Why is China allied with Pakistan?

[Tolaha]

How have I denied Chinese military support of Pakistan? I've merely said that it's not aimed at India.

Even if we assume for a moment that all the missile and nukes that the Chinese helped Pakistan build were not intended against India, where do you think CCP felt it would be used?

 

[farhan_9909]

You Pakistanis can not even sell the right thing to any one (I mean when you guys debate). No one need your Garbage port and warm swamp water of Arabian sea, the oil shipping to China is more Cheaper on boats than it will be on some fictional road and train rout from your ports.

Chinese have been selling you cheap weapons and nukes since ages ago and your port is still not ready to accommodate the fictional story of 'Pakistan's warm water of Arabia'; nor for China neither for CAR and Russia.

well brother your one of them

Alert@,,,,ignored

 

[hit&run]

How have I denied Chinese military support of Pakistan? I've merely said that it's not aimed at India.

Yes you denied, this was the intent of your OP.

BTW Now you are on right tract.

Everyone know who made Pakistan a migraine, who is building nuclear pockets (NK, Iran, Libya, Pakistan), was running business of nuclear proliferation, how many cuts Pakistan wants to bleed India into. Are you telling us that Chinese are so ignorant that they doesn't know the nature of animosity between India and Pakistan ?

 

[hit&run]

Look for mention of China in this video, Go through all the videos related to AQ Khan.

 

[hit&run]

well brother your one of them

Alert@,,,,ignored

I think I was just more straight not ad hominem.

The point I made on your comment is valid, as you were poorly tagging your sea port with Chinese military assistance.

 

[Rage]

@t_co,

That's a well thought-out and well written post, but I am going to put paid to some of the assertions in there.

Whatever the geo-strategic calculus might be, China knows that India is the only regional player with the military power to challenge China; or pose a significant threat to Chinese assets: including in IOR shipping lines (which will never cease to lose their importance, given the predominance of the Middle East in global oil production; Russian interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia; and the US's own enhanced regional engagement with the region- and which China herself has sought to secure) and territorial claims in the South China sea and the Far East (which India herself has business and commercial interests in). Moreover, The fact that India is itself growing, has long term demographics that are arguably more favorable than China's and is the recipient of foreign technology: nuclear, civilian and military from powerful first-world (possibly militarily antagonistic) partners means that India poses significant long-term resource competition in places ranging from African to Afghanistan and the immediate neighborhood.

Given India's animosity with Pakistan, Pakistan would be the ideal player to counter a rising India: from engaging India's military and civilian resources to preventing secure land access to Central Asia; and to prevent a 'long peace' that is necessary to secure India's rise, that China herself saw from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It as well-known fact that Pakistan derived support for its nuclear program from China and N Korea. Were it not for the fact that creating a nuclear ally- alongwith engendering continued support for the Pakistani Army through arms sales and intermediary technology- contrived a long-term nuclear-effected gridlock that prevented resolution of immediate problems and secured its own long term resource interests (at the attendant expense of India's), China would have no strategic compulsions to facilitate the emergence of another nuclear power in the area.

The argument that Pakistan serves as a good window to the Islamic world is also flaccid. Pakistan, arguably, may not be the most ideal window to the Islamic world, given the variety of 'windows' that are now available to China in the wake of its growing influence in north and east Africa: it is not representative, if you consider that most Islamic demographics are concentrated in the Middle East and Africa. It may have some influence (particularly in terms of hosting the Secretariat of the ICCI) but does not commandeer regional organizations such as the OIC and has virtually no bearing on Northern African regional organizations, which obviously China has greater need for. It is not a large oil producer and therefore has no say in the geo-economics and geo-politics of the one resource around which most Islamic organizations of any significance are formed. It is a pliant US ally, at least at the top most civilian levels, whose civilian, particularly foreign policies, have been dictated for years together in consonance with American 'regional' interests; and as such coherent foreign policy toward the Middle East is something China cannot bank upon Pakistan for. It is a source of major funding and weapons to the insurgency in Xinjiang-Uighur via flagships of patronized non-state elements, through the Kyber and Gilgit Baltistan. I'd like to know what you think the tangible gains from having Pakistan as an Islamic ally, actually are. Moreover, given the Arab Spring and changing political aspirations in the Middle East, its tenuous democracy and frequent affairs with military juntas and dictatorships does not make it the ideal ally, if indeed that is the 'only' consideration.

China needs Pakistan for more than just a 'window to the Middle East'. It provides a veritable bulwark against a rising power, that is regionally and resourcefully competitive, and helps secure its assets in what it views as a vital region overlooked by this power.

 

[chase]

How have I denied Chinese military support of Pakistan? I've merely said that it's not aimed at India.

The strategic weapons which are given to pakistan by china are not transactions for getting a "pipeline".Please don't fool here.
China well knows that against whom these weapons will be used so it's clear the real intention of china.And DFI is not Global times where stupid trash is shoved down to faithful commie compatriots.

 

[JAISWAL]

@t_co,

That's a well thought-out and well written post, but I am going to put paid to some of the assertions in there.

.........................

you just Summed-up the entire China-Pakistan friendship and its very existence..

 

[ice berg]

you just Summed-up the entire China-Pakistan friendship and its very existence..

And it has worked well, so far.

 

[badguy2000]

because both want a weak India.

 

[Bangalorean]

because both want a weak India.

Yes, thanks for the honesty. Unfortunately for China, Pakis are turning out to be a hopeless disappointment. Make sure you aren;t bitten in the ass by them - they have a habit of doing that.

 

[hit&run]

@t_co,

Whatever the geo-strategic calculus might be, China knows that India is the only regional player with the military power to challenge China; or pose a significant threat to Chinese assets: including in IOR shipping lines (which will never cease to lose their importance, given the predominance of the Middle East in global oil production; Russian interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia; and the US's own enhanced regional engagement with the region- and which China herself has sought to secure) and territorial claims in the South China sea and the Far East (which India herself has business and commercial interests in). Moreover, The fact that India is itself growing, has long term demographics that are arguably more favorable than China's and is the recipient of foreign technology: nuclear, civilian and military from powerful first-world (possibly militarily antagonistic) partners means that India poses significant long-term resource competition in places ranging from African to Afghanistan and the immediate neighborhood.

Rage,

Just adding,

India has never threatened sea lanes in IOR never will even when having confrontation in Himalayas with China or Pakistan. China's ever rising trade with Africa and hold on their resources is going smoothly, even if threatened it will be temporary. Oil will flow as it is like it will flow for Japanese and others.

 

[Phenom]

So what does it retain Pakistan for?

The simple answer is that Pakistan is China's window on the Muslim world. Much like Saudi Arabia is America's window, and Syria is Russia's window, Pakistan is there to serve as a conduit for Chinese influence into the Middle East and North Africa. And that's it.

This part doesn't make sense,

How can Pakistan serve as a conduit for Chinese interest when Pakistan itself has very little influence in the Muslim world. Saudis and Iranians appear to be having the most clout in the Sunni and Shia parts of the Muslim world. So either China chose its ally wrong or you theory is incorrect.

 

[sayareakd]

@t_co Chines action say something else, including China's 'String of Pearls' Strategy.

ofcourse we will follow our nation's interest.

 

[t_co]

@t_co,

That's a well thought-out and well written post, but I am going to put paid to some of the assertions in there.

Appreciate the non-troll response.

Whatever the geo-strategic calculus might be, China knows that India is the only regional player with the military power to challenge China; or pose a significant threat to Chinese assets: including in IOR shipping lines (which will never cease to lose their importance, given the predominance of the Middle East in global oil production; Russian interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia; and the US's own enhanced regional engagement with the region- and which China herself has sought to secure) and territorial claims in the South China sea and the Far East (which India herself has business and commercial interests in). Moreover, The fact that India is itself growing, has long term demographics that are arguably more favorable than China's and is the recipient of foreign technology: nuclear, civilian and military from powerful first-world (possibly militarily antagonistic) partners means that India poses significant long-term resource competition in places ranging from African to Afghanistan and the immediate neighborhood.

From a regional perspective, India is not a threat to China because the Tibetan plateau serves as a useful spot from which China can hit India while reducing the ability of India to strike back (except with nuclear weapons.) The correlation of forces provided by geography is simply so favorable to China that unless India is 2 or 3 times stronger than China overall India will not be a strategic threat (again, absent a nuclear exchange).

Furthermore, what interest does China have in holding India down on the global stage? As large developing nations, China and India both have many more interests in common than in conflict.

Given India's animosity with Pakistan, Pakistan would be the ideal player to counter a rising India: from engaging India's military and civilian resources to preventing secure land access to Central Asia; and to prevent a 'long peace' that is necessary to secure India's rise, that China herself saw from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It as well-known fact that Pakistan derived support for its nuclear program from China and N Korea. Were it not for the fact that creating a nuclear ally- alongwith engendering continued support for the Pakistani Army through arms sales and intermediary technology- contrived a long-term nuclear-effected gridlock that prevented resolution of immediate problems and secured its own long term resource interests (at the attendant expense of India's), China would have no strategic compulsions to facilitate the emergence of another nuclear power in the area.

What sort of "resolution of immediate problems" does Chinese support for Pakistan prevent? Pakistan does not have nearly the arsenal that India does. To claim that this arsenal somehow holds India in check vis-a-vis China needs more links to work.

The argument that Pakistan serves as a good window to the Islamic world is also flaccid. Pakistan, arguably, may not be the most ideal window to the Islamic world, given the variety of 'windows' that are now available to China in the wake of its growing influence in north and east Africa: it is not representative, if you consider that most Islamic demographics are concentrated in the Middle East and Africa. It may have some influence (particularly in terms of hosting the Secretariat of the ICCI) but does not commandeer regional organizations such as the OIC and has virtually no bearing on Northern African regional organizations, which obviously China has greater need for. It is not a large oil producer and therefore has no say in the geo-economics and geo-politics of the one resource around which most Islamic organizations of any significance are formed. It is a pliant US ally, at least at the top most civilian levels, whose civilian, particularly foreign policies, have been dictated for years together in consonance with American 'regional' interests; and as such coherent foreign policy toward the Middle East is something China cannot bank upon Pakistan for. It is a source of major funding and weapons to the insurgency in Xinjiang-Uighur via flagships of patronized non-state elements, through the Kyber and Gilgit Baltistan. I'd like to know what you think the tangible gains from having Pakistan as an Islamic ally, actually are. Moreover, given the Arab Spring and changing political aspirations in the Middle East, its tenuous democracy and frequent affairs with military juntas and dictatorships does not make it the ideal ally, if indeed that is the 'only' consideration.

This misses one important point: Pakistan is the only window China has at the moment, but that does not mean China does not want to seek other friends in the Arab /Islamic world. Relations with Arab nations are not mutually exclusive--if the US can ally both Israel, Saudi Arabia, and (to a lesser degree) Egypt, why does a Chinese relationship with Pakistan preclude relations with other Middle East/Islamic states? And these relationships are not mutually exclusive, then why does it matter that Pakistan is not the ideal partner for China to engage with?

China needs Pakistan for more than just a 'window to the Middle East'. It provides a veritable bulwark against a rising power, that is regionally and resourcefully competitive, and helps secure its assets in what it views as a vital region overlooked by this power.

China needs Pakistan as a friendly, stable neighbor. Chinese aid is tailored to that goal. China has no need for a bulwark against a rising India, as a rising India is not a real threat to China. Finally, Chinese assets in South Asia are not dependent on a weak or "bound" India.

 

[t_co]

This part doesn't make sense,

How can Pakistan serve as a conduit for Chinese interest when Pakistan itself has very little influence in the Muslim world. Saudis and Iranians appear to be having the most clout in the Sunni and Shia parts of the Muslim world. So either China chose its ally wrong or you theory is incorrect.

Like I said, just because Pakistan is not the most influential nation in the Middle East does not mean that Chinese interest in them is not driven by their nature as a bridge between the Sinic and Islamic worlds.

 

[t_co]

Rage,

Just adding,

India has never threatened sea lanes in IOR never will even when having confrontation in Himalayas with China or Pakistan. China's ever rising trade with Africa and hold on their resources is going smoothly, even if threatened it will be temporary. Oil will flow as it is like it will flow for Japanese and others.

This adds to the original point that a rising India poses no threat to Chinese interests in South Asia.

 

[Tianshan]

This part doesn't make sense,

How can Pakistan serve as a conduit for Chinese interest when Pakistan itself has very little influence in the Muslim world. Saudis and Iranians appear to be having the most clout in the Sunni and Shia parts of the Muslim world. So either China chose its ally wrong or you theory is incorrect.

we are trying hard for both iran and saudi arabia as well, we are the top oil buyer for both of them already.

but most muslims in the world live in south asia. by a big margin.

 

[ersakthivel]

Appreciate the non-troll response.



From a regional perspective, India is not a threat to China because the Tibetan plateau serves as a useful spot from which China can hit India while reducing the ability of India to strike back (except with nuclear weapons.) The correlation of forces provided by geography is simply so favorable to China that unless India is 2 or 3 times stronger than China overall India will not be a strategic threat (again, absent a nuclear exchange).

How does china hits india from tibetian plateau? ,Do you expect india to not to deploy defences against china.Also haven't you heard of long range cruise missiles which makes distance irrelevant? Then what acording to you is the purpose of india buying all stuffs like rafale, sukhoi, PAKFA and apache? Surely india doesn't need them all to fight against pakistan.

Also with aircraft carrier battle groups india can strike back at any coastal chinese city.So do you expect chinese defence planners to not to know that?

If china is so secure then why the indo-US strategic relations are viewed as "BEFRIENDING THE FAR AND ATTACKING THE REAR"?in chinese strategic circle?

Why cannot china accept that US is the only window for india for the purpose of receiving FDI and increasing exports?

Furthermore, what interest does China have in holding India down on the global stage? As large developing nations, China and India both have many more interests in common than in conflict.

Then why does china oppose india's membership in UN security council and INDO-US nuclear deal so strongly?When the whole world is favourably inclined towards india's inclusion in NSG as a full member why did china oppose it tooth and nail till the final moment against india receiving nuclear technology?

Doesn't china knows that india's growing economy needs massive nuclear energy?Did they really expect india to disarm it's nuclear arsenal and become the member of NSG as a non weapon state?The behaviour of china at GENEVA crucial NSG meet was known to the whole world and splashed across indian mainstream media hour by hour day by day.

When US, RUSSIA, BRITIN, FRANCE and many other members viewed india as a responsible nuclear weapon power why did china blindly insist on tying india to the NPT, when even americans accepted their decades long folly of trying to tie india to NPT?That too knowing bloody well china has next to no influence in NSG and any other world forum of any significance

That's what concerns indians the most. For the persent and near future china is just a paper tiger on the world stage.even with this non existent influence china is hell bent on harming the vital interest of india at every possible oppurtunity.

Now you are coyly saying that china has no reason to fear india. WHile you think that pakistan is a responsible nuclear power and you are ready to supply nuclear reactors ithout it signing the NPT you were afraid that india is a bigger threat to world peace and has to be disarmed of nucler weapons. Strange indeed are the chinese opinions on world peace.

What sort of "resolution of immediate problems" does Chinese support for Pakistan prevent? Pakistan does not have nearly the arsenal that India does. To claim that this arsenal somehow holds India in check vis-a-vis China needs more links to work.

The US has wisely seen through the double game played by pakistan and is asking india to take up a more pro active role in afganistan to rescue it from pak based terrorists!!!!. Now china has become a pillar of strength to pak military establishment for their anti india agenda.If china stops transfer of nuclear missile tech to pak , then there will be no incentive for the pak military intelligence nexus to dream about dismembering india.It is the fond wish of pak military establishment to fight india with a strong outside support.

PAk too was once US window for muslim world along with SAUDI ARABIA.But US didnt transer nuclear missile tech to pakistan.Instead they just gave aid and normal military asistance only.China too could have followed the same route of giving aid for the oil pipeline.But choose the path to contain india through pak.

This misses one important point: Pakistan is the only window China has at the moment, but that does not mean China does not want to seek other friends in the Arab /Islamic world. Relations with Arab nations are not mutually exclusive--if the US can ally both Israel, Saudi Arabia, and (to a lesser degree) Egypt, why does a Chinese relationship with Pakistan preclude relations with other Middle East/Islamic states? And these relationships are not mutually exclusive, then why does it matter that Pakistan is not the ideal partner for China to engage with?

Why is it spending money on developing ports in srilanka? To have a window to the budhist world perhaps?

China needs Pakistan as a friendly, stable neighbor. Chinese aid is tailored to that goal. China has no need for a bulwark against a rising India, as a rising India is not a real threat to China. Finally, Chinese assets in South Asia are not dependent on a weak or "bound" India.

but india has never threatened china in the past.India supported communist china be recognized as the real china and the SC seat be taken from ROC to PRC.chinese inclusion in UN.India didn't raise any protest against chinese invasion of tibet.India recognized tibet as chinese territory.So india never entered into an alliance against china is a fact of history.

How did chinese respond? They responded with cold calculated strategic intent occupying akasi chin as if the whole success of chinese communist experiment depended on it.And sly used the window offered by the cuban missile crisis which occupied the full attention of soviet union to surreptiously strike.And cannily withdrawing to old positions once the cuban missile crisis was over.

Even a decade back , it was agreed during indo-china talks that settled population should not be displaced during boundary alignment settlement.It was an implicit acceptance of honoring the status quo with minor readjustments.
But now china has gone back on that understanding without any provocation, by issuing paper visas to J &K residents and protesting world bank aid to projects in arunachal pradesh, and protesting indian prime minister's visit to arunachal pradesh.

Now you are coyly arguing that china has no stake in harming india's interest by supporting PAk and it was all because of pipe line only.
Remember chinese nuclear and missile tech transfer predates the recent decades that saw a huge rise in it's oil needs and well before the pipe line talks surfaced.

 

[hit&run]

India has never threatened sea lanes in IOR never will even when having confrontation in Himalayas with China or Pakistan. China's ever rising trade with Africa and hold on their resources is going smoothly, even if threatened it will be temporary. Oil will flow as it is like it will flow for Japanese and others.
hit&run ↑

This adds to the original point that a rising India poses no threat to Chinese interests in South Asia.

Not the way you want.

You have to explain many things before shoving this theory into my throat.

There are pending border disputes between both.

On my reference of Indo-Russian pact you blamed India posing threat to China, even when I requested you to go in detail. It means you have thrown some theories without doing research and few Indians has swallowed the bait. You agenda is to prove India pose threat to China regardless of what you have said in your OP.

Indian military planners think in continuity which pre dates independence of India vis a vis territorial claims of China on Indo-China border (Simla accord treaty 1914) and Chinese intentions vis a vis their support to Pakistan.

Indian military planner still remember Chinese reaction when Russia supported our claim on Kashmir during 1950.

Indian military planner were aware of Chinese backstabbing during 1962.

Indian military planner since 1965 till today are concerned about PLA posturing on every war with Pakistan.

Indian military planner were aware of nexus developing before 1971 between USA-Pakistan and China (China opening its market to USA amidst cold war) when signed defence pact with Russia. Go a find out the time lines of all the events.

Indian army is engaging (Chinese pin pricks) with your army on borders with Tibet right now, we foresee, we are going to be bogged down at the same border the way PLA and PLAAF is building up military capabilities along that border.

Indian military planners are aware of China's vote against motions moved in by India at UN on banning terrorist outfits of Pakistan.

Last but not least, Why China is providing nuclear weapon technology to Pakistan, why they are running extra mile to make sure new Nuclear reactors be built in the name of 'Grandfathering' the previous Sino-Pak nuclear pact ? Don't tell me that Pakistan is doing it for civil nuclear energy production when we know how much fissile material they are producing as we talk and when people like me have chewed statistics up to 30 years on how much Pakistan be able to put nuclear powered electricity into her grid.

India pose threat to China and PLA is aware of it. We pose threat you at our border with Tibet and 1962 war is testimony to it, PLA's lose of its military objective and then failed to correct those losses during 1967 skirmishes, proves it. We have Govt. of Tibet in exile if you do not know.

India do not see disrupting sea lanes a necessary offence because we know how short legged your navy is. We do not need to Sink your boats when defending our border with Tibet on Chinese offences. If your navy would like to try its luck in IOR we will give the fitting reply.

Now I have said what you want in last two paragraphs. Posing threat is two way street.

''Lhasa or Beijing we will be there'' is not my motto but Indian army's.