After a meeting in Beijing on Tuesday of the China-Afghanistan-Pakistan Dialogue, a newly created trilateral format, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a major announcement that Beijing and Islamabad will look at extending the US$57 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan.
The joint press release after the meet said the three countries “reaffirmed their commitment to improving their relations, deepening mutually beneficial cooperation, advancing connectivity under the Belt and Road Initiative.”
Wang was forthright later at a press conference: “China and Pakistan are willing to look at with Afghanistan, on the basis of win-win, mutually beneficial principles, using an appropriate means to extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to Afghanistan.”
Pakistani Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif chose his words carefully, saying Pakistan and China are “iron brothers” and the successful implementation of the CPEC “will serve as a model for enhancing connectivity and cooperation through similar projects with neighboring countries, including Afghanistan, Iran and with Central and West Asia.”
The Chinese proposal has triggered mixed emotions in the Pakistani mind. The Xinhua news agency reported separately that during a bilateral meeting with Wang, the visiting Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani called China “a forever and reliable partner” and pledged that his country was “ready to actively participate in the Belt and Road Initiative.” Pakistan’s principal worry would be that its “iron brother” is steadily transforming as a moderator.
The trilateral meeting in Beijing was a Chinese initiative, which was unveiled during Wang’s shuttle diplomacy between Kabul and Islamabad in June. To be sure, Beijing has staked its prestige on fostering amity between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a daunting challenge that Western powers have failed to cope with. But by introducing the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) into the matrix, Beijing displays new thinking.
Beijing has staked its prestige on fostering amity between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a daunting challenge that Western powers have failed to cope with. But by introducing the Belt and Road Initiative into the matrix, Beijing displays new thinking
Beijing hopes to make Afghans and Pakistanis stakeholders in regional projects and thereby generate traction to its peace initiative. Wang announced on Monday in Beijing during a briefing on the directions of Chinese diplomacy in the new year: “We will deepen our friendship with our neighbors, and push for the political solution to hot issues such as the Korean Peninsula issue and the Afghanistan issue.”
All the same, using the CPEC as a crowbar to push Pakistan toward an Afghan settlement is a bold gambit. Pakistan has specific interests in Afghanistan. Asif’s reticence speaks for itself. For a start, Pakistan cannot but wonder whether this is an exclusively Chinese idea or a collaborative venture with the US.
The Pentagon’s six-monthly report to Congress in December regarding Afghanistan had nice words about China. It acknowledged China as a benign presence in Afghanistan whose “low but increasing levels of military, economic and political engagement … are driven by domestic security concerns” and noted China’s “increasing desire to protect its regional economic interests.” The Pentagon saw no conflict of interests.
The report noted that “Afghanistan continues to seek Chinese pressure on Pakistan to assist reconciliation efforts and eliminate insurgent sanctuaries.” So the US may not shoot down China’s plan to leverage the CPEC to influence Pakistani policies. Besides, Chinese money, under whatever rubric, is useful for Afghan reconstruction.
Indeed, if the CPEC enters Afghanistan via Khyber and traverses northward to cross the Amu Darya, the US might even welcome it. The New Silk Road was originally an American idea dating back to July 2011 “as a means for Afghanistan to integrate further into the region by resuming traditional trading routes and reconstructing significant infrastructure links broken by decades of conflict.”
The “integration” of Central Asia with South Asia has been a geopolitical objective for the US for eroding Russia’s regional dominance. “Punish Russia, forgive China” fits in with the Donald Trump administration’s tactical ploy to break up the Sino-Russian entente. Mainstream American analysts are fond of claiming that the US and China have convergent interests in Central Asia.
For sure, this is a “win-win” for China. If the US wins the war in Afghanistan, China also can claim peace dividends. On the contrary, if the US loses to the Taliban, the BRI still provides a platform for China to build bridges to the new elite in Kabul. As for Washington, although it acquiesces with Afghanistan’s induction into the BRI matrix, sleepless nights lie ahead. For, as Shakespeare wrote, “If money go before, all ways do lie open.”
USA has lost this war for many years back… its just waiting time, when USA will pick its occupation soldiers from roof tops…. as it did in vietnam.
The US regrets past withdrawal of its military on foreign lands.. The most recent one being the Philippines back in the 80’s…it has not made such mistake since. I
George Silversurfer I think they have to withdraw from Afghanistan or face persistent humiliation at hands of Taliban.
Subcontinental trike + possibly Iran are taking urgent steps to prevent the IndoPacific quad to turn the Ocean into their private lake.
So the " New Silk Road " was originally an American idea. Jeez, who knew? Who wouldda even guessed?
Yet another stolen IP ?
Is China that naive to change horses in midstream and say goodbye to Russia, plus make American presence comfertable in its neighbourhood?
"The New Silk Road was originally an American idea"
That made me laugh.
The whole idea of the New Silk Road, is to create a trade route safe from the US Navy.
It’s about saving face, the US can never admit defeat, it would be political suicide for an American Government. Look what happened to Nixon and Carter, an American President never gets a second term, without a victorious war.
the silk road was 2,500 years ago..when amerca was owned by its rightfull owners the original people of america..and there were no white sahibs..MK..your white SAHIBS..mk..not mine..or not the chinese or the true people of india who are the cause of dividing the subcontinent..as for the original silk road the route was china to italy..via india.mk..yes india was a part of that great silk road..and now hina has recreated it again..winners will be asia..
. This is a "win+win" for everyone, even for Russia.
Pakistan need trade and investments. China must be the preferred choice for Pakistan. USA seem to be abandoning Pakistan to get a more favorable relation with India. India is not too comfortable of Chinese increased interest in Pakistan. India probably will be diplomatic and for the sake of business, and have relations with both China and the US.
The corruption, poverty, terrorism, and political turmoil poses huge challenges for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The US will continue to throw away money in Afghanistan to safeguard the profitable CIA Opium smuggling operations, essential for the funding of the CIA “Black Operations”.
Sri Lanka owns Japan the most, India the second, then China according to M K Bhadrakumar. I would be very interesting to know the interest rate of Indian loan too:
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/12/25/india-must-partake-of-obor/
"As for the Sri Lankan “debt trap”, the less said the better. The facts are as follows: In terms of donor-wise debt calcification, in the bilateral category, Japan ranks as the country to which Sri Lanka is indebted most – SL Rs. 486.8 billion; next comes India (SL Rs. 142.3 billion); and, China comes third (SL. Rs. 131.6 billion.) In fact, Japan and multilateral agencies (ADB, IDA and others) alone account for more than half of Sri Lanka’s total external debt. China’s share comes to less than 5 percent of the total external threat. Our pundits don’t even seem to be aware that Sri Lanka’s internal debt by far outstrips the country’s total foreign debt."
Athula Mallikarachi Sri Lanka owns Japan the most, India the second, then China according to M K Bhadrakumar. I would be very interesting to know the interest rate of Indian loan too:
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/12/25/india-must-partake-of-obor/
"As for the Sri Lankan “debt trap”, the less said the better. The facts are as follows: In terms of donor-wise debt calcification, in the bilateral category, Japan ranks as the country to which Sri Lanka is indebted most – SL Rs. 486.8 billion; next comes India (SL Rs. 142.3 billion); and, China comes third (SL. Rs. 131.6 billion.) In fact, Japan and multilateral agencies (ADB, IDA and others) alone account for more than half of Sri Lanka’s total external debt. China’s share comes to less than 5 percent of the total external threat. Our pundits don’t even seem to be aware that Sri Lanka’s internal debt by far outstrips the country’s total foreign debt."
Sri Lanka owns Japan the most, India the second, then China according to M K Bhadrakumar. I would be very interesting to know the interest rate of Indian loan too:
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/12/25/india-must-partake-of-obor/
"As for the Sri Lankan “debt trap”, the less said the better. The facts are as follows: In terms of donor-wise debt calcification, in the bilateral category, Japan ranks as the country to which Sri Lanka is indebted most – SL Rs. 486.8 billion; next comes India (SL Rs. 142.3 billion); and, China comes third (SL. Rs. 131.6 billion.) In fact, Japan and multilateral agencies (ADB, IDA and others) alone account for more than half of Sri Lanka’s total external debt. China’s share comes to less than 5 percent of the total external threat. Our pundits don’t even seem to be aware that Sri Lanka’s internal debt by far outstrips the country’s total foreign debt."
Sri Lanka owns Japan the most, India the second, then China according to M K Bhadrakumar. I would be very interesting to know the interest rate of Indian loan too:
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/12/25/india-must-partake-of-obor/
"As for the Sri Lankan “debt trap”, the less said the better. The facts are as follows: In terms of donor-wise debt calcification, in the bilateral category, Japan ranks as the country to which Sri Lanka is indebted most – SL Rs. 486.8 billion; next comes India (SL Rs. 142.3 billion); and, China comes third (SL. Rs. 131.6 billion.) In fact, Japan and multilateral agencies (ADB, IDA and others) alone account for more than half of Sri Lanka’s total external debt. China’s share comes to less than 5 percent of the total external threat. Our pundits don’t even seem to be aware that Sri Lanka’s internal debt by far outstrips the country’s total foreign debt."
Lets give into deception too.
Sri Lanka owns Japan the most, India the second, then China according to M K Bhadrakumar. I would be very interesting to know the interest rate of Indian loan too:
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/12/25/india-must-partake-of-obor/
"As for the Sri Lankan “debt trap”, the less said the better. The facts are as follows: In terms of donor-wise debt calcification, in the bilateral category, Japan ranks as the country to which Sri Lanka is indebted most – SL Rs. 486.8 billion; next comes India (SL Rs. 142.3 billion); and, China comes third (SL. Rs. 131.6 billion.) In fact, Japan and multilateral agencies (ADB, IDA and others) alone account for more than half of Sri Lanka’s total external debt. China’s share comes to less than 5 percent of the total external threat. Our pundits don’t even seem to be aware that Sri Lanka’s internal debt by far outstrips the country’s total foreign debt."
and u think endia is very rich with 200 millions having one time meal and 700 millions without toilets
The US knows only force and threats of violence. Sad!
Asia times with all Indian writers, twisting stories to malign China and pakistan as well as CPEC initiative.
Writings clearly show they have been assigned to create doubts and twists around their subjects, with specific colours to their writings.
Now trying to bring USA to the mix of china-pak-afghan meetings. They are lost and trying to fish in murky waters.
India has made investments in Afghanistan to destabilise Pakistan.
Suu tripartite meetings are like wasting their efforts.
Although the essay written by MBK is lost on how to interpret the meeting and predict future. The only thing he could come up was that the silk road was originally US idea.
If thats his projection, Then historical silk route was also a US idea which probably a time traveller from the USA embedded in the mind of Chinese while he travelled back in time.
Amazing how people like MBk earn their living these days.
My question Mr.Rovik how Indian being so shrewed can sail in two boats simultaneously.Having relation with a country that has progressive ideas and potential to turn neighbouring countries into vibrant economies and another who has destroyed at least three countries in Asia without a valid reason.Is that practicable.Your last sentence India has has all "merits" you catagorized Pakistan.India is poverty stricken,most corrupt in region,exporting terrorism to neighbours also has communal turmoil,several separtist movements.Only what they are doing today and are capable of doing is to spread cofusion about CPEC,and ridicule common man about China’s initiative.This is the best service to humanity.
An indian journalist writing about Pakistan,China and Afghanistan….this page is biased.Im not sure what he is trying to twist.He needs to “chose his words correctly”
This is the time for us to see the worlds of nations, but not usa super nation.
it is in the US interest to leave afghanistan before it is too late.
you must be an Indian . period
China probably does not suffer from Swiss Bank syndrome ?
We are teaching Urdu to Chinese.
Clearly he had not read SCO Charter, and even if he did, I doubt he gets the meaning. The relationships among members of SCO are not transactional. They have stopped being such since 1999, and the first meeting of Shanghai 5.