PLA troops tried to stop an irrigation project in Demchok, a border village on the Indus river.
Meng who was announced as Xi’s Special Envoy, had not come to Delhi just to hear a lecture from the Home Minister or the Prime Minister. Especially as the meetings took place just before Modi left for Japan for a crucial visit (to sign a civil nuclear deal), Meng is bound to have aired Beijing’s concerns.
Can India and China collaborate in the field of counter-terrorism? At the end of September, a ‘dialogue’ had already started in Beijing where a meeting, jointly chaired by Wang Yongqing, the Secretary General of the Commission for Political and Legal Affairs and RN Ravi, chairman of India’s Joint Intelligence Committee, took place. At that time, India and China agreed to work together ‘on counter-terrorism and security’.
The Global Times reported: “The two sides …reached consensus on measures to strengthen cooperation and to jointly deal with security threats.”
In Beijing, Ravi also met Meng Jianzhu who told him that “terrorism is a common enemy of the global community.” Meng asserted that “strengthened counter-terrorism cooperation between China and India is conducive to the interests of the people of both countries.”
According to The Global Times, Meng voiced the hope that the two sides could start some counter-terrorism collaboration in order to protect regional security. Where is Pakistan in this new ‘dialogue’?
Was it a coincidence, but as Meng arrived in Delhi, India and China were holding their 8th meeting of China-India Defence and Security Consultation. China was represented by a PLA rising star, Sun Jianguo, Deputy Chief of the Joint Staff Department (and informal head of China’s intelligence and military diplomacy).
Sun made the routine declaration “both countries have maintained frequent exchanges of visits and reached consensus on the development of bilateral ties in recent years.” He added: “The Chinese military is willing to join hands with India Army to maintain the exchanges on border defence, improve the mechanism of communication and strengthen border management and control so as to safeguard peace and stability in their border areas.”
Kumar was not very explicit too, “exchanges of visits and interactions between Chinese and Indian leaders have promoted the India-China strategic partnership of cooperation, which has also contributed to the common prosperity of the two countries as well as the world peace and development.”
Though little transpired during these two important visits (especially Meng’s), the future of the CPEC and its all-weather friend must have received a lot of attention. For mega projects such as the CPEC, China certainly can’t ignore India which has its own stakes in PoK. India’s closer relations with Japan and the new US President are bound to have come up too during the talks.
Asia seems in a flux, with new realignments in the offing; this makes China nervous. The time has come for Beijing to take into account Delhi’s security concerns.

To save CPEC, China must act on terrorism

My article To save CPEC, China must act on terrorism appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.


Here is the link...

For the time being, China has stood by Islamabad. But for how long can it do so? Can Beijing support terrorist activities of non-state actors in Pakistan? It cannot afford it. The price would be too high
China teaches its defence forces that, apart from conventional fighting, there are three warfares — psychological, legal and public opinion warfares, which needs to be judiciously used. Beijing has recently extensively used ‘public opinion’ to scare India.
For example, the Indian Press reported: “China has blocked the flow of an important tributary of Brahmaputra river to construct its most expensive dam in Tibet at a location very close to Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh.”
Though the announcement was linked to India’s decision to review the use of water under the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, the proposed dam is far away from Arunachal Pradesh. An Indian agency admitted: “Xinhua article might be intended to only give India a scare…as diversion of Brahmaputra waters remains an emotive, volatile issue in India’s North-East.”
The fact that the Lalho project is located near Shigatse, several hundred kilometers from the border in Arunachal Pradesh and that the power station will have a relatively low generation capacity of 42 megawatts only, was ignored. On the environmental website, The Third Pole, a vigilant journalist rectified the Chinese ‘scare propaganda’; Joydeep Gupta wrote: “The unease in India is due to the fear that the project will reduce the flow of water in the Brahmaputra. …The far bigger problem with the Lalho project is that it will more or less dry up a long stretch of the Shiabu chu (river) in an area that is already suffering from rapid desertification.”
In other words, Tibet/China will suffer first. Another propaganda coup which worked was the appearance of China’s first stealth fighter, the J-20, in Daocheng Yading Airport in Gartse Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture; at 4,411 m above sea level, it is the world’s highest civilian airport.
The Indian Press reported, “China’s top secret stealth fighter spotted in Tibet days after it warned India”. The airport is not in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, as stated by the Indian media, but in Sichuan Province.
The image of the stealth fighter, which appeared on Twitter and some Chinese defence websites a few days after India deployed the supersonic BrahMos missiles in the Himalaya, was a warning for India, though the image of the J-20 which shows the fighter covered with a tarpaulin, is not a proof that the plane can operate at such altitude. In any case, it can’t carry armament on the plateau. That was not the purpose, China just wanted to warn the Indian ‘public opinion’. It worked.
Apart from this, the Chinese reactions to Uri attack and India’s surgical strikes inside Pakistan have been rather cautious, though according to The Dawn: “China has assured Pakistan of its support in the event of any foreign aggression and also supported Pakistan’s stance on the Kashmir dispute.”
The message was apparently conveyed during a meeting between with Punjab Chief Minister Shehbaz Sharif and a senior Chinese diplomat. The Chinese Consul General of China in Lahore Yu Boren stated: “In case of any foreign aggression our country will extend its full support to Pakistan. We are and will be siding with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. There is no justification for atrocities on unarmed Kashmiris in India-held-Kashmir and the Kashmir dispute should be solved in accordance with aspirations of the Kashmiris.”
It is ironic that a nation which has never accepted a democratic process, can speak of the aspirations of the people. After the surgical strikes, Beijing has remained rather mum.
Let us remember for a moment the mega China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a crucial element of the One Belt, One Road (OBOR), the Chinese dream which could be a game-changer … if it happens.
The architects of CPEC plan to build a 2,700-kilometre corridor stretching from Kashgar to Gwadar, which will link Central Asia (via Xinjiang) to Europe and Africa (via the maritime route). Unfortunately, for China, the corridor crosses Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, a plaque tournante for controlling Central Asia and Middle East. Observers marvelled at Beijing kindness (and wealth), though Chinese generosity may first and foremost benefit Beijing!
Now, suppose the project becomes ‘unstable’ due to terrorism (presently localised in Pakistan, but which can be easily exported to Xinjiang)? Add to this India’s military options, such as the recent Indian strikes, and the cost of the project will tremendously shoot up.  This does not amuse Beijing.
On August 28, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif asserted that the CPEC is a ‘game-changer’ for Pakistan; it would help bring prosperity to the entire region.
According to Pakistan Today, Sharif affirmed: “The CPEC is not merely a strategic decision but the culmination of 10 years of brotherhood and cooperation between China and Pakistan” before concluding: “Our relations with China are of the utmost importance.”
For the time being, China bravely stands by Islamabad, but for how long? Beijing recently extended its veto on India’s move to blacklist Masood Azhar at the UN. The Chinese Government announced that “Its technical hold on India’s move to get Pakistan-based  Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar designated a terrorist by the UN has been extended.”
But can Beijing support terrorist activities of non-state actors in Pakistan? The answer is ‘no’, Beijing can’t afford it. The price would be high. Xinhua may repeat the argument of the Pakistan Army that India’s strikes were mirages; it may quote the Pakistani Army’s spokesman: “The notion of surgical strikes linked to alleged terrorists’ bases is an illusion being deliberately generated by India to create false effects”; the fact remains that the Chinese are no fools; they are aware of the situation in Pakistan and the danger for their workers involved in CPEC and the possibility of terror spreading in Xinjiang. An important element has, however, been missed by the Indian Press. On September 27, Indian and China held their first dialogue on counter-terrorism and security.
Xinhua said: “The two sides exchanged opinions on the international and regional security situation and their respective anti-terrorism systems, mechanisms and legislation. They also reached consensus on measures to strengthen cooperation and to jointly deal with security threats, according to a document issued after the meeting.”
The dialogue was jointly chaired by Wang Yongqing, secretary-general of the Commission for Political and Legal Affairs and RN  Ravi, chairman of Joint Intelligence Committee. Ravi also held talks with Meng Jianzhu, a key member of the Politburo and ‘security star’ who stepped into the shoes of the disgraced Zhou Yongkang, China’s most powerful man before his fall.
According to Xinhua, Meng told Ravi, “Terrorism is a common enemy of the global community”, adding that “strengthened counter-terrorism cooperation between China and India was conducive to the interests of the people of both countries”. Let’s hope that China understands it may lose its stakes in the CPEC, should it decide to continue playing the card of its all-weather friend. Meanwhile, ‘public opinion’ warfare will continue.

It’s in China’s interest to realise Indian concern

Joint exercises between China and Pakistan in POK (Khunjerab)

My article It’s in China’s interest to realise Indian concern appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer


Here is the link...

One Belt One Road is a great initiative, but it’s not an easy one. What looks like a masterstroke on paper, will turn into a nightmare for both China and Pakistan if India is not brought on board

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 Summit in Hangzhou in China, he is believed to have raised the topics of terrorism originating in Pakistan as well as the mega China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. Modi told Xi that New Delhi and Beijing must be sensitive to each other’s ‘strategic concerns’, which include terrorism from Pakistan, the CPEC crossing through Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) and India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Though Foreign Ministry spokesperson Vikas Swarup did not confirm if Modi raised the NSG issue: “I am not going into specifics, but if you read between the lines, you can pretty well understand that when we talk of strategic interests and aspirations,” he said that the Indian Prime Minister advocated that “to ensure durable bilateral ties, and steady development, it is of paramount importance that we respect each other’s aspirations, concerns and strategic interests.”
When in 2013, President Xi first spoke of a project “envisioning a trade and infrastructure network that would connect Asia with Europe and Africa along the ancient land and sea routes,” very few realised that the One Belt One Road (OBOR) ‘initiative’ had many similarities with the 19th century’s great game. At that time, the OBOR’s declared objective was to increase connectivity between Europe, Asia and Africa. However, a simple look at a map shows that practically, India is left out of the scheme while the creation of several economic corridors mainly benefited China.
Steve Levine wrote in Quartz magazine that the infrastructure that the British built everywhere during the 19th century “enabled their power like bones and veins in a body. …Great nations have done this since Rome paved 55,000 miles (89,000 km) of roads and aqueducts in Europe. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Russia and the US established their own imprint, skewering and taming nearby territories… Now it’s the turn of the Chinese.”
The OBOR is an essential part of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the ‘Chinese Dream’, often described by Xi.  President Xi can say that the OBOR “will serve the long-term interests of all countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative,” but trade and geopolitical control have always worked hand in hand.
Chinese experts say that the project can benefit 4.4 billion people in more than 60 countries, or 63 per cent of the global population …if everyone agrees to participate, which is far from being the case. For Pakistan, the CPEC, a crucial constituent of the OBOR, can be a game changer … if it happens.
The architects of CPEC are aware that PoK is the plaque tournante for controlling the Belt and the Route; the 2,700-kilometre corridor stretching from Kashgar to Gwadar will link two worlds: Central Asia (via Xinjiang) in the north and Europe and Africa (via the maritime route) in the south.
In April 2015, when Xi arrived in Islamabad, he brought with him a munificent gift for Pakistan: An eye-popping $46 billion worth of planned energy and infrastructure investment to boost Pakistan’s flagging economy. This included 10,400 megawatts to Pakistan’s national grid through coal, nuclear and renewable energy projects. It sounded like a Chinese Dream for Islamabad!
The Corridor will have railways, roads, optical fiber cables, dams, pipelines, you name it! Observers marveled at Beijing kindness (and wealth), though Chinese generosity may first and foremost benefit Beijing! But as the project crosses Indian territory in PoK, it is unacceptable for India, which has no say in the ‘initiative’. Delhi could not pretend that nothing is happening and forget about the legality of the accession of Jammu & Kashmir State to India in 1947.
On August 28, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif asserted that the CPEC would help bring prosperity to the entire region (read Pakistan). Sharif, who was addressing the inaugural session of the CPEC Summit in Islamabad, remarked that “the economic corridor project is the most important economic initiative for South Asia in the 21st century.”
According to Pakistan Today, he affirmed: “The CPEC is not merely a strategic decision but the culmination of 10 years of brotherhood and cooperation between China and Pakistan” before concluding: “Our relations with China are of the utmost importance.”
Incidentally, it appears that the Pakistan’s Cabinet has recently approved a long-term defence agreement with China. The Express Tribune reported that the approval was given by Sharif on July 15 after his return from London. The Cabinet would have agreed to a summary draft agreement to enhance defence and security cooperation with China in several fields.
On August 15, Modi’s speech touched a raw nerve in Islamabad and Beijing. On the previous day, Pakistan’s Independence Day, Sharif had dedicated his country’s independence to the ‘freedom of Kashmir from Indian rule’. During the previous weeks, Pakistan had been racking up the Kashmir issue on the world scene.
For the past few months, while India is tired of Beijing’s ‘neutral’ stance on Kashmir, China has been unhappy with India’s lukewarm attitude towards the OBOP and the CPEC. The situation has got worse after the August 15 speech. Liu Zongyi, a senior fellow of Shanghai Institutes for International Studies commented in The Global Times “India’s political goals hinder cooperation with China on the OBOR"”
After quoting former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon who would have expressed ‘support and interest’ to the initiative, the author says: “the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi changed India’s attitude toward the project after he came into power.”
Hu Shisheng, the director of the Institute of South and Southeast Asian and Oceanian Studies said in an interview that China will have ‘to get involved’ if any Indian ‘plot’ disrupts the CPEC in restive Balochistan, the influential Chinese think-tank warned India. This is a serious threat. The presence of General Raheel Sharif, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS) was in Urumqi, Xinjiang to discuss military relations, bilateral security cooperation for the CPEC, raised further the suspicion.
Saeed Shah wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “Can you image that a Pakistani brigade of 2,000 soldiers has to guard Chinese workers in Gwadar from the threat of jihadists and separatists, reflecting the challenge of turning this remote fishing town into the hub of an economic corridor between the two nations.”
It is a great, but not easy game. What looked like a masterstroke on paper could turn into a nightmare for both China and Pakistan unless India is taken on board. But how can Pakistan continue to fuel unrest in the valley (with the silent consent of China) and simultaneously get Delhi’s blessings for such a gigantic project? Today China and Pakistan are gambling. China has to understand India’s concern; ultimately it is in the interests of the Middle Kingdom.

Pictures of joint Sino-Pakistani exercises in PoK