What's new

Pak US; Tranactional Relationship

"...the whole gamut of US-Pak relations is based on the military-to-military relationship. take that out, whats left."

Ummm...your single largest trading partner who absorbs 21% of Pakistan's gross exports (CIA Factbook) while providing your largest source of FDI and remitted income, IIRC. This notion of "transactional" has an odd habit-forming quality, particularly the insidiously addictive quality of globally-networked trade/commerce. These types of "transactional relationships" are far more enduring, mutually beneficial, and generate ancillary benefits (taxes) to the public good.

Were I Pakistan, I'd jump at a dollar-for-dollar shift of military aid for economic and infrastructure developmental aid-especially a quality and public secular school system. Managed carefully and locally, it would offer returns across the board to all concerned.

yes but with every US admn, such ideas (though well thought) take much too long (im-patience on the part of US and also partly Pakistan). u will agree americans like quick results may it be war or sports, hence this transactional relationship which has a quick-result orientation.

what i meant earlier is that a long-term relationship de-void of any military aid or FMS to meet pakistan's legitimate security needs (we do live in a rough neighbourhood) would not be enough. no arrogance or bravado intended. i have lived in the US, studied in the US (USF) so i know the american people.
 
what i meant earlier is that a long-term relationship de-void of any military aid or FMS to meet pakistan's legitimate security needs (we do live in a rough neighbourhood) would not be enough.

Enough for what? The relationship? Even if the US cut off military aid to Pakistan tomorrow, they would be within their rights. Pakistan should continue fighting against extremism, since it's not in its interests to have suicide bombers in the country. Musharraf has said this. The Americans have been generous (though a couple of billion is nothing for the US economy) in that respect, but they also are only in Afghanistan for one thing..oil + they would like Balochistan to be in their sphere, not China's. I find the thinking that you can expect something from the US as foolish, and then this turning around and saying "you left us" like some of the Tajik politicians in Afghanistan have said. Why do you expect the US should be a charity box for you guys? Better to stand on your own two feet without the help of the US.
 
"they also are only in Afghanistan for one thing..oil + they would like Balochistan to be in their sphere, not China's."

Roadrunner,

If oil was the reason for America in Afghanistan we would have been there well before 2001. No. We were attacked. It's that simple. Before 9/11 Afghanistan was the home of OBL and the Taliban but posed no direct threat nor interest to America. We were wrong and I'd expect our presence there for the indefinite future. Not because of oil though.

Not Iraq either. We've not extracted nor used one drop of Iraqi oil. We've not made one penny from the sale of Iraqi oil. America buys it's oil on the same global market as the rest of the world. America has the world's strongest economy but, as a maritime nation, we are utterly dependant upon global trade. America is in the gulf because securing free and fair access to oil by ALL benefits everybody's economy-and indirectly ours. In a nutshell, hegemonic control of oil that favors one side at the expense of all others and not treated as a market-driven commodity favors nobody. America will topple the farthest but all would fall to the same level.

The development of Gwadar should benefit all. Mostly Pakistan assuming that it'll be an open port. I'd imagine that the U.S. military woud LOVE to ship goods/materials through Gwadar to Kandahar. If developed for the sole use of the PRC and Pakistan, I'd imagine the waters offshore will be heavily and routinely transited by other navies.

Baluchistan needs to belong in Pakistan's sphere-nobody else. After all, it's already within your border, why would it become a part of China or America's sphere of influence or control?
 
Enough for what? The relationship? Even if the US cut off military aid to Pakistan tomorrow, they would be within their rights. Pakistan should continue fighting against extremism, since it's not in its interests to have suicide bombers in the country. Musharraf has said this. The Americans have been generous (though a couple of billion is nothing for the US economy) in that respect, but they also are only in Afghanistan for one thing..oil + they would like Balochistan to be in their sphere, not China's. I find the thinking that you can expect something from the US as foolish, and then this turning around and saying "you left us" like some of the Tajik politicians in Afghanistan have said. Why do you expect the US should be a charity box for you guys? Better to stand on your own two feet without the help of the US.

RR i believe u r off-track on this thread. we r standing on our own 2 feet - we have sustained continous US sanctions from 93 till 01 and ensured a effective deterrence against our enemies. and pray tell where have i claimed that the US has left us high and dry.
 
If oil was the reason for America in Afghanistan we would have been there well before 2001. No. We were attacked. It's that simple. Before 9/11 Afghanistan was the home of OBL and the Taliban but posed no direct threat nor interest to America. We were wrong and I'd expect our presence there for the indefinite future. Not because of oil though.

The Taliban were there (in Afghanistan) in 1997 when UNOCAL were trying to get them to agree to running TAP through Afghanistan. They were even in the US in 1997. What changed to make the Taliban a direct threat to America?

BBC News | West Asia | Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline

OBL you could argue was in Afghanistan and was reason enough for the Afghanistan invasion, depending on whether you buy 911 as fact or conspiracy. However, the presence of US troops on the ground (as with Soviet troops before them) is not going to go down well with the local population.

For me, everything is too coincidental, could just be me being a cynic. If TAP wasn't built, I'd probably have said there's no evidence. But TAP has been built, so the evidence points to the US being very interested in this project (which would net them billions).

Not Iraq either. We've not extracted nor used one drop of Iraqi oil. We've not made one penny from the sale of Iraqi oil.

I doubt this.

America buys it's oil on the same global market as the rest of the world. America has the world's strongest economy but, as a maritime nation, we are utterly dependant upon global trade. America is in the gulf because securing free and fair access to oil by ALL benefits everybody's economy-and indirectly ours. In a nutshell, hegemonic control of oil that favors one side at the expense of all others and not treated as a market-driven commodity favors nobody. America will topple the farthest but all would fall to the same level.

Hegemonic control of oil is not produced by literally hogging all the oil for itself. The dollar, in order to maintain its strength, needs to be the petrocurrency else it will become useless for purchasing oil, the US will need to sell off goods to buy oil with the remainder coming from institutions such money lenders that would charge extortionate amounts of interest.

Iraq was more about Saddam trading petrodollars in for petroeuros or some other currency. I'm sure you already know this.

The development of Gwadar should benefit all. Mostly Pakistan assuming that it'll be an open port. I'd imagine that the U.S. military woud LOVE to ship goods/materials through Gwadar to Kandahar. If developed for the sole use of the PRC and Pakistan, I'd imagine the waters offshore will be heavily and routinely transited by other navies.

Baluchistan needs to belong in Pakistan's sphere-nobody else. After all, it's already within your border, why would it become a part of China or America's sphere of influence or control?

It already is in China's sphere of influence slightly. They have built Gwadar. They didn't do it for charity. The US does not want its future competitor to have influence of Gwadar if it cannot supply Central Asia from Iran (which one would assume would be difficult given Iran's hostility).
 
RR i believe u r off-track on this thread. we r standing on our own 2 feet - we have sustained continous US sanctions from 93 till 01 and ensured a effective deterrence against our enemies. and pray tell where have i claimed that the US has left us high and dry.

Alright fatman, perhaps I misunderstood this.

"economic aid without a military relationship will not cut with us pakistanis! its a no go!"
 
RR:

"It already is in China's sphere of influence slightly. They have built Gwadar. They didn't do it for charity. The US does not want its future competitor to have influence of Gwadar if it cannot supply Central Asia from Iran (which one would assume would be difficult given Iran's hostility)."

Now when you say that it might be in China's sphere of influence slightly, are you referring to the potential use of the port by China's Navy?

I think the larger concern would be, as S-2 alluded, if China were able to convince/pressure Pakistan to not allow transit through Gwadar for other States - that sort of "influence" is what would be damaging to Pakistani interests in the long run. I am skeptical that such pressure would be applied, or if applied would be effective, since there has been no pulling back on using Pakistani airspace or territory for logistical support to NATO in Afghanistan - I imagine this would simply continue through Gwadar as well.
 
We're far apart.

I don't engage in conspiracies reference 9/11 nor an Iraq invasion centered upon Saddam engaged in currency speculation.

Doubt the veracity of Iraqi oil? Fine. Not for nothing, though, but we've voted something like $80 bil in supplementals to our budget to pay for that war so the notion of invading Iraq to "get rich" is clearly far off the mark. If so, somebody needs to wake up the GAO and get a study done on why we aren't making money.

You miss the point. We got to the top based upon the global commercial system. It's maintenence is what we're paid to do as the global cop. We've been one of the best in mankind. As our economy is the world's largest, it's been especially beneficial to secure and assure the fuel which feeds the global money machine.

Roadrunner, it's that simple. The complex conspiracies which ABOUND here are far off the mark. Most Americans believe that, with free and fair access to global markets and unfettered market-driven competition, we like our chances alongside everybody else.

"The dollar, in order to maintain its strength, needs to be the petrocurrency else it will become useless for purchasing oil"

There's a bit more to the U.S. dollar than the petrocurrency "flavor of the month" quotient here.

So Pakistan is selling oceanfront property these days to the Chinese in Gwadar? And the quid pro quo to Pakistan is...? Noodles? Gwadar is Pakistan's otherwise why all the noise on this board about it being Pakistan's "crown jewel". You make it sound like "sold like a cheap whore to the highest bidder". Gwadar- a Chinese enclave.

That's sorta funny.:smokin:
 
I think the larger concern would be, as S-2 alluded, if China were able to convince/pressure Pakistan to not allow transit through Gwadar for other States - that sort of "influence" is what would be damaging to Pakistani interests in the long run.

Why would China do so in the first place if the transits are not of millitary purpose?

I am skeptical that such pressure would be applied, or if applied would be effective, since there has been no pulling back on using Pakistani airspace or territory for logistical support to NATO in Afghanistan - I imagine this would simply continue through Gwadar as well.

The Supplies and logistical support to NATO are being sent through other routes already so if currently they can do it without Gwadar they can do in future too.

And who knows if US will be there in Afghanistan for the coming too many years.

The sooner they get out the sooner it would be good for them as well as their intrests.
As what they can achieve by engaging the larger population through peacful means in future, they can not do achieve by war.
 
Jana,

Current supplies for NATO in Afghanistan are military in nature, so if Gwadar were used, potential use of the port would indeed involve possible transit of military supplies - and why not? I don't think Pakistan is going to be offering the West permission to establish a base there though (and they are not interested any way), if thats what you are implying, but logistical support (refueling, temporaray docking etc. - if needed) for the Navies that do operate in the Arabian sea should be fine I imagine.

With respect to switching to Gwadar from the current routes, it would be faster and more efficient to supply Afghanistan from there. This is not just to facilitate the US, this is a new port, and the more traffic it handles the better. Supplying Afghanistan through Gwadar will also require related transport infrastructure to be developed, which facilitates Pakistan's long term goal to be a hub of transit trade for Afghanistan and the CAR's.

Additionally, transit of NATO supplies (military and reconstruction related) through Gwadar and Baluchistan means that the BLA activities, and those that support it, will be under additional pressure since they would be a threat to those supplies. If indeed Afghanistan is serving as a source for these activities and a safe haven for the BLA, they will find the space they have to operate squeezed tremendously.
 
RR:

"It already is in China's sphere of influence slightly. They have built Gwadar. They didn't do it for charity. The US does not want its future competitor to have influence of Gwadar if it cannot supply Central Asia from Iran (which one would assume would be difficult given Iran's hostility)."

Now when you say that it might be in China's sphere of influence slightly, are you referring to the potential use of the port by China's Navy?

I think the larger concern would be, as S-2 alluded, if China were able to convince/pressure Pakistan to not allow transit through Gwadar for other States - that sort of "influence" is what would be damaging to Pakistani interests in the long run. I am skeptical that such pressure would be applied, or if applied would be effective, since there has been no pulling back on using Pakistani airspace or territory for logistical support to NATO in Afghanistan - I imagine this would simply continue through Gwadar as well.

I think the Americans think they can buy off Pakistan by using military/economic aid as a tool for pressuring. Pakistan obviously doesn't like the relationship which is why it turns to China for everything now. If China wanted to in the future, it could pressure Pakistan whether they have a stake in Gwadar or not. Pakistan would be silly to side with the US over China. Who knows China's real interest in the project, but I don't see why it couldn't be used against the US. Obviously China would like its own trade route to the Arabian Sea, so that's probably its main interest. Whether the Chinese had in mind to block the US out of Central Asia, you'd need to ask Hu Jintao.
 
Jana,

Current supplies for NATO in Afghanistan are military in nature, so if Gwadar were used, potential use of the port would indeed involve possible transit of military supplies - and why not? I don't think Pakistan is going to be offering the West permission to establish a base there though (and they are not interested any way), if thats what you are implying, but logistical support (refueling, temporaray docking etc. - if needed) for the Navies that do operate in the Arabian sea should be fine I imagine.

With respect to switching to Gwadar from the current routes, it would be faster and more efficient to supply Afghanistan from there. This is not just to facilitate the US, this is a new port, and the more traffic it handles the better. Supplying Afghanistan through Gwadar will also require related transport infrastructure to be developed, which facilitates Pakistan's long term goal to be a hub of transit trade for Afghanistan and the CAR's.

Additionally, transit of NATO supplies (military and reconstruction related) through Gwadar and Baluchistan means that the BLA activities, and those that support it, will be under additional pressure since they would be a threat to those supplies. If indeed Afghanistan is serving as a source for these activities and a safe haven for the BLA, they will find the space they have to operate squeezed tremendously.

I'm not sure Pakistan should help the current Afghani government by supplying it. I don't think it really wants to, it's more US pressure that makes Pakistan support the current Afghani government. If I were Musharraf, I wouldn't want to help Karzai and his Tajik stooges. I'd sent all my goods through China into Central Asia through Kyrgyzstan and avoid the unstable Afghanistan as much as possible.
 
We're far apart.

I don't engage in conspiracies reference 9/11 nor an Iraq invasion centered upon Saddam engaged in currency speculation.

Doubt the veracity of Iraqi oil? Fine. Not for nothing, though, but we've voted something like $80 bil in supplementals to our budget to pay for that war so the notion of invading Iraq to "get rich" is clearly far off the mark. If so, somebody needs to wake up the GAO and get a study done on why we aren't making money.

Iraq was a misadventure. I think the US believed everybody would be happy with Saddam gone, and they'd be welcomed into Baghdad with flowers and all that milk and honey. The cost of what happened afterwards was unexpected. But if the US does not continue with it, they'll lose even more when the dollars flood back as the new government switches oil money from dollars to Euros.

An interesting link

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

You miss the point. We got to the top based upon the global commercial system. It's maintenence is what we're paid to do as the global cop. We've been one of the best in mankind. As our economy is the world's largest, it's been especially beneficial to secure and assure the fuel which feeds the global money machine.

Not really. The US got to the top as the British Empire crumbled, which in turn was due to Hitler's misadventure. Half the German scientists to the US, the other half to the Soviet Union. Then some sound economic policies.

Roadrunner, it's that simple. The complex conspiracies which ABOUND here are far off the mark. Most Americans believe that, with free and fair access to global markets and unfettered market-driven competition, we like our chances alongside everybody else.

The dollar won't last 5 minutes if the oil countries switched to Euros.

"The dollar, in order to maintain its strength, needs to be the petrocurrency else it will become useless for purchasing oil"

There's a bit more to the U.S. dollar than the petrocurrency "flavor of the month" quotient here.

So Pakistan is selling oceanfront property these days to the Chinese in Gwadar? And the quid pro quo to Pakistan is...? Noodles? Gwadar is Pakistan's otherwise why all the noise on this board about it being Pakistan's "crown jewel". You make it sound like "sold like a cheap whore to the highest bidder". Gwadar- a Chinese enclave.

That's sorta funny.:smokin:

Gwadar is Pakistan's jewel because it provides the link to warm waters for central asian oil. Iran has its own oil so doesn't want central asia stealing its business. Gwadar is central asia's oil route (and the US's). China did not build Gwadar for nothing, perhaps it's just for its own benefit to export goods to the Arabian Sea, but who knows. Pakistan is helping its ally out, just as China has helped it in the past. It's a mutually helpful relationship.
 
AM,

On China and Gwadar, this may appear interesting in the discussion.


Gwadar: China's Naval Outpost on the Indian Ocean

Tarique Niazi, The Jamestown Foundation, China Brief
2/28/2005

Four months after the U.S. ordered its troops into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime, China and Pakistan joined hands to break ground in building a Deep Sea Port on the Arabian Sea. The project was sited in an obscure fishing village of Gwadar in Pakistan's western province of Baluchistan, bordering Afghanistan to the northwest and Iran to the southwest. Gwadar is nautically bounded by the Persian Gulf in the west and the Gulf of Oman in the southwest.

Although the Gwadar Port project has been under study since May 2001, the U.S. entrée into Kabul provided an added impetus for its speedy execution. Having set up its bases in Central, South, and West Asian countries, the U.S. virtually brought its military forces at the doorstep of China. Beijing was already wary of the strong U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, which supplies 60% of its energy needs. It was now alarmed to see the U.S. extend its reach into Asian nations that ring western China. Having no blue water navy to speak of, China feels defenseless in the Persian Gulf against any hostile action to choke off its energy supplies. This vulnerability set Beijing scrambling for alternative safe supply routes for its energy shipments. The planned Gwadar Deep Sea Port was one such alternative for which China had flown its Vice Premier, Wu Bangguo, to Gwadar to lay its foundation on March 22, 2002.

Pakistan was interested in the project to seek strategic depth further to the southwest from its major naval base in Karachi that has long been vulnerable to the dominant Indian Navy. In the past, it endured prolonged economic and naval blockades imposed by the Indian Navy. To diversify the site of its naval and commercial assets, Pakistan has already built a naval base at Ormara, the Jinnah Naval Base, which has been in operation since June 2000. It can berth about a dozen ships, submarines and similar harbor craft. The Gwadar port project, however, is billed to crown the Pakistan Navy into a force that can rival regional navies. The government of Pakistan has designated the port area as a "sensitive defense zone." Once completed, the Gwadar port will rank among the world's largest deep-sea ports.

The convergence of Sino-Pakistani strategic interests has put the port project onto a fast track to its early completion. In three years since its inauguration, the first phase of the project is already complete with three functioning berths. The Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will be on hand to mark the completion of this phase in March this year. Although the total cost of the project is estimated at $1.16 billion USD, China pitched in $198 million and Pakistan $50 million to finance the first phase. China also has invested another $200 million into building a coastal highway that will connect the Gwadar port with Karachi. The second phase, which will cost $526 million, will feature the construction of 9 more berths and terminals and will also be financed by China. To connect western China with Central Asia by land routes, Pakistan is working on building road links to Afghanistan from its border town of Chaman in Baluchistan to Qandahar in Afghanistan. In the northwest, it is building similar road links between Torkham in Pakhtunkhaw (officially known as the Northwest Frontier Province) and Jalalabad in Afghanistan. Eventually, the Gwadar port will be accessible for Chinese imports and exports through overland links that will stretch to and from Karakoram Highway in Pakistan's Northern Areas that border China's Muslim-majority Autonomous Region of Xinjiang. In addition, the port will be complemented with a modern air defense unit, a garrison, and a first-rate international airport capable of handling airbus service.

Pakistan already gives China most favored nation (MFN) status and is now establishing a bilateral Free Trade Area (FTA), which will bring tariffs between the two countries to zero. Over the past two years, the trade volume between the two countries has jumped to $2.5 billion a year, accounting for 20% of China's total trade with South Asia. Informal trade, a euphemism for smuggling, however, is several times the formal trade. The proposed FTA is an implicit acceptance of the unstoppable "informal" trade as a "formal" one. More importantly, Chinese investment in Pakistan has increased to $4 billion, registering a 30% increase just over the past two years since 2003. Chinese companies make up 12% (60) of the foreign firms (500) operating in Pakistan, which employ over 3,000 Chinese nationals.

The growing economic cooperation between Beijing and Islamabad is also solidifying their strategic partnership. Before leaving for his visit to Beijing this past December, Pakistani Prime Minister Aziz told reporters in Islamabad: "Pakistan and China are strategic partners and our relations span many areas." The rhetoric of strategic alignment is duly matched by reality. Last year, China and Pakistan conducted their first-ever joint naval exercises near the Shanghai coast. These exercises, among others, included simulation of an emergency rescue operation. Last December, Pakistan opened a consulate in Shanghai. The Gwadar Port project is the summit of such partnership that will bring the two countries closer in maritime defense as well.

Initially, China was reluctant to finance the Gwadar port project because Pakistan offered the U.S. exclusive access to two of its critical airbases in Jacobabad (Sind) and Pasni (Baluchisntan) during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. According to a Times of India report on February 19, 2002, Gen. Musharraf had to do a lot of explaining for leasing these bases to America. China, the Times of India reported, was also upset with Pakistan for allowing the U.S. to establish listening posts in Pakistan's Northern Areas, which border Xinjiang and Tibet. When China finally agreed to offer financial and technical assistance for the project, it asked for "sovereign guarantees" to use the Port facilities to which Pakistan agreed, despite U.S. unease over it.
Association for Asia Research- Gwadar: China's Naval Outpost on the Indian Ocean
 

Back
Top Bottom