China About to Start $35B of Silk Road Plan in Pakistan(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
China About to Start $35B of Silk Road Plan in Pakistan
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-24/china-about-to-start-35-billion-of-silk-road-plan-in-pakistan
89 コメント
While your analysis is true, it only describes the effects which have lead to today's situation.
Here are a few causes:
* In late 80's US empire has definitely thrown international law above the board by organizing color revolutions, destabilizing other countries and waging wars
* US empire and its vassals (other NATO members) leave a trail of blood where ever they show up
* Officially, US military - despite its huge budget, infrastructure and human power - still has not (15 years later!) defeated "the terrorists"
* US empire has definitely destroyed its financial reputation in 1971 by unilaterally canceling the "gold standard" and, since then, the masks are off and US dollar is being printed/created in the computer at the speed of light, without anything but military might to back it
* World Bank and IMF - two institutions majorly influenced by the US - wreak havoc in South America, Africa, South Asia and South Europe
* Russia is getting back on feet after 2000 and US empire has no means to counter it
* US empire and its media have done something remarkable in the 26 years since the fall of the Berlin wall: In 1990 USA was a country with a great image, in 2016 USA is arguably the most hated country in the world
The world outside of the empire sees all this. And runs away from the bully who has ("long before Trump") made himself weaker by seeking refuge in those who show at least some respect.
Here are a few causes:
* In late 80's US empire has definitely thrown international law above the board by organizing color revolutions, destabilizing other countries and waging wars
* US empire and its vassals (other NATO members) leave a trail of blood where ever they show up
* Officially, US military - despite its huge budget, infrastructure and human power - still has not (15 years later!) defeated "the terrorists"
* US empire has definitely destroyed its financial reputation in 1971 by unilaterally canceling the "gold standard" and, since then, the masks are off and US dollar is being printed/created in the computer at the speed of light, without anything but military might to back it
* World Bank and IMF - two institutions majorly influenced by the US - wreak havoc in South America, Africa, South Asia and South Europe
* Russia is getting back on feet after 2000 and US empire has no means to counter it
* US empire and its media have done something remarkable in the 26 years since the fall of the Berlin wall: In 1990 USA was a country with a great image, in 2016 USA is arguably the most hated country in the world
The world outside of the empire sees all this. And runs away from the bully who has ("long before Trump") made himself weaker by seeking refuge in those who show at least some respect.
> America’s overall image around the world remains largely positive. Across the nations surveyed (excluding the U.S.), a median of 69% hold a favorable opinion of the U.S., while just 24% express an unfavorable view. However, there is significant variation among regions and countries.[0]
I think we can agree the US often acts like a douchebag and that it has a lot of passionate haters, but the fact is that there are not that many great countries in the world.
It's true that the US is not number #1 in a lot areas and I really believe that's a good thing. The whole world should improve, not just the US. Inequality is at the root of a lot of evil in this world.
[0] http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/
I think we can agree the US often acts like a douchebag and that it has a lot of passionate haters, but the fact is that there are not that many great countries in the world.
It's true that the US is not number #1 in a lot areas and I really believe that's a good thing. The whole world should improve, not just the US. Inequality is at the root of a lot of evil in this world.
[0] http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/
NO! I am NOT talking here (and elsewhere) about US citizens!
I am talking about US oligarchy.
US people (on a personal level) are just like other people of the world: Most of them are good, some less that. And they themselves suffer from many problems the US oligarchy (through imperial means) causes outside of the US.
Daughters and sons who go to US military, they are patriots who want to serve their country and its people. But then they are sent to wars for resources, pipeline routes, geostrategic interests. And they come back in body bags, maimed, or suffer some physical or psychical ailment. Only to find out that their father has lost his job, or that their mother's insurance won't cover the costs for her treatment, or that no one cares for her/him (the former soldier).
Where ever I go in the world, I remind people that we all are in the same boat.
I am talking about US oligarchy.
US people (on a personal level) are just like other people of the world: Most of them are good, some less that. And they themselves suffer from many problems the US oligarchy (through imperial means) causes outside of the US.
Daughters and sons who go to US military, they are patriots who want to serve their country and its people. But then they are sent to wars for resources, pipeline routes, geostrategic interests. And they come back in body bags, maimed, or suffer some physical or psychical ailment. Only to find out that their father has lost his job, or that their mother's insurance won't cover the costs for her treatment, or that no one cares for her/him (the former soldier).
Where ever I go in the world, I remind people that we all are in the same boat.
Nobody implied you were talking about US citizens.
The parent comment is valid when taking about the 'US oligarchy' too.
The parent comment is valid when taking about the 'US oligarchy' too.
The US is probably the nicest and most responsible super power ever.
A super power like the Roman empire would have won the Afghanistan war for sure. But in a different way.
A super power like the Roman empire would have won the Afghanistan war for sure. But in a different way.
Even the nicest mass murderer is still a mass murderer.
I don't think the US did mass murder in Afghanistan. This was part of the problem. The Romans would have just made a population reduction of XX% per year and things would have been fine. I think you should put your judgement into perspective.
Decimation in the original sense of the word?
Yes. But decimation, as far as I know, was something the Romans did to their own divisions for "unsatisfactory" services. But regarding Afghanistan, if you crucify a few thousand men, women and children every day for the smallest offence, resistance breaks fast.
"...if you crucify a few thousand men, women and children every day for the smallest offence, resistance breaks fast."
You would know this, how? Look at the butchery in Syria and tell me how people respond to genocidal despots.
You would know this, how? Look at the butchery in Syria and tell me how people respond to genocidal despots.
Ou dear. The looses in Syria a minimal.
By the way, the losses of the US in the Vietnam war were minimal too. They lost 60.000 People. In the 10 years or what, I assume they lost more people in traffic accidents and suicides. Just to put numbers a little bit into perspective.
By the way, the losses of the US in the Vietnam war were minimal too. They lost 60.000 People. In the 10 years or what, I assume they lost more people in traffic accidents and suicides. Just to put numbers a little bit into perspective.
[deleted]
In late 80's US empire has definitely thrown international law above the board by organizing color revolutions,
The term "color revolution" didn't exist until the early 2000s.
US empire and its vassals (other NATO members)
NATO countries aren't in any meaningful way "vassals" of the US.
Might I suggest... reading a bit more broadly? To get like you know, a better grip on basic narrative history? Whatever sources you've been drawing from -- it seems you've got the polemics down pat, but your basic geopolitical awareness appears to be quite stunted.
The term "color revolution" didn't exist until the early 2000s.
US empire and its vassals (other NATO members)
NATO countries aren't in any meaningful way "vassals" of the US.
Might I suggest... reading a bit more broadly? To get like you know, a better grip on basic narrative history? Whatever sources you've been drawing from -- it seems you've got the polemics down pat, but your basic geopolitical awareness appears to be quite stunted.
I just saw your comment. While I don't know if you'll see it/respond to it, here is my response:
(1) Yes, the first color revolution was in 2000 in Serbia. And that sentence should have started with "Since" instead of "In". But the three things I've listed in it are undisputed.
(2) Since the NATO was founded, the Commander is always an US General. Who is, while being the NATO Commander, still on the Pentagon payroll. And those on Pentagon payroll are under the command of the US President. No other President/Prime Minister of a NATO member state has that power. Next, look at the NATO troop concentration on the Russian border. It is undisputed that NATO is expanding towards Russia. It is undisputed that continental European countries have interest in dialog and cooperation with Russia. But they must follow the US oligarchy.
(3) Your last paragraph brings out the suspicion that you swallow the interpretation of widely known history others have chewed for you. You seem to devalue everything that doesn't fit the official narrative. And you get personal. But, no offense taken: Been there, done that. Since 2003 I have started looking at historical facts and interpreting them while asking myself "Cui bono" (Who benefits). And then patterns started to emerge. Patterns of Anglo-american hegemony in the last 150 years. Later I've found the works of Carroll Quigley and Anthony Sutton (to name two greats) who have confirmed what I've interpreted while expanding my knowledge in other areas. Also, reading Zbigniew Brzezinski helped. By the way, it is he who speaks of US vassals. But if you really want to learn lesser known historical facts then, probably, the best place to start is Brzezinski's inspiration: Halford Mackinder and his Heartland Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hist...)
To end this post, I'll quote a man who knew what he talked about, George F. Kennan: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan)
(1) Yes, the first color revolution was in 2000 in Serbia. And that sentence should have started with "Since" instead of "In". But the three things I've listed in it are undisputed.
(2) Since the NATO was founded, the Commander is always an US General. Who is, while being the NATO Commander, still on the Pentagon payroll. And those on Pentagon payroll are under the command of the US President. No other President/Prime Minister of a NATO member state has that power. Next, look at the NATO troop concentration on the Russian border. It is undisputed that NATO is expanding towards Russia. It is undisputed that continental European countries have interest in dialog and cooperation with Russia. But they must follow the US oligarchy.
(3) Your last paragraph brings out the suspicion that you swallow the interpretation of widely known history others have chewed for you. You seem to devalue everything that doesn't fit the official narrative. And you get personal. But, no offense taken: Been there, done that. Since 2003 I have started looking at historical facts and interpreting them while asking myself "Cui bono" (Who benefits). And then patterns started to emerge. Patterns of Anglo-american hegemony in the last 150 years. Later I've found the works of Carroll Quigley and Anthony Sutton (to name two greats) who have confirmed what I've interpreted while expanding my knowledge in other areas. Also, reading Zbigniew Brzezinski helped. By the way, it is he who speaks of US vassals. But if you really want to learn lesser known historical facts then, probably, the best place to start is Brzezinski's inspiration: Halford Mackinder and his Heartland Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hist...)
To end this post, I'll quote a man who knew what he talked about, George F. Kennan: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan)
> in 2016 USA is arguably the most hated country in the world
Let's agree to disagree on this, based on the fact that there are a number of countries with active civil wars and/or genocides.
Let's agree to disagree on this, based on the fact that there are a number of countries with active civil wars and/or genocides.
i think you are missing the point of the parent - not many people care about genocide going on somewhere in the woods as long as it's not dangerously nearby (nothing to be proud of, but a natural part of being human these days). I don't know anybody who would literally 'hate' Rwanda, Burma, South Sudan or your former/current place of pick.
now for rather unfortunate meddling into internal affairs of a given state - there isn't a single country in this world that can say US didn't try to f__k them over one way or the other. Not-a-single-one. You may not like this fact, but that's truth. Now we can say something similar, maybe to lesser exent, and maybe with more evil tone, about Russia, or in other ways about England/Dutch/French/Spanish/Belgian/German/and so on for the past, but for pure hate, US made it damn too easy to be hated.
don't take this personally - I have much higher issues with Russia in this regard, the country that invaded my home in 1968, killed quite a few, brought more repressions and stayed for 21 years. But US ain't some saint 'good' guy, far from that.
now for rather unfortunate meddling into internal affairs of a given state - there isn't a single country in this world that can say US didn't try to f__k them over one way or the other. Not-a-single-one. You may not like this fact, but that's truth. Now we can say something similar, maybe to lesser exent, and maybe with more evil tone, about Russia, or in other ways about England/Dutch/French/Spanish/Belgian/German/and so on for the past, but for pure hate, US made it damn too easy to be hated.
don't take this personally - I have much higher issues with Russia in this regard, the country that invaded my home in 1968, killed quite a few, brought more repressions and stayed for 21 years. But US ain't some saint 'good' guy, far from that.
> not many people care about genocide going on somewhere in the woods as long as it's not dangerously nearby
I'm going to take the somewhat cardboard American umbrage, but I think my position is a fair one.
For all of our American geopolitical intrigue and intelligence service &#@$ups, the United States generally does care.
In the sense that compared with other countries that could act, the United States chooses to do something.
Somalia was a failed state, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Iraq was run by a dictator who killed his own people (caveat: yes, domestic and international audiences were lied to about WMD facts), but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Continental Europe was occupied by the Nazis, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Swathes of the Pacific were occupied by Imperial Japan, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best.
It's easy to say "That's an ocean away, doesn't concern us, and isn't our business." Even when people are being murdered or exploited. Nobody points a finger and says "Why didn't you act when it was happening?"
But if we're being honest and fair, then there's zero utility in comparing how well Switzerland is liked vs the US or Russia. It's a hell of a lot easier to make friends if you never enter a competition.
I'm going to take the somewhat cardboard American umbrage, but I think my position is a fair one.
For all of our American geopolitical intrigue and intelligence service &#@$ups, the United States generally does care.
In the sense that compared with other countries that could act, the United States chooses to do something.
Somalia was a failed state, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Iraq was run by a dictator who killed his own people (caveat: yes, domestic and international audiences were lied to about WMD facts), but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Continental Europe was occupied by the Nazis, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Swathes of the Pacific were occupied by Imperial Japan, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best.
It's easy to say "That's an ocean away, doesn't concern us, and isn't our business." Even when people are being murdered or exploited. Nobody points a finger and says "Why didn't you act when it was happening?"
But if we're being honest and fair, then there's zero utility in comparing how well Switzerland is liked vs the US or Russia. It's a hell of a lot easier to make friends if you never enter a competition.
Re: Iraq
Dictators killing their own people hasn't concerned the US govt before or since. They even called the thing Operation Iraqi Liberation.
With great power comes great responsibility. Currently, no other country has that much power (things I mentioned in the parent) and does so much harm. Yes, regionally, there are conflicts and hatred/dislike between groups, regions or countries. Yet, US is feared, disliked, even hated - exactly for the misuse of the power.
I didn't know that Noam Chomsky posted on HN.
Whoever downvoted you, it's their right. I upvoted you.
I actually find your comment funny.
But, please, don't compare me with Chomsky.
I actually find your comment funny.
But, please, don't compare me with Chomsky.
Traditional? Not really. The UK or France could be considered traditional allies. Pakistan was more of a conveniently-located 'strategic partner'. I say this as someone of Pakistani origin.
The people of Pakistan are hugely skeptical and wary of this 'alliance' and have long felt they have been used, there is deep resentment, so it's not even slightly surprising they are looking to align themselves with those whose reputation is less sullied (in their view) than the US's.
The people of Pakistan are hugely skeptical and wary of this 'alliance' and have long felt they have been used, there is deep resentment, so it's not even slightly surprising they are looking to align themselves with those whose reputation is less sullied (in their view) than the US's.
Pakistan gets paid for its dealing with the U.S. It is not some friend doing the U.S. any favours.
Its more of a business deal and clearly one the U.S. should reconsider.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/11/25/...
Indeed. Pakistan is important to US because of terrorism in Afghanistan, at the same time Pakistan is important to China because of threat of India.
And before Afghanistan, the Soviet Union. And as you say, the mutual interest in containing the threat posed by India. If anything, Trump courting India as much as he has been doing, at the same time talking tough against China means we have 'interesting times' ahead.
From my perspective, India always seemed like a better ally to the American people, Pakistan to the American military/intelligence branches.
India courted the soviets which didn't help.
It's a little more complicated than that. This was mostly a reaction to Pakistan courting the US. Note also that India was first a founding member of the non-aligned movement, which the US was not pleased about. US-India relations improved during the 1962 Sino-Indian war when the US countered Chinese aggression at any cost. They then deteriorated again when the Nixon administration openly supported Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.
India was never the aggressor, just look at the history. It's Chinese who invaded Indian Himalayan territory and annexed some Indian land. Same with Pakistan - it's them who invaded Indian territory in Kashmir in 1999 in thousands.
It's stupid from Chinese to act like there is already hostility between them, when they could act as partners that have literally 1/3 of global population and dominate the region.
It's stupid from Chinese to act like there is already hostility between them, when they could act as partners that have literally 1/3 of global population and dominate the region.
India's modern history perhaps, but Indian influence once stretched all across SE Asia. Angor Wat is the largest Hindu temple in the world[1], for example; Bali is all that remains of Hindu control of Indonesia[2]. Though it seems unlikely that the PRC government is thinking in those terms.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat#History 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali#Ancient
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat#History 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali#Ancient
Ankor Wat was built by a local king.
No Indian empire invaded or controlled SE Asia. The influence of Buddhism and Hinduism in Bali and Cambodia is testament to the influence of Indian philosophy and belief not might.
No Indian empire invaded or controlled SE Asia. The influence of Buddhism and Hinduism in Bali and Cambodia is testament to the influence of Indian philosophy and belief not might.
The Sino Indian war is more complicated than that,
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-...
>Indeed. Pakistan is important to US because of opium and mineral wealth in Afghanistan...
FTFY
FTFY
True. But the relationship has spanned many decades into the cold war, with Pakistan leaning towards the US and India leaning towards Russia. There was little trust or love or shared values involved, but it was still one borne of necessity, that had endured a lot of bumps (to say the least) along the way.
this was an idiotic decision by US - India has much more common with western democracies compared to Pakistan. It's also the biggest democracy in the world, since it's humble beginnings.
I presume US couldn't swallow that somebody like to be rather independent though and bow into submission during cold war, ie 'if you're not with us you are against us' mentality
I presume US couldn't swallow that somebody like to be rather independent though and bow into submission during cold war, ie 'if you're not with us you are against us' mentality
It's not a realignment. China and Pakistan have been close strategic allies since the 70s [1], while Pakistan's stance with the US has gone back and forth a couple of times.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Pakistan_relatio...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Pakistan_relatio...
"Another traditional US ally re-aligning itself between the two major spheres of influence. The balance will tip further in China's favor as the USA recedes further from global development."
China wants just an ally in the back of India. This is understandable from a Chinese perspective. But Pakistan is a moslems country and China has enough problems with its own moslems. If you have been in Xinjiang province: The level of security is astonishing. I wonder about the costs of maintaining this and long term stability.
China wants just an ally in the back of India. This is understandable from a Chinese perspective. But Pakistan is a moslems country and China has enough problems with its own moslems. If you have been in Xinjiang province: The level of security is astonishing. I wonder about the costs of maintaining this and long term stability.
> Another traditional US ally re-aligning itself
China has been an ally of Pakistan for a long time.
> parallel international institutions that [the Chinese] are developing that will compete with the IMF
http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/09/29/AM16-NA093016...
China has been an ally of Pakistan for a long time.
> parallel international institutions that [the Chinese] are developing that will compete with the IMF
http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/09/29/AM16-NA093016...
Mao hated Khrushchev which meant that Soviet-Chinese relations were extremely hostile (actual battles were fought between soldiers of the two nations). India was aligned with the USSR, which made China and Pakistan natural allies. They have been close since then.
except Pakistan is not really an ally but a lynchpin in starting another nuclear cold war style standoff in the Indo-Pakistani region which distracts them from US core interests in other more important areas.
but I agree with the other comment below OP, IMF & WB have destroyed economies that threatened US interests, ex. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Ireland, so on. There is a clear pattern of market manipulation and subsequent destruction and using that chaos to reign them closer to US interests.
We should all but expect the same from China but with much less subtleness.
but I agree with the other comment below OP, IMF & WB have destroyed economies that threatened US interests, ex. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Ireland, so on. There is a clear pattern of market manipulation and subsequent destruction and using that chaos to reign them closer to US interests.
We should all but expect the same from China but with much less subtleness.
I'm in West Africa now, and it's staggering to drive out of a tiny jungle track onto a highway equal in size and quality to anywhere in the world. It's also staggering to catch up to the road crew and see they are all Chinese.
Same goes for the hydo plants, railways, etc.
Of course, almost all of the roads and railways are to extract resources, not to help locals in any way.
Same goes for the hydo plants, railways, etc.
Of course, almost all of the roads and railways are to extract resources, not to help locals in any way.
Were it all about resources it would show up in the data with more investment in resource-rich nations, which it doesn't [0]:
> According to her data, the top 20 African nations in which China is involved include not only commodity-rich nations such as Nigeria and South Africa, but commodity-poor nations like Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda.
> the largest deals — which tend to be government-to-government — do in fact involve infrastructure projects and natural resources. Those are the deals that make headlines. But, she asserted, they tend to skew the total reality. When looking at all Chinese firms that invested in Africa between 1998 and 2012, she said a picture emerges of small- and medium-sized private Chinese firms whose activities have nothing to do with commodities. “The number-one industry, in fact, is in services. It’s business services; it’s wholesale and retail,”
There's a separate question of how robust the environmental controls, etc. are - but a lot of that is up to the local governments.
They're going to take the sweet deals rather than the more onerous US terms and all their requirements.
The article below is a great read - it talks about how the African nations are including more stipulations in deals - such as quotas for local employment, educational investment etc.
[0] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/chinas-investment...
> According to her data, the top 20 African nations in which China is involved include not only commodity-rich nations such as Nigeria and South Africa, but commodity-poor nations like Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda.
> the largest deals — which tend to be government-to-government — do in fact involve infrastructure projects and natural resources. Those are the deals that make headlines. But, she asserted, they tend to skew the total reality. When looking at all Chinese firms that invested in Africa between 1998 and 2012, she said a picture emerges of small- and medium-sized private Chinese firms whose activities have nothing to do with commodities. “The number-one industry, in fact, is in services. It’s business services; it’s wholesale and retail,”
There's a separate question of how robust the environmental controls, etc. are - but a lot of that is up to the local governments.
They're going to take the sweet deals rather than the more onerous US terms and all their requirements.
The article below is a great read - it talks about how the African nations are including more stipulations in deals - such as quotas for local employment, educational investment etc.
[0] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/chinas-investment...
Sure, the roads and railways are not built with the explicit intention to help locals but it's hard to imagine that they're not helping anyways (e.g. you did drive on that highway after all). Also, it's not like those countries are just handing out their resources for free.
By the way, where in West Africa are you? I'm asking because the perception of China in West African countries is among the highest in the world, with only 10-20% unfavorable view, compared to 45-70% in Europe and North America [0].
Is it possible that you are projecting your own perception of China? Is it possible that your perception is influenced by Western media?
Color me skeptical...
[0] http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/chapter-2-chinas-image/
By the way, where in West Africa are you? I'm asking because the perception of China in West African countries is among the highest in the world, with only 10-20% unfavorable view, compared to 45-70% in Europe and North America [0].
Is it possible that you are projecting your own perception of China? Is it possible that your perception is influenced by Western media?
Color me skeptical...
[0] http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/chapter-2-chinas-image/
> Of course, almost all of the roads and railways are to extract resources, not to help locals in any way.
That's a very sinister comment, when China builds a road, it's all about grabbing resources and can not help the locals in anyway? Are the locals banned from using these roads? Are there no jobs created in those country because of these projects?
That's a very sinister comment, when China builds a road, it's all about grabbing resources and can not help the locals in anyway? Are the locals banned from using these roads? Are there no jobs created in those country because of these projects?
Could be a win-win situation for both the Chinese and the local.
Ideally for West Africa, China will move their production eventually to them, through heavily unfavorable deals and low wages.
However this will help the population get trained and (economically) on their feet to start their own companies.
The only problem for most countries in West Africa is that they have weak governments. While China has a despotic, unfavorable to human rights government, it is also very protective and tends to be quite partial to the national companies interests.
Without it, foreign companies would steal resources and cheap mass-produce without improving the country on the long run, as it happened in other regions.
China stripping all the resources at a fraction of the international price, raping the environment, hiring zero locals, and building roads and railways that go from some place useless to another place useless.
No, It's really not helping locals.
No, It's really not helping locals.
Yep, I forgot about the masses of Chinese workers currently there (e.g. Ghana).
One can only hope rising Chinese standards and wages will eventually convince them to hire local instead.
The Karakoram Highway, between Pakistan and China, is an amazing engineering achievement.
The cartoonist and author Ted Rall has visited Central Asia many times.
http://rall.com/2009/06/04/the-karakoram-highway
The cartoonist and author Ted Rall has visited Central Asia many times.
http://rall.com/2009/06/04/the-karakoram-highway
That's a great article - it'd be interesting to know if the KKH has changed much in the intervening 17 years.
Apparently there are still bad sections, but more of the highway has been upgraded.[1] China is providing most of the money. In 2010, a major earthquake caused landslides which created a new lake, taking out part of the highway. It took until 2015 to build a new route with 5Km of tunnels.
Here's a partial list of projects being funded in Pakistan by China.[2] China's government seems determined to get a land linkup to Europe. Yet this isn't the main "New Silk Road" route - that's further north, through Iran and Iraq.[3] With all the wars in that area, China apparently sees a need to have multiple alternate routes for trade. Good thinking in Beijing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_the_Karakora... [2] http://boi.gov.pk/userfiles1/file/List%20of%20MoUs.docx [3] http://www.xinhuanet.com/silkroad/english/index.htm
Here's a partial list of projects being funded in Pakistan by China.[2] China's government seems determined to get a land linkup to Europe. Yet this isn't the main "New Silk Road" route - that's further north, through Iran and Iraq.[3] With all the wars in that area, China apparently sees a need to have multiple alternate routes for trade. Good thinking in Beijing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_the_Karakora... [2] http://boi.gov.pk/userfiles1/file/List%20of%20MoUs.docx [3] http://www.xinhuanet.com/silkroad/english/index.htm
China is also extremely interested in economically developing its inner regions, as they've lagged economic development which has come to coastal regions due to high cost of logistics. Anything bought in Islamabad that's 'made in China' was likely manufactured on China's east cost, and arrived via ship.
If it would be economically viable to have the same thing manufactured in Xinjiang or Qinghai, and shipped by road, it would be a huge boost for those areas. Especially if linked through Pakistan's road network to sea ports, bringing easy access to Middle East, Europe, Africa as ships would no longer have to navigate via Singapore.
An in reverse, it would be a huge diversification of import routes for commodities could come in via another route. Not oil specifically, but all kinds of bulk. Bulk carries of commodities are far less efficient than oil ships, the largest with a capacity of 100,000 tons but 30-60k capacity more common (far less than the capacity of a supertanker). So commodities needed to develop the west of China now have a simpler, more efficient route.
If it would be economically viable to have the same thing manufactured in Xinjiang or Qinghai, and shipped by road, it would be a huge boost for those areas. Especially if linked through Pakistan's road network to sea ports, bringing easy access to Middle East, Europe, Africa as ships would no longer have to navigate via Singapore.
An in reverse, it would be a huge diversification of import routes for commodities could come in via another route. Not oil specifically, but all kinds of bulk. Bulk carries of commodities are far less efficient than oil ships, the largest with a capacity of 100,000 tons but 30-60k capacity more common (far less than the capacity of a supertanker). So commodities needed to develop the west of China now have a simpler, more efficient route.
It's still just as mad. I went up to the Pakistan-China border last year.
Most of the article is biased reflections of the author.
I have lots of issues with this author and article. I am one of the locals from that region. The picture caste in this article is very biased and not acceptable. There are issues but not that bleak as depicted by the author. Specially the things describe about Gilgit and Hunza are not correct.
The KKH has greatly helped reduced the poverty and its a vital resource for us and all the remote communities.
"Violence has been a part of life here since Pakistan and India were partitioned in 1947" >> absolutely wrong , its started after US started funding Taliban after late 90s and now its completely peaceful.
"the signs of the cheapness of life are everywhere—starving children and maimed old men line the sidewalks" >> there is poverty but not that much as forcefully describe here.
"more than 10,000 people have been shot, bombed and lynched there during the ‘90s alone" >> Ask who was behind it ? and you will get name , who funded cold-war, .. just the same b.s again ..
"A stone’s throw from the Line of Control between Pakistani- and Indian-held Kashmir" >> I dont have any good words, there is not a single place where we are so exposed to LOC crossfire.It could be Kashmir but not Gilgit-Baltistan(GB).
Lots of lies and biased commentary .. take it with grain of salt.
The KKH has greatly helped reduced the poverty and its a vital resource for us and all the remote communities.
"Violence has been a part of life here since Pakistan and India were partitioned in 1947" >> absolutely wrong , its started after US started funding Taliban after late 90s and now its completely peaceful.
"the signs of the cheapness of life are everywhere—starving children and maimed old men line the sidewalks" >> there is poverty but not that much as forcefully describe here.
"more than 10,000 people have been shot, bombed and lynched there during the ‘90s alone" >> Ask who was behind it ? and you will get name , who funded cold-war, .. just the same b.s again ..
"A stone’s throw from the Line of Control between Pakistani- and Indian-held Kashmir" >> I dont have any good words, there is not a single place where we are so exposed to LOC crossfire.It could be Kashmir but not Gilgit-Baltistan(GB).
Lots of lies and biased commentary .. take it with grain of salt.
> Ask who was behind it ? and you will get name , who funded cold-war, .. just the same b.s again ..
I am pretty sure Ted Rall will agree with you that meddling from foreign empires, like the US, causes violence in Central Asia.
I am pretty sure Ted Rall will agree with you that meddling from foreign empires, like the US, causes violence in Central Asia.
This article is from 1999 though. It's probably wrong for 2016, but that's to be expected.
Great read. Thanks for sharing.
I am from Pakistan and I really wish it was the US. I wish they had spent 1/10th of the money on development they spent on the war. This could have been something that brought stability and more US influence in the region. I think China will reap all the benefits now.
Where in the world has the US brought stability with its international politics?
Europe for a couple of decades following WW2.
That is a bit of an overstatement.
If we look at casualties, the US 400k pales in comparison to the to the 26 million of the Soviet Union[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_...
If we look at casualties, the US 400k pales in comparison to the to the 26 million of the Soviet Union[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_...
Why just couple of decades? Its still quite peaceful here.
...thanks to the Allies. From then, the US returned to its bloody, destructive colonialist behavior.
Maybe even four or five. It's little because of the only USA now.
When this goes live, China will gain access to an Indian ocean port in Gwadar. This project runs through Gilgit-Baltistan and Kashmir; these are contested/disputed territory between India and Pakistan. China and India already have boundary disputes in Kashmir and in Arunachal/Tibet
More than an Indian ocean port (which could be blockaded by India in case of a war with either of Pakistan or China), this will connect China by road with Middle East Asia and other Central Asian states; China hopes this connectivity will boost trade in the future.
This project is undertaken with the intent to engage the excess capacity of the engineering firms that have grown and matured over the years with China's economic surge in the last three decades. These companies have the expertise, technology and project management expertise—to build roads, dams, bridges, tunnels, rails, trains, engines, steel, cement and myriad other things—but doesn't have any takers as they had earlier because of the economic slowdown in China.
Another reading is that China has lots of Capital which it can invest abroad but not at home. With the overheated economy at home it is wiser to redeploy it in countries with friendly disposition to Chinese investments.
If all goes well China can get a new avenue for its products. Even if none of it works it is not too bad, as China will get the host governments indebted. Sri Lanka[1], with its Hambantota port project, can be considered as an example.
[1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/11/17/sri-lanka...
More than an Indian ocean port (which could be blockaded by India in case of a war with either of Pakistan or China), this will connect China by road with Middle East Asia and other Central Asian states; China hopes this connectivity will boost trade in the future.
This project is undertaken with the intent to engage the excess capacity of the engineering firms that have grown and matured over the years with China's economic surge in the last three decades. These companies have the expertise, technology and project management expertise—to build roads, dams, bridges, tunnels, rails, trains, engines, steel, cement and myriad other things—but doesn't have any takers as they had earlier because of the economic slowdown in China.
Another reading is that China has lots of Capital which it can invest abroad but not at home. With the overheated economy at home it is wiser to redeploy it in countries with friendly disposition to Chinese investments.
If all goes well China can get a new avenue for its products. Even if none of it works it is not too bad, as China will get the host governments indebted. Sri Lanka[1], with its Hambantota port project, can be considered as an example.
[1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/11/17/sri-lanka...
The one thing the article doesn't mention is that some of the projects under this plan passes through the Pok (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir), which creates a precarious situation between India, Pakistan and China over Kashmir.
None of this goes through POK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azad_Kashmir), could you reference any? If you are thinking of Gilgit-Baltistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgit-Baltistan), it got independence from Dogra Raj in 1948 after a short war, then the tug-of-war b/w Pakistan and India and rest is history.
The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was comprised of Jammu region, Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, Gilgit, Baltistan and a bit of Aksai Chin.[1] So, India have Jammu, Ladakh and a part of Kashmir. Pakistan have POK (Azad Kashmir + Gilgit-Baltistan). And, China have Aksai Chin.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_st...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_st...
You are right upto 1948, when we fought for our independence to get rid-off Dogra Raj, and became independent and affiliated with Pakistan. So Pakistan did not occupy us. Each side (both India and Pakistan) narrate this story for her benefit :)
In (somehow) related news, Morocco is enlisting the help of China for building a new City.
http://qz.com/841803/morocco-wants-to-build-a-new-city-from-...
They just finished building a Huge bridge near the city of Rabat.
http://www.thearabweekly.com/Economy/5954/Rabat%E2%80%99s-ca...
http://qz.com/841803/morocco-wants-to-build-a-new-city-from-...
They just finished building a Huge bridge near the city of Rabat.
http://www.thearabweekly.com/Economy/5954/Rabat%E2%80%99s-ca...
Related article regarding China's investment in Srilanka.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/china-and-sri-lanka-between-a...
http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/china-and-sri-lanka-between-a...
With most of industrial China on the eastern side, I wonder how beneficial will this trade route be, to China.
Being one of the residents along KKH, I fear nothing except one thing, that is environmental and ecological damage that might inflict on our natural flora & fauna. Neither of the country is interested in environmental effects due to high volume traffic specially to glacier
This creates more roads/rail from the ports (Gwadar/Karachi etc) to the inland (Islamabad etc), so it will help Chinese trade goods, which almost exclusively arrive by ship to the ports.
(Of course, facilitating trade is of secondary importance to the geopolitical aim of gaining influence in Pakistan by making it more dependent on Chinese money and less dependent on western capital markets or western multilateral organisations.)
(Of course, facilitating trade is of secondary importance to the geopolitical aim of gaining influence in Pakistan by making it more dependent on Chinese money and less dependent on western capital markets or western multilateral organisations.)
Anything that makes Pakistan more prosperous and economically stable is a good thing for the west, the rest of the world and Pakistan.
Anything that gets China more positively engaged with the rest of the world is good, because it makes China more interested in international stability, property rights and the rule of law. Eventually I think China will come to realize that, as a major investor and driver of economic development around the world, their interests align very closely with those of the west.
Anything that gets China more positively engaged with the rest of the world is good, because it makes China more interested in international stability, property rights and the rule of law. Eventually I think China will come to realize that, as a major investor and driver of economic development around the world, their interests align very closely with those of the west.
>more prosperous and economically stable is a good thing for
This is such a crucial point. No one in the world needs an unstable, angsty nuclear-armed state.
>think China will come to realize that, as a major investor and driver of economic development around the world, their interests align
I think China realized long ago that being prosperous while having hungry neighbors on its doorstep is not really conducive to regional peace. They actually prop up NK exactly for this reason I believe.
This is such a crucial point. No one in the world needs an unstable, angsty nuclear-armed state.
>think China will come to realize that, as a major investor and driver of economic development around the world, their interests align
I think China realized long ago that being prosperous while having hungry neighbors on its doorstep is not really conducive to regional peace. They actually prop up NK exactly for this reason I believe.
I'm not sure why the bottom comment is marked "dead", but it seems prescient to me. Isolationism is exactly what China wants the US to do.
Being off topic probably had more to do with it. Personally, I'm happy to see that the first comment is related to the story and not the predictable China bashing.
I suppose you have a point, as it is just speculation. But if we are being consistent, we should probably admonish the US-bashing as well, since it is perhaps even more irrelevant.
Ah. One hears a lot of complaining from Pakistan and it's citizens against the US and it's apparently damaging policies.
It's unlikely for one to hear such complaints against China, as China will nip any dissent in the bud, with an iron fist. The great Chinese censor and censure machinery will soon hold a tight grip around the citizens, media and politics of Pakistan. Happy 2017 and beyond!
It's unlikely for one to hear such complaints against China, as China will nip any dissent in the bud, with an iron fist. The great Chinese censor and censure machinery will soon hold a tight grip around the citizens, media and politics of Pakistan. Happy 2017 and beyond!
What's interesting is if you look at the parallel international institutions that China are developing that will compete with the IMF et al, many of the partners are traditional and very close allies of the United States.
For ex. with the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, six of the top ten participants are all traditional very close allies of the United States - including Australia, France, the UK and South Korea[0]
Long before Trump, Obama lobbied the leaders of these nations and advised against joining the AIIB, to no avail[1] All that post-war development and planning of building up the US sphere of influence slowly and steadily fading away.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Infrastructure_Investmen...
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-asia-bank-idUSKBN0M...