Via Soj comes a news report about China’s Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visit to Pakistan. A treaty of friendship and cooperation was signed and someone dropped a geopolitical bomb:
Briefing newsmen about official talks, Pakistan Ambassador to China Salman Bashir said the ’most important’ aspect of the talks were the "clear and unambiguous, categorical assurance by China to defend Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity".
Clear, unambiguous, categorical assurance is exactly what one likes to have when there is some geopolitical game going on - and it is extremely strong diplomatic language.
Why is Pakistan turning its back to the United States and falling into China’s arms?
The area of interest is Baluchistan in the south west corner of Pakistan. A huge mountainous underdeveloped plateau with only some 7.5 million tribal inhabitants, the Baluch.
There has always been trouble between Pakistan and the proud Baluch, a small people also living in southern Afghanistan and eastern Iran. But now issues are heating up again.
There are several parties who have strategic interests in Baluchistan.
The United States is still dreaming of a gas pipeline from the Turkmenistan south through Afghanistan and Baluchistan to the Arabian see. Long term troop stationing in landlocked Afghanistan will also demand a safe line of communication to a seaport.
India wants a gas pipeline from Iran eastward through Baluchistan to Delhi.
But the biggest interest in Baluchistan is Chinese. All sea traffic from the Middle Easter resource fields and East Africa to China now has to go through the Malacca Strait and also pass India and the Philippines. Strategically it is a nightmare to keep this route open in case of a hot or cold global conflict.
China has therefore invested $420 million into developing a deep sea harbor at Gawadar in Baluchistan. A second investment phase of $600 million is planed. From Gawadar land transport routes lead up in north eastern direction to the Chinese-Pakistan boarder. To protect the new harbor Pakistan will even get four modern Chinese frigates.
For Pakistan these plans are all positive. Being the transport hub for neighbor countries pays off financially and adverts conflicts as it creates common interests.
But the strategic interest of the U.S. does differ from Pakistan’s. A completely U.S. controlled Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Baluchistan pipeline would be nice. To advert an Iran-Baluchistan-India pipeline would help U.S. interests against Iran and to deny China access to the Arabian sea checks the upcoming competitor. (As does keeping a hand on Unacol)
For about a year now Baluchistan is heating up again. There have been protests, bombs exploding and pipeline attacks. A low level guerrilla war has started even while the Pakistan government is pushing money into the region and develops the water infrastructure.
One wonders who or what might feed this guerrilla war. Who could have an interest in an independent, small, sparse inhabited Baluchistan?
Pakistan was just allowed to buy 24 F16 fighters and the media displayed this as an example of Pakistan-American partnership. But this decision was probably made more in the interest of 5,000 Lockheed voters in Ft. Worth, Texas, who would have been fired without this deal.
A small tribal guerrilla war, supported by a few secret special forces and some Dollars could easily escalate and lead into an independence movement in Baluchistan which would be hard to overcome by military means. Pakistan’s President Musharraf will have recognized the possibilities and has decided to go with China.
I now expect a "Free Baluchistan Act" to be on next years congressional agenda.
Posted by Bernhard on April 6, 2005 at 12:17 PM | Permalink
Comments
2 things:
"Who could have an interest in an independent, small sparce inhabitated Baluchistan?"
Would this be of interest to Al-Qaeda? I should check if Baluch are Sunnis, of course. And having a vast underpopulated country as haven may have its drawbacks as well as advantages.
"Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity"
What about Kashmir? Did China precise to Musharraf what it exactly included in Pakistan’s territory? Because if it’s a loose and large definition of Pakistan, it could mean China is still considering India as a major opponent and would be a target of this alliance just as much as Iran or the US - coincidentally, this would also mean a stronger link between US and India, strategically.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | April 6, 2005 12:33 PM | #
CL - AlQaeda
The Baluch are Sunni as far as I could find out but said to keep religion private and are not extremists. AlQueda’s interest is in Saudi Arabia, not a piece of sparse mountains. For training their troops Iraq looks like a perfect training ground.
Kashmir will not be solved through arms. Since the last time clashes between Pakistan and India were near to going nuclear, both sides have tuned down and seem to work on better relations. China itself has occupied the northern part of Kashmir so there is some interest there, but I do see no reason for them to take on India or vice versa. They will have settled the issue before as Jintao was in India too and the relations looked friendly.
Posted by: b | April 6, 2005 12:59 PM | #
Didn’t Jerome tell us that there was no way a pipeline would be built in Afghanistan?
Totally agree on the F16 deal. As events unfold I remember Michael Moore sort of laying a lot of blame on Lockheed in his film "Bowling for Columbine"
Nice find Bernhard.
Posted by: Dan of Steele | April 6, 2005 01:31 PM | #
From freeindiamedia.com : Rice attempts to derail India’s oil
On Wednesday, March 16, two interesting events unfolded almost simultaneously in New Delhi. US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice on her whistle-stop tour to India made the concerns of the Bush administration very vocal: That the US is uncomfortable at the prospect of a $4 billion gas pipeline bridging the economies of Iran and India. Instead, she suggested she would be happy to provide superior technologies and even nuclear power, one of the most expensive energy alternatives, to India.
Meanwhile, in another forum, petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar spoke about India’s growing energy concerns. He pointed out that just as we are aware of US sensitivities when it comes to Iran, Washington should acknowledge our energy needs. He has been expressing this view ever since US concerns over the pipeline became public in India about a month ago. Rice came, raised her eyebrows. We listened, but politely trashed her views.
Tehran’s nuclear programme is the latest pet peeve of the Bush regime. From that point of view, Rice’s propaganda to renege all ties with Iran was hardly surprising. Much to the disappointment of conspiracy theorists in the external affairs ministry or hacks who sought to make the pipeline a pipe dream, the Iran pipeline is alive and kicking. But as Aiyar said, the roadblocks will conti-nue in the days to come. Only commercial, and not diplomatic, reasons can scuttle the project.
...
Posted by: Fran | April 6, 2005 01:48 PM | #
Good analysis B, I linked it over at TII.
When do the ground troops get engaged to cover this vast oil rich region?
Posted by: Friendly Fire | April 6, 2005 03:28 PM | #
16 killed in Afghanistan copter crash
Sixteen people were killed Wednesday when a coalition helicopter traveling in "severe weather" crashed in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said.
Eighteen people, including crew and passengers, were listed on the flight manifest. Two people remain unaccounted for. Why does CNN writes "people" when it is obvious from the rest of the reporting that these were GIs?
And was this "severe waether" a storm of Stinger rockets?
Posted by: b | April 6, 2005 04:14 PM | #
I confirm again that the Afghan pipe will not happen...
Even the US Dept. of Energy does not really believe it:
Due to its location between the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Basin and the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan has long been mentioned as a potential pipeline route, though in the near term, several obstacles will likely prevent Afghanistan from becoming an energy transit corridor. During the mid-1990s, Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad-Donmez gas basin via Afghanistan to Pakistan, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998. The Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) plan, with periodic talks held between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan on the issue, but little progress appears to have been made as of early June 2004 (despite the signature on December 9, 2003, of a protocol on the pipeline by the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan). President Karzai has stated his belief that the project could generate $100-$300 million per year in transit fees for Afghanistan, while creating thousands of jobs in the country.
Given the obstacles to development of a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan, it seems unlikely that such an idea will make any progress in the near future, and no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the project. The security situation in Afghanistan remains an obvious problem, while tensions between India and Pakistan make it unlikely that such a pipeline could be extended into India and its large (and growing) gas market. Financial problems in the utility sector in India, which would be the major consumer of the natural gas, also could pose a problem for construction of the TAP line. Finally, the pipeline’s $2.5-$3.5 billion estimated cost poses a significant obstacle to its construction.
See the two recent related posts over at Booman Tribune:
Our New Ambassador to Iraq: the Oil Viceroy
Pakistan approaches boiling point
Posted by: Jérôme | April 6, 2005 05:55 PM | #
b
if they cannot even call gi’s bt their real name - it is no wonder they are completely unconcerned at iraqi deaths
that is of course - unless they are american mercenaries hanging from bridges
Posted by: remembereringgiap | April 6, 2005 06:07 PM | #
Jérôme - imagine 10 years from now. A "pacified" Afghanistan, an "independent" Balucistan and a gas liquification facility in Gawadar. The US would love this.
Even if may not happen, sitting on a pipeline route from Iran to India or to China is a sufficient incentive for spending some $$$.
Posted by: b | April 6, 2005 06:09 PM | #
b - 2 things
1) The Turkmens will not commit at any date to deliver gas for 20 years, starting 4 years from the date of signing, at a pre-agreed price (which is what is required before anyone will put a cent in a liquefaction plant or a pipe), when Russian can give them 5% more - right way, to take the gas in the existing - and half empty - pipe to Russia.
2) Banks will not finance it.
Posted by: Jérôme | April 6, 2005 06:24 PM | #
Re: Al-Qaeda
Found this old article by Pepe Escobar about Al-Qaedas ultimate goals. Expert:
To understand bin Laden’s long-term view, it’s essential to consider his Four Pillars of jihad: 1) The Arab peninsula, with all its oil wealth, and most of all, Islam’s two most sacred sites - Mecca and Medina. 2) The Indus Valley, which means basically Pakistan - a technology-savvy nuclear state with an Islamic army permeated by fervent Islamists. 3) Egypt, the heart of the Muslim world, where he can draw support from Gamaa Islamiya, the organization founded by al-Qaeda’s brain, Ayman al-Zawahiri, alias "The Surgeon". 4) This is the trickiest pillar: we could call it the Iranian Islamic counter-revolution, which bin Laden thinks will develop when his own Sunni Islamic revolution will be a superpower and Iranian Shi’ites will be forced to adhere to it.
I agree AQ are focusing on Saudi Arabia, but such a decentralized organisation can act on many places at the same time as long as local franchisers bear the most of the burden. On the other hand breaking up Pakistan looks kind of stupid from AQ:s point of view, then again if that is what the local franchisers want...
Posted by: A swedish kind of death | April 6, 2005 08:27 PM | #
What I meant was that local franchisers might have convinced the center that a war in Baluchistan might be the way to take over Pakistan. How such an argument would be made depends on a lot of Pakistani politics I know next to nothing about.
Posted by: A swedish kind of death | April 6, 2005 08:39 PM | #
Cartoon
Posted by: Fran | April 7, 2005 12:07 AM | #
hehehe...great ’toon, fran!
Posted by: lenin’s ghost | April 7, 2005 03:17 AM | #
Some thought from Asia Times on India/Pakistan/China/US India talks up axis against China - the article is more undecided on what is happening than the headline suggests.
Posted by: b | April 7, 2005 09:56 AM | #
1. Your map of Baluchistan should definitely include southern Afghanistan. Here is the old CIA map.
2. "territorial integrity" is the status quo. Every US ally in the region of Iraq has declared its allegiance to the Colonial Powers arbitrary (and often hostile) division of the non-European world. Lebanon and Syria were divided by the US. For roughly 400 years they had been 3 or 4 Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire.
3. The Free Baluch movement peaked in the 1960s, are there real signs it will emerge again? There is an interesting read by DS Richards called "The Savage Fronteir" on the Anglo-Afghan Wars. Parts near the end deal with the Baluch movement. It’s a boring book, in general, written as a sort of campaign history, but it still provides interesting bits.
4. Both the Taliban and al-Qaeda were far more in sync with the Pashto of Afghanistan, but any rebel might make common cause. Facing facts, the Baloch are the most prevalent in the Northwest Frontier Province, and that’s often alleged where UBL might be.
Posted by: Josh Narins | April 7, 2005 10:53 AM | #
On #4, looks like it *is* more Pashto in NW Fronteir Province, sorry for that.
Posted by: Josh Narins | April 7, 2005 10:57 AM | #
Absolutely not. This article is total speculation and it shows from the conditional wording that Bernhard has to use: "could", "probably", "expect" for the eventuality that it’s all wrong.
Who could have an interest in an independent, small, sparse inhabited Baluchistan?
"Cui bono?" questions are speculative and prove nothing. They are only useful for the first phase of a brainstorming ( during which new ideas are not criticized). My answer would by that the highest stake ... have the Baluchs themselves.
... allowed to buy 24 F16 fighters ... decision was probably [so you are not sure?] made more in the interest of 5,000 Lockheed voters in Texas.
Texas is not a swing state and is safely pro-Bush. 5,000 voters won’t change it. Furthermore, if the goal was the job security for the workers, there are other, simpler ways (Pentagon budget), which do not endanger national security, as supplying potential enemies does.
A small tribal guerrilla war, supported by a few secret special forces [what if they got caught?] and some Dollars could [speculation again] easily escalate and lead into an independence movement in Baluchistan which would be hard to overcome by military means.
I wonder how:
Total population of Pakistan: 160 million
Population of Baluchs: 5.6 - 7.5 million
Pakistan’s President Musharraf will have recognized the possibilities and has decided to go with China.
And exactly how would "four modern Chinese frigates" help against land based guerillas? In fact, THE F-16’S would be a much better weapon against them. Why would the US supply weapons that can be used against an insurgency that it is allegedly supporting?
And those "Gawadar land transport routes to the Chinese-Pakistan border" are incredibly long and lead through mountains. Compared to a sea route, only a small volume can be transported on that way, certainly not the amount of oil that China would want from the Middle East.
I now expect a "Free Baluchistan Act"
speculation again ( or have you seen any news that the Congress wants to? )
You have also to consider, that Karzai in Afghanistan would immediately fall, if the Pakistani ISI (secret services) were to decide he has to go. The ISI created the Taliban in the 80-90’s and also told them to give up and go hiding in 2001. So if the US gained Baluchistan, it would loose Afghanistan. There goes the pipeline dream.
Posted by: MarcinGomulka | April 8, 2005 09:51 AM | #
@MarcinGomulka -
Sure it is speculative, that’s why I do used qualifiers. But it is a serious possibility and therby I do not understand your tone.
MG: Texas is not a swing state and is safely pro-Bush. 5,000 voters won’t change it. Furthermore, if the goal was the job security for the workers, there are other, simpler ways (Pentagon budget), which do not endanger national security, as supplying potential enemies does.
Others think as I described: WaPO Pakistan’s Order Lifts Lockheed F-16 Plant
The Bush administration’s decision to sell F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan is likely to be as warmly greeted in Fort Worth as it is in Karachi.
That’s because Lockheed Martin Corp. has said it needs new orders for the jet before this fall, or it will have to take action to close the production line there that employs about 5,000 workers.
...
Aboulafia recalled that Lockheed’s production of the popular plane was "saved" in 1992 when the administration of President George H.W. Bush announced the sale of 150 F-16s to Taiwan.
MGI wonder how:
Total population of Pakistan: 160 million
Population of Baluchs: 5.6 - 7.5 million
Because is has worked before: Baluchistan province conflict flares up
In three attacks over three consecutive days, rockets and small arms fire have damaged gas pipelines, electricity supply installations, and public and private property.
...
Gas supplies have been disrupted throughout Pakistan.
...
But it will be a big mistake if the military begin an all-out military campaign against the insurgency in Balochistan. The results of previous misadventures for military was disastrous in 1948, 1958-62,1963-69 and 1973-77. On all four occasions the military failed to quell the rebellion of the different ethnic groups in Balochistan. It will not be easy to fight against Baluch guerrillas fighting on their home soil and as they have the support of local people. An all-out war against guerrillas can create very dangerous situation for Musharraf and his political machine.
MG: And exactly how would "four modern Chinese frigates" help against land based guerillas? In fact, THE F-16’S would be a much better weapon against them. Why would the US supply weapons that can be used against an insurgency that it is allegedly supporting?
How do F16 help against land based guerillia. Do they work in Iraq?
BTW. China and Pakistan are jointly building fighter plans and tanks (and nukes) and as I cited they do have a pact on supporting eithers "territorial integrity". The frigates are to defend the shipping of oil from ME to Gawadar.
MG: And those "Gawadar land transport routes to the Chinese-Pakistan border" are incredibly long and lead through mountains. Compared to a sea route, only a small volume can be transported on that way, certainly not the amount of oil that China would want from the Middle East.
The Gawadar project includes a railway project that will be sufficient for the start. The alternative sea routes are just to easy to block.
Guardian Piece on US and India relations
Posted by: b | April 8, 2005 02:29 PM | #
I expect a "Free Baluchistan Act" to be on next years congressional agenda.
This sentence can only mean that you give this event a high probability. I do the opposite.
I simply see that formenting separatist violence in your present ally’s country would be insane. Selling him planes at the same time would be even more insane. Taking into account that aiding separatists is a ’casus belli’ and Pakistan has nukes makes it totally insane.
YOU should have something more than the (true) fact that China and Pakistan are cooperating on military issues before you start speculating.
Posted by: MarcinGomulka | April 9, 2005 07:55 AM | #
If USA goes on interfering all countries’ interior and exterior subjects then very soon(believe me "soon" means really soon)USA will just have England and some EU countries as its friend.It has already lost Turkey,which has been really a good friend-real friend for USA for more than 50 years.Yes,the government is still having good relations with USA but most of the Turks hate USA and mainly CORC DABILYU BUŞ(GEORGE W BUSH).I am sure Pakistan, and many others follow Turkey.USA and EU continuously divide countries and unite as different countries and they call this GLOBALISATION.Sorry but F..K GLOBALISATION if it means that I will loose my country,I will become enemies with my people to whom we have been living for more than 1000(one thousand,Americans may not imagine one thousand as they are less than 300 years old)years on the same lands.I believe 3rd WORLD WAR is at the door and this time it will be a war against BARBAR IMPERIALIST COUNTRIES and NATIONAL COUNTRIES.
USA is loosing its emperial power and to be honest I am not sorry for that.Regards.
Posted by: CETIN | April 10, 2005 05:14 AM | #
To CETIN, this is not about interfereing. China has constantly
interferred with Pakistan, they provided that "ally" of the
United State nuclear weapons.
Pakistan and the US are only allies officially. I have known
many Pakistanis and all are instinctively anti-American.
I have known many Americans the less informed believe that they
can control their "friends" the Pakistanis. Its not a heathly
relationship, they the Pakis only give you the time of day
because they are dirt poor and afraid of being taken over by
India. They hate you (the US) for reminding them of their
impotence and poverty.
Back to Baluchistan, its obvious that the US is supporting this
movement, it is infact a just cause. Pakistan will not get the
F-16s for at least 3 years (its not like buying a TV which is delivered
within 24 hours) by then Baluchistan will be independent.
I encourage the US to do this, Baluchistan independence will at
a stroke sever Chinas strategic interest in the region.
The neighboring province Sindh which has a border with India will
most likely declare independence or join India. This will
help Indian energy interests as the Iran to India pipeline can
then be built. I know the US also wants to control Irans oil
and gas pipelines, you are greedy after all. But you will not
suceed "you can control some of the worlds oil and gas supplies
for some of the time, but all the worlds gas and oil supplies
all the time".
Just dismemeber that cuntry (Pakistan) put it out of its misery,
its division into 3 will be a new dawn to peace and properity,
it can leave its terrorist past for good.
You will be doing a lot of good by slicing Pakistan into 3.
Posted by: voice of reason | April 19, 2005 04:12 AM | #
A small tribal guerrilla war, supported by a few secret special forces [what if they got caught?] and some Dollars could [speculation again] easily escalate and lead into an independence movement in Baluchistan which would be hard to overcome by military means.
I wonder how:
Total population of Pakistan: 160 million
Population of Baluchs: 5.6 - 7.5 million
But remember that the military is 90% Punjabi -- the Sindhis are against it, the Seraiki speakers are not interested, and the Pushtuuns have divided loyalties.
That leaves about 60 million..
However, Pakistan will not muster volunteers for this fight. So the Baloch are really fighting a mercenary occupation army whose maximum strength is 600,000 (if every soldier were moved from the frontier with India and Afghanistan and patrolling Sindh), while virtually every Baloch male will fight as a matter of honor. So the number of troops will not do much.. that leaves the question of air force, far better equipped troops, etc.
As far as the population goes, Pakistan is trying to do a demographic transformation to make the Baluch a minority in their province. But the terrain is inhospitable and Pakistanis are not likely to move from the fertile plains to a desert before infrastructure is built for them -- which is what Pakistan is trying to do in order to encourage Punjabi migration. So the Baluch have limited time to react and they know it. If they do not react, they are history as a people with a land.
Peace,
Gul Agha
Posted by: Gul Agha | May 5, 2005 04:07 PM | #
|
2 things:
"Who could have an interest in an independent, small sparce inhabitated Baluchistan?"
Would this be of interest to Al-Qaeda? I should check if Baluch are Sunnis, of course. And having a vast underpopulated country as haven may have its drawbacks as well as advantages.
"Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity"
What about Kashmir? Did China precise to Musharraf what it exactly included in Pakistan’s territory? Because if it’s a loose and large definition of Pakistan, it could mean China is still considering India as a major opponent and would be a target of this alliance just as much as Iran or the US - coincidentally, this would also mean a stronger link between US and India, strategically.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | April 6, 2005 12:33 PM | #