Trump is grossly misled on Pakistan, here it is how?

By Atta Rasool Malik

On 21 August 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump spelled out his long awaited ‘Afghan Policy’ while addressing American officers and soldiers at historic U.S military base, Fort Myer, Virginia. His speech was televised nationwide during prime-time in the United States.  Millions of others around the globe also listened to American President live on TVs and YouTube. Here in Pakistan, he was followed with a lot of interest and keenness because people of Pakistan are greatly affected by the war in their neighborhood.

American President was praising his men for their great sacrifices but deep down in his heart, he knew his men were not winning in Afghanistan. Therefore, he was unable to give the timeframe for likely completion of the task in Afghanistan or conditions under which to define success or failure. As regards Pakistan, he looked more like Indian PM Mr. Narendra Moodi.

Trump could identify only one reason for not winning in Afghanistan; it was Pakistan. To him, terrorists were enjoying safe haven in Pakistan. However, he did not explain why Pakistan wanted to fail America in Afghanistan?

Trump took very long to issue policy guidelines to Americans troops engaged in war in Afghanistan. Probably, he was too occupied and busy on the domestic front. Whether it was fear of impeachment and inquiries or he was being influenced by ‘interest groups’ to continue fighting in Afghanistan; a policy which he had described it as “disastrous” during his election campaign. Trump was now ‘educated’ that American presence in Afghanistan is essential to safeguard the US might against emerging and resurging powers. CEO’s of influential Multi-National Companies benefiting from the war in Afghanistan might have also assured support for entrapped and worried Trump. Therefore, finally, Trump has announced the continuation of Afghan war with renewed vigor.

Trump repudiated his early stance and declared without any shyness that the United States of America is there in Afghanistan ‘not to rebuild Afghanistan or construct democracies in far away lands’. They were there to kill terrorists; read Afghan Taliban. For the first time, American President says he does not stand for values which the Americans have lecturing us all along for many years; human rights, women empowerment, and democracy.

Americans Troops identify the only section of Taliban; Afghan Taliban as terrorists. These are the people who resist American presence in Afghanistan.  Americans have no problem with another half of Taliban; Pakistani Taliban who are fighting the state of Pakistan. These anti-Pakistan Taliban are rather facilitated by Afghan’s NDS and India’s intelligence agency RAW in Afghanistan. Pakistani Taliban, actually; a proxy of India, are killing innocent children and women in markets, schools, churches and mosques of Pakistan. Resultantly Pakistan has lost over 60,000 people and approximately $100 billion of the worth of material losses in this war on Terror.

In Europe and America there are lobbying firms and surprisingly these are legal. These firms are ready to further the cause of any country, group, and mafia for money. They mislead academia and influence state officials for money. They don’t have the moral integrity to stand for truth. They are clearly tasked to tarnish the image of Pakistan. Indian lobbies are particularly very effective in Washington. They twist the data, misinform and deceive the decision and opinion makers of USA. Trump administration has been misled to believe that the only cause of failing in Afghanistan is Pakistan. Americans have failed to appreciate the actual causes of resurgent Taliban. People in Afghanistan view the absence of justice and rampant corruption in government offices deadlier than Taliban.  

Propagandists and lobbies have changed the image of an infamous killer and butcher, current PM of India, Mr. Narendra Modi as peace loving leader of India. Americans officials have forgotten that Mr. Narendra Moodi was barred from visiting EU and USA for a decade for gross human right violations. India is a caste ridden racist country where lives of minorities are like hell. School going Kashmiri girls and boys are insulted and blinded with pellets guns on a daily basis. Yet Trump looked upon India as a peaceful nation and inspiring democracy.

Americans have decided to empower India in Afghanistan forgetting that Indians are not neighbors of Afghanistan. They are only there in Afghanistan to bribe and instigate Afghan officials against Pakistan and create instability in Pakistan. This miracle is due to lobbying firms, MNC’s appetite for Indian Market and availability of Indians cash for import of weapons. The situation is shameful for humanity. Even the top World leaders cannot call spade a spade for petty interests. This is clear moral bankruptcy. It is ‘unprincipled realism of Trump’.

Americans are known for their poor understanding of the region. Their differentiation of friend and foe is faulty. American prefers fluency in English over populace support, honesty, and competence for high posts in the Afghan government. Consequently today American troops enjoy very little public support in Afghanistan. They are perceived as occupiers, rather than facilitators of peace and development.

Afghan Taliban don’t need shelters and safe haven of Pakistan. They control large areas [over 45%] in Afghanistan and roam freely. On the contrary, due to courage and sacrifices of Pakistan armed forces, Pakistan has re-established the writ of the state over entire tribal areas, FATA. American President has all the satellites at his disposal. He should indicate where are the safe heavens.

Pakistan is fighting the terrorists with utmost power. Pakistan has lost many senior military officers including general officers and their children in this fight. This is a sufficient proof of our sincerity. Pakistan has since long abandoned the idea of militias, though the USA is still relying on proxies and contractors. Pakistan has fully disciplined and well integrated armed forces. It has long range missiles and sufficient credible nuclear deterrence with a political will and national consensus to use all weapons in case of a real threat.

American President should not sermon people of Pakistan to commit to civilization, order, and peace. People of Pakistan are not savages. They are already committed to faith, peace, and order and proud of their civilization.

Academia/ intelligentsia of Pakistan does not view America as a hostile country. The USA helped Pakistan build nuclear weapons by turning blind eye to development of our nuclear weapons. Pakistan also acknowledges and appreciates USA help at many difficult occasions. Pakistan is annoyed but a not enemy of United States. Americans despite their dominant position in world politics and vast influence, did not help resolve Kashmir and water issues with India.  Rivalry with India has ruined Pakistan’s economy and it continues to fund proxies and terrorism in Karachi and Baluchistan.

It is also baseless Indian propaganda that Pakistan is allowing Chinese or Russian naval bases at Gawader. CPEC has been over sensitized by Indians. It is a purely an economic project. Pakistan only desires to uplift its infrastructure and overcome energy crisis.

Pakistan has no problem with Americans new found love with India. Every country has a right to pursue its national interests.  Americans think that India is their strategic partner and it would stand against China or Russia, it is absolutely fine with us. Americans would know the Indians more clearly very soon.

Trump has reminded India making billions of dollars from the United States from trade and on other pretexts to contribute more in Afghanistan.

 Looking forward to seeing Indians and Americans troops ‘killing terrorists’ together in Afghanistan.

  Author hails from semi tribal areas of Pakistan. Holds M Phil Degree in International Relations from National Defense University Islamabad. He can be reached at attarasul@hotmail.com. Twitter: @malikattarasul

US Stuck In the Graveyard of Empires

By Ishaal Zehra

Media reports claim that the American President, Donald Trump, has let loose to his advisers who were tasked to craft the new US strategy in Afghanistan, blasting them strikingly for their startling failures in America’s longest war in Afghanistan. According to some senior officials, he even suggested firing the war's top military commander Gen. John Nicholson during a tense meeting at the White House on the pretext of “not winning the war”. Officials said Trump pointed to maps showing the Taliban gaining ground, and that Defense Secretary Mattis responded to the president by saying the US is losing because it doesn't have the strategy it needs.

Trump is the third US president dealing with the Afghan war. Former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush went through multiple strategies over the course of their presidencies to try to stabilize Afghanistan. What set Trump apart in the July meeting was his open questioning of the quality of the advice he was receiving. Trump's national security team has been trying for months to come up with a new strategy he can approve, but all in vein.

Though the president is surely not a pro when it comes to keeping personal comments and feelings out of politics. And he surely is lousy while speaking in public. But he was absolutely right to snub the military brass for daring to ask for a very large troop and budget increase for the stalemated Afghan War that has commanded a price of $1 trillion to date.

Of course, the unfortunate generals are not really to blame. They have been forced by the last three presidents to fight, as Eric Margolis defines in his recent article, a pointless war at the top of the world that lacks any strategy, reason or purpose – and with limited forces. Where they are not even allowed to admit defeat by lightly-armed Muslim tribesmen. The truth is that America was blundered into the Afghan War under President George W. Bush who needed a target for revenge after the humiliating 9/11 attacks.

Gen. Nicholson, during a testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, has called the war a "stalemate" and said he needs a "few thousand" additional troops. Heading into its 16th year, the war in Afghanistan is the longest war in the US history.

Retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former head of NATO and an NBC News analyst, suggested the delay in finalizing a strategy has hurt US efforts in the war.

"The situation in Afghanistan is not improving, but I think it's hardly irretrievable at this point, and what the president needs to be doing is deciding on the strategy," Admiral Stavridis said.

"What is hurting the process at the moment is this back and forth about do we stay or do we go, how many troops," he added. "Any commander is going to be incredibly handicapped in an environment like that. So I think the fundamental problem here is lack of decisiveness in Washington, specifically in the White House."

Though, officials say the president's team has coalesced around a workable Afghan strategy, where it had presented him with other options as well such as complete withdrawal. Trump, however, appeared to have been significantly influenced by a meeting he recently had with a group of veterans of the Afghanistan war, and he was unhappy with the options presented to him.

Lindsey Graham, member of the Senate Armed Services Committee reiterates that, "If the president doesn't listen to the generals, like Gen. Nicholson and he goes down the road that President Obama went, Afghanistan is going to collapse". "Here's my advice to the president — listen to people like Gen. Nicholson and McMaster and others who have been in the fight."

Trump had better come up with a better idea. Eric Margolis suggests the absolute solution to end the 17-year war in his recent article which I endorse is to emulate the example of the courageous Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. He pronounced his Afghan War unwinnable, told his angry generals to shut up, and ordered the Red Army out of the war in Afghanistan.

Dear America: It’s Your Turn to ‘Do More’

By Ishaal Zehra

“We need to give attention to the important role Pakistan plays in the Afghanistan issue, and respect Pakistan's sovereignty and security concerns”, said the Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi over a telephone conversation with US State of Secretary Rex Tillerson on August 23.

“China stands ready to keep communication and coordination with the United States on the Afghanistan issue … and political dialogue is the only solution to the Afghanistan issue,” Yang further said while exchanging views with Tillerson on the current situation of Afghanistan. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying also gave a strong statement accentuating that “Pakistan was on the front line in the struggle against terrorism and had made great sacrifices and important contributions in the fight.”

After China’s strong message, Russia also has resonated similar sentiments following Trump’s daft allegations on Pakistan.

Russian Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov slammed Trump’s Pakistan strategy and insisted that Islamabad is “a key regional player to negotiate with. Putting pressure on Pakistan may seriously destabilize the region-wide security situation and result in negative consequences for Afghanistan”.

Meanwhile in Pakistan, the civil and military leadership has expressed serious reservations over the new US policy on Afghanistan. Consultations at the highest levels concluded that Pakistan will not give in to any American pressure or demands. It has been conveyed to the US administration through diplomatic channels that Pakistan will set her strategy for a peaceful Afghanistan in line with her own national security policy.

It is also heard from a horse’s mouth that Islamabad has set its own strategy to deal with the new US strategy. Pakistan, they said, has warned the US of possible pull-out from the Afghan reconciliation process if Washington didn’t change its approach.

According to media reports, Pakistan has told US Ambassador David Hale that neither was Islamabad dependent on Washington for its defense system nor did its economy need American financial assistance. Islamabad has sent a clear message to Washington: Shifting the blame for your own failure in Afghanistan and arm-twisting won’t work anymore.

“Pakistan is not looking for any material or financial assistance from [the] United States but needs trust, understanding and acknowledgement of its contributions in the war against terror,” US Ambassador David Hale was told, when he called on Gen. Bajwa in Rawalpindi. “We have done a lot ... and shall keep on doing our best, not to appease anyone but in line with our national interest and national policy,” Gen. Bajwa was quoted in an army press statement later on.

The signals emanating from White House, Capitol Hill and mainstream media on ‘US policy on Afghanistan’ point to a rather frustrated and confused mindset. Trump made a speech as the C in C of US military and expected rhetoric should be seen in that perspective, his speech also addressed a divided domestic polity.

Logically, if the US led military alliance of 46 countries could not break the surge of insurgency over a period of 16 years, even after spending almost one trillion dollars, what do they expect from Pakistan? Pakistan Army, on her part, has done a tremendous job by successfully fighting against terrorism on her soil. As Laurel Miller, former US State department official who remained special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2013 to June 2017, argues that “it’s not that there’s no leverage on Pakistan but the Pakistan is not going to change her perception of her own national security interests based only on American pressure. There has to be something that attracts the Pakistan to cooperate in a positive way with the United States.” But she also thinks that president Trump strategy has missed the “key element of any semblance of a political strategy for Afghanistan that could bring stability to the country and could give Pakistan another regional player and opportunity to see the potential for their own interests to be satisfied.”

International community should also ponder on the prolonged Afghan conflict and needs to support Afghanistan in achieving a broad inclusive political reconciliation, support the Afghan people in pursuing a development path that suits their own national conditions and support the Afghan government in increasing it capability to fight forces of extremism and terrorism. Time has come to realize the strategic environment in Afghanistan and find a political solution to the imbroglio by taking all stake holders on board, there is simply no other way.

THE US DILEMMA by Lt General Tariq Khan

By Lt. General Tariq Khan (Retired)

The US finds it does not know how to dismount the tiger.

The US is finding the war in Afghanistan a little too hot for its liking and why not; it was a war that remained in search of strategy and failed to find it. It’s not that I wish to gloat, nor that I want to say ‘I told you so’, but that one is forced to respond when confronted with accusations that the US failed in Afghanistan on account of Pakistan.

• That we were a tricky two-faced partner. Since I was closely associated with this conflict for a number of years and since I am aware of the things that happened, it is only right that people such as me must speak for Pakistan just as we fought for Pakistan.
• That a hundred and fifty thousand NATO troops have been overwhelmed by the imagined hoards that Pakistan sent across the border, challenges my professional understanding of the situation.
• That this is the same border that neither Afghanistan recognises and resists its management or fencing, of course, cannot have escaped US attention.
• That Pakistan has seven times the number of posts than Afghanistan and the US combined does not seem to make any headway.
• That Afghan communication systems are functioning despite Pakistan’s repeated requests that they be shut down while Pakistani SIMs are down and out is another moot point.
• That three Generals of the US Army promised additional border deployment with a US brigade across the North Waziristan Border remains a promise unfulfilled and forgotten.
• That the US unilaterally up-staked and left Nuristan and the Kunar Valley, one of the most dangerous areas on the border, creating a vacuum is a question that only they can answer.
• That Pakistani dissidents were given safe havens in this vacuum and encouraged to attack Pakistan is for all to see and take note of.
• That the MOAB (Mother of all Bombs) accounted for 14 Indians from Kerala amongst the causalities was never a surprise for us.
• That India is permitted to have so many conciliates along the Border, and none are processing visas is an obvious aberration.
• That Pakistan suffered horrendous terrorist attacks from Afghanistan through these bands of militants organised and facilitated in Kunar is a no brainer.

Pakistan has been a so-called “ally,” although we have:

• captured the maximum al-Qaeda operators than all countries combined
• have lost 70,000 of our citizens
• have the highest military causalities
• our officer dead and wounded to troop ratio is the highest in the world
• our generals to troop causalities is unprecedented

The cost of war has devastated the infrastructure, caused millions of citizens to be displaced and has affected the economy to the tune of $ 100 Billion. It has cleared 48,000 sq kms of its soil, secured 3,500 kms of lines of communication (LoC), re-established the writ of the government in these areas, allowing people to return home, the armed forces are popular and the borders controlled. But then even as I narrate this, it also saddens me.

Do the Americans not know this? Are we just a victim of not having a narrative, a victim of a bad image or slanderous Haqqani shooting off his mouth? Could it be as simple as that? No, that is not possible and I am convinced, that no amount of logic, no amount of reasoning will change the US posture towards Pakistan.

The bias and the prejudice is despite what the US knows; the posture taken is premediated and deliberate and we must have been factored into some distant objective the US may have in mind and, therefore, action initiated against us must be a way to arrive at that objective.

The story of the safe havens we are accused of nurturing is so close to the engineered narrative about the weapons of mass destruction that were allegedly discovered in Iraq and now such a predictable US method to madness i.e. create a false casus-belie, broad caste it, respond to it with physical force.

However, at the moment, I still feel that US is going through the motion of the good cop-bad cop routine and if we can stare them down effectively, they may back down. Remember, the US is a bully and the bully can never be appeased; the more you please, the more arrogant he gets. So, we are warned in the first part of the new US manoeuvre, while in the second part, we are to expect a troop surge of 4,000 troops to make a total of 12,000 men. In the confused and tentative objectives of this two-pronged strategy, the US is looking for its relief, its coup de grace, and conclusion to its military adventure in Afghanistan.

How?

The troop numbers cannot win back the 40% of space already lost, in fact, that cannot sustain the space they already have. I see these troops now resorting to fire-power, bombings and long range artillery with a high ratio of airborne component. The nature and character of this force does not appear to have a ground-holding capacity. So, I can only conclude that it is intended to punish the Taliban from a distant. If that be true, to what purpose?

To me, it appears that it endeavours to put the US in a better position to negotiate a power transfer. To me, it looks that this ‘Unity’ Government is about to be ditched. To me, it looks that the Taliban have won a place at the table where they can secure the ways and means to be the future legitimate government of Afghanistan. To me, it also seems that the Indians may be the next US proxy and who might be foolish enough to take on this role.

I hope they do.

My hopes are founded on the likely outcome of such a stupidity if it ever comes to it.

Coming to Pakistan; we are about to lose our privileged allied status.

Were we ever privileged? Did we discover any advantage or draw anything out of such a relationship?

I think it is time to sever this relationship that has, in fact, cost as so much. We hear of all the money and funds that the US taxpayers gave to us. I, for one, am thankful for their assistance – I would like to say to the people of the US that we are grateful for their contributions.

However, what did we get and should we always be told of what are obligations are on account of it?

Well, here are the bare facts, taking the year 2009 as a constant, we have received from the US a total of $ 61 Billion.

Working on another constant of 180 million people, this translates to $10.30/ head. Surely, we can do without this $10.30, even if it did get to the people.

We have also received, a total of $14 Billion since 2002 till today.

Against a 175 Billion national economy, this hardly amounts to .5% of our GDP.

Like I said earlier, we are thankful for whatever we received and would never want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but in no way, do we feel that we are obligated due to such an insignificant amount or for that matter any amount, nor is the US entitled to make unreasonable demands on account of it, nor can we put our sovereignty or what remains of it, at the disposal of the US, because of it?

We are not for sale.

Having lost the war in Afghanistan, which they now wish to blame Pakistan, having parked our enemy in our back yard, having closed an eye to how we have been attacked from areas under their control and now being threatened for some ulterior motive, we must seek a suitable response.

In my mind, the US will do what it has decided to do regardless of any explanations we have, any reasoning, narrative or argument that we present. Whereas, our response lies mostly lies in the domain of diplomacy and in garnering support from friendly countries as far as possible, yet we must reserve the right and the option of responding in a reciprocal a manner if it comes to a physical conflict.

We should be wary of the total lack of support from the Islamic countries and the so called Ummah, as they have amply displayed, and rely on ourselves more than anyone else.

My recommendation is a warning to Afghanistan that any hostile activity emanating from its territory will be taken as an act of war. That we shall respond by causing as much damage as we can in Kabul, Jalalabad, Kandahar and Bagram. We have the range, capability and capacity; they should be wary of testing it.

This may deter any adventure the US has in mind, never beg a bully!!!!

Pitching China Might Just Be Shooting The Breeze

Ishaal Zehra

It all started with the visit of the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, ‘Dalai Lama’ to Tawang district in Arunachal Pradesh earlier this month. For those who do not know the geographic importance of Arunachal Pradesh, it is an eastern Himalayan state administered by India but claimed by China as Southern Tibet.

China lodged a diplomatic protest with India when the Dalai Lama began his visit to Arunachal Pradesh on April 4, noticing that his visit will rather have a negative impact on Sino-India ties, visibly cautioning New Delhi not to use the exiled spiritual leader to undermine Beijing's interests. Iterating its displeasure at the visit almost a week after it ended, Chinese foreign ministry clearly indicated it has not bought what India has been saying– that the trip was religious in nature or the Tibetan leader is free to travel and doesn’t plan his itinerary at the behest of the Indian government.

As if this was not enough, the Indian chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu, told Reuters on April 5 that he regarded the land on the other side of the border as Tibet, not China. "As far as the boundary issue is concerned, I have also maintained that we don't share our boundary with China, but we share our boundary with Tibet," Khandu said.

This isn’t the first time India provoked China. India has been repeatedly doing so over the past year. Last year, in October, it was Modi inviting US Ambassador Richard Verma at Tawang for the monastery’s annual festival. He even established the official nature of the invitation by appointing minister of State in Home ministry, Kiren Rijiju as his escort. This was the first time a US ambassador to India visited Arunachal Pradesh.

In April 2016, again, China was deliberately provoked with the statement of US consul general in Kolkata, Craig L. Hall who said that “US is absolutely clear that Arunachal is Indian territory”. Chinese foreign ministry strongly objected to it, saying “China is firmly opposed to the US diplomat’s actions, which will damage the hard-earned peace and tranquility of the China-India border region. Any responsible third party should respect efforts by China and India to seek peaceful and stable reconciliation, and not the opposite”. Here ‘peace and tranquility of the border region’ was a clear diplomatic reference (or may be a caution) to the Sino-India border agreement of 1993.

This provocation is not happening again and again without intention. There is a reason why Verma visited the northeastern state. The Dalai Lama did not suddenly woke up after a hibernation of few years and realized that he should visit his birth place. This all signifies at a time when New Delhi’s ties with Beijing have been strained not only over the Chinese raising obstacles to Indian membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), but also for the cover provided to Pakistan in multilateral bodies – the OBOR – the CPEC.

Interestingly, China reacted back to India on Wednesday after it announced that it has "standardized" official names for six places in Arunachal Pradesh and termed the move as a "legitimate action". Though Indian media dubbed this move as China's revenge against Dalai Lama's visit to the disputed region, Long Xingchun, Director at the Centre for Indian Studies at China West Normal University, said the standardization of names demonstrates China is less likely to make concessions in border negotiations with India. Writing in the state-run Global Times daily, Long said Beijing was magnanimous in not retaliating against New Delhi's provocations, rather it was a way to convey Beijing's resoluteness in not making any concessions to New Delhi in border talks.

Prem Shankar Jha is his article on the subject thoughtfully analyzed what India can conceivably gain from forcing China to take a stand on an issue that would much rather bury Sino-India calm? “What will India do if China decides to seize some part of Arunachal — the Tawang tract for example — by force? Will it fight another border war with China in terrain where, apart from having a much larger army, China enjoys all the advantages of terrain and logistics? Given the hyper-nationalism that has begun to grip the Indian middle classes today, Modi will have no option but to do so”, suggests Jha.

Carrying the same thoughts in mind, Long Xingchun said some "radical" Indians were naive in thinking that New Delhi could out-do Beijing in armed clashes. In fact, India, which had more advantages in the 1962 war with China, should learn from its "erroneous strategic judgements".

This leads to the question, does India has any chance of winning such a war? Jha says one does not have to look far to see that a war against China is the very last thing that this war weary and nearly bankrupt country now wants. So why is Modi taking India into such dire peril? When logic fails to provide an answer, one must turn to illogic. The only explanation that makes even a modicum of sense is a bruised ego. China has ignored repeated attempts by India to make it withdraw its objections to India joining the NSG. Apparently rejection is something that Narendra Modi is unable to take. Now the real catch in all this scenario is that the question which failed to strike Modi’s mind is, how it all will conclude if Xi Jinping might also have the same problem?

CPEC Moving From Discussion To Solutions

By Zulfiqar Qazilbash

CPEC is a major Chinese project closely related to its One Belt, One Road initiative that aims to boost Asian trade internally as well as externally. The initiative is ambitious on an unprecedented scale. It dwarfs the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Europe after the Second World War. It will impact about 65 per cent of the world’s population, about one-third of the world’s GDP, and about a quarter of all the goods and services the world moves. We are fortunate to be part of it. However, it is time for Pakistan to move from discussions around the project into developing a national vision that takes full advantage of the opportunities presented. Much is at stake if we do not do this in an accelerated time frame. Following are some of the major areas that need to be addressed:

Environment: Environmental cooperation is usually a major part of such agreements but this component has yet to be addressed. This is a problem since it has been estimated that once trade starts flowing up to 7,000 trucks a day will pass through the ecologically sensitive Khunjerab Pass and generate up to 36.5 million tons of Co2 emissions en route to Gwadar.

All experts agree that the emissions will melt the northern region’s glaciers and negatively impact agriculture and food and water security of our growing population. We need a solution and one that has not been discussed so far is to use the project to facilitate the migration of our transportation sector to first hybrid and then electric power. This will have three major benefits. The repowering station requirements of CPEC transport vehicles moving to electric power will accelerate and enable the early migration of our remaining transportation infrastructure to renewable energy. Oil-related products currently account for approximately a third of our annual imports. It will free us from the circular debt problem associated with them. Secondly, it will open up opportunities for the private sector to set up micro hydroelectric plants in G-B, AJK and K-P and small-scale solar and thermal power plants in Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan that generate power for the vehicle repowering stations along the route.

Thirdly, if properly regulated this could allow communities to be brought together in common economic interest to service the traffic passing through their area (repowering stations, food outlets, workshops, hospitals, etc). The vested economic interest will enhance security and provide more confidence to the Chinese sponsors to increase investments along this corridor.

If environmental impact is not addressed then as factories get built in the economic zones, the pollution will further exacerbate our problems of climate change. This is a great concern given that according to PWSER research, Pakistan is on track to experience an African-style, large scale water famine as early as 2025.  The only solution is massive water storage projects which can also generate cheap renewable hydropower electricity for our residential, agricultural and industrial sectors.  Currently, 35 per cent of our energy is oil based which requires foreign exchange externally and has led to circular debt internally. The suggested projects will generate a lot of employment and most of the large-scale construction could be locally managed minimising foreign exchange requirements which depreciate the local currency. We should seek assistance from the Chinese to set up a regional carbon trading market that finances a lot of these renewable energy projects. Ideally we should have been debating and finalising a comprehensive programme put together by our government to address this upcoming crisis before this time. In our democracy, an endeavour this big will take time to educate and build national consensus and then it will take more than a decade to implement this programme.

Industrial development: CPEC is a game changer and opens up trade between the Central Asia and the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Its major purpose is for China to increase its trade with these regions by improving and simplifying logistics and transportation. Currently imports into Europe from China account for about $450 billion which has room to grow in a $7 trillion market. As trade increases along this corridor, it would be foolish if Pakistan did not develop its own national strategy to cooperatively capitalise and cash in some of the economic opportunities presented. However our current exports are dominated by textile and organic commodities with low value addition. Clearly, our current corporate and SME sectors is by and large not ready to address this upcoming opportunity and we are in danger of being swept aside.

An illustration of what can happen is found in many marginalised communities who are situated along the Iran trade corridor in Balochistan or the Afghan trade corridor in K-P and get no visible benefit from the passing trade. Under the Obama Administration, USAID had announced a $40 million project called SME-A for intervention that provides technical assistance to 6,000 SMEs in the areas of textile, ICT, light engineering, hospitality, minerals, leather, logistics and packaging. Given what’s at stake, the government should seriously consider taking a piggy back ride on this initiative and expand collaboration if it continues in the Trump administration. It should consider taking it over if for some reason the US backs off the project.

Regional hub: CPEC provides an unprecedented opportunity to Pakistan as it fulfills its geostrategic potential as the gateway of trade between Central Asia to the Middle East, Africa and Europe. It is ideally situated to become the defacto maritime trade hub between the Europe and Asia. A regional hub provides many opportunities other than logistics and transportation including legal, financial, marketing, business communication and other services.

China has created the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank and the Silk Road fund to support this realignment of global trade with roles loosely defined around the World Bank and IFC. Many new institutions will be required for instance similar to the World Bank International centres for Settlement of International Disputes. Pakistan is in an ideal position to develop these capacities if our government provides the enabling environment for it through capacity development programmes, enlightened legislation and policies. Our argument would be that Karachi is more suited location wise than Mumbai or Colombo and cheaper than Singapore to address these needs. Pakistan has in the past shown the ability to set up world-class institutions that serviced global trade and can rise up to the challenge if it puts the right people in charge. In time, the acquired competencies and broader understanding of the benefits would give us the political will to overhaul our internal justice system and inefficient bureaucracy. Ranked at 106/113 in the WJP Rule of Law Index, this is something we badly need.

In conclusion, CPEC is a game-changing opportunity for Pakistan. Global pundits are looking at the multi-trillion dollar investments being made by China and saying that its effective utilisation is key to the success of this vision. Similarly, for Pakistan, if we do not evolve a vision of how we use this improved infrastructure and realignment of global trade in this region for our benefit, and execute on it effectively we are in danger of being left behind. Indeed it will be a shame if we do not rise to the opportunity and fashion national consensus on an inclusive strategy that leverages this project to propel a major part of our population, and not just a few families, into the economy of the 21^st century.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 30^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

CPEC: Regional impact

Dr Zafar N Jaspal

Since the announcement of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project in April 2015, Islamabad and Beijing have been endeavouring to construct and operationalise its infrastructure as soon as possible. Both sides are cognizant to the immense dividends of the project. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif categorised it as a “game changer.” Chinese also consider it imperative for their “One Belt, One Road” initiative. Simultaneously, the adversaries of both nations have been struggling to sabotage the project. Therefore, both sides need to remain vigilant to the implicit and explicit challenges to the project.

CPEC project has amplified Pakistan’s pivotal role in the connectivity of West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. Though, Pakistan and China would be the main beneficiary of the project, yet other regional actors would be equally benefit from the operationalisation of the project. Islamabad always advocate that without increasing economic cooperation among the regional actors, the Central, West and South Asiannations could not resolve their economic challenges. The regional organizations such as South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Organisations primary objective is to promote trade between/among the members of these organizations. The member nations of these organizations are economically underdeveloped and also encountering socio-political challenges. Perhaps, without economic stability, the political stability is a wishful thinking. These nations need mutual cooperation for the sake of their socio-economic improvement. Hence, CPEC would be having positive consequences for the members of regional organizations.

Islamabad is encouraging the neighbouring states to invest in the CPEC project. Indeed, the neighbouring states investment enhances the significance of the project, but it also has constructive impact on the investors’ economies. On April 21, 2015, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stated: “it is catalytic project that will help us combine the geo-economic streams of our countries. The corridor symbolizes our commitment to create win-win partnerships which threaten none and benefit all.” Precisely, CPEC would be having dividends for the entire region.

The ruling elite of the neighbouring countries, except India, also expressed their immense confidence in the CPEC project. On March 1, 2017, Pakistan successfully held the 13th Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) Summit at Islamabad. The participants in the ECO expressed their resolve to enhance the regional connectivity. Therefore, they endorsed the theme of the summit—“Connectivity for Regional Prosperity.” Certainly, without regional connectivity, the ECO members cannot resolve their socio-economic problems.

The CPEC has a potential to revolutionize the regional cooperation in the fields of socio-economic development, trade, shipping, road and railway transportation, communications, industry and banking. It would also encourage tourism in the region. The CPEC project seems very advantageous for the ECO member states. It is because one of the main objectives of ECO is “development of transport & communications infrastructure linking the Member States with each other and with the outside world.” Importantly, out of 10 ECO member states 7 are landlocked. The operationalisation of CPEC routes would provide shortest route to sea at least 6 members of ECO. In addition, CPEC would also facilitate the Eurasian trade.

The 13th ECO Summit Islamabad Declaration states: “Welcome in this regard CPEC as a far-reaching initiative that would act as catalyst for development of entire region.” Perhaps, CPEC would enhance ECO-wide connectivity in terms of transport and transit; telecommunications; cyber; and all forms of energy; as well as people-to-people exchanges, including through regional tourism arrangements.

Pakistan with the assistance of China has been building Gwadar Port. The port obviously holds enormous promise for neighbouring countries and regions such as Afghanistan, China, West Asia, Central Asia and Eurasia. The successful implementation of the CPEC would provide Turkey, Iran and Pakistan access to Central Asian States, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan-Russian Federation and Europe through China. The shipping, trucking and logistics industry of these states would have immense opportunity to grow after operationalisation of the CPEC. Certainly, this unprecedented sea and road link would have far-reaching positive geo-economic dividends for the entire region.

To conclude, the region is primed for a network of rail and road linkages besides sea routes, energy, and trade corridors. Thus, operationalisation of CPEC definitely leads to a new era of regional socio-economic stability through enhanced regional cooperation for development.

— The writer is Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Email: jaspal_99@hotmail.com