What is there to harvest in Afghanistan, beyond misery and headaches that make Xinjiang look pale by comparison?Originally Posted by Ray
I see no reason for China to be even remotely interested in moving into Afghanistan, and many reasons why they would not. Why would they want to bite off the same gnarly lump that the Russians and Americans choked on?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Let me play the Devils Advocate to my own wondering as to what China will gain from Afghanistan.
The opening of Afghanistan’s first major railroad in August promises transformative economic and geopolitical changes that are yet to be fully understood. The recent completion of a railroad line from the Afghan-Uzbek border to Mazar-i-Sharif will be complemented by a railroad from Iran. Along with railroads planned by China and Pakistan, this will create economic synergies as Afghanistan is integrated with the railroads of its neighbors. Geopolitically, the Afghan railroads dovetail with China’s massive railroad program in Central Asia, Pakistan, and Iran. Further, as Iran, Pakistan, and Russia are hedging their bets on a U.S. troop withdrawal, railroads will strengthen their influence in Afghanistan. The railroad frenzy should be seen in this light.http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/5629/printThese barriers are now breaking up. Afghanistan and its vicinity are being covered with railroads and will soon be plugged into the railroad networks of China, Russia, Pakistan, and the Middle East. The inauguration of Afghanistan’s first railroad on August 20-21, running between Hairaton bordering Uzbekistan and Mazar-i-Sharif in the north, is only the beginning of a wide-ranging railroad effort involving all regional powers and international development banks.
For example, an Iranian-funded railroad is being constructed from the Iranian town of Khaf to the western city of Herat, and the Chinese are planning a north-south railroad running from Tajikistan, via Afghanistan’s Aynak copper mine, to Pakistan. China is also planning a railroad line from Sher-Khan Bandar in Tajikistan via Mazar-i-Sharif to Herat, with a branch to the Turkmenistan Railroads line at Towraghondi. A second phase envisions a Chinese-funded line from Mazar-i-Sharif via Kabul and Jalalabad to Torkham near the Khyber Pass connecting Afghanistan and China. Pakistan, too, is looking at extending its Chaman line to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.
This is possible an indicator of Chinese interests to include Afghanistan.
Obviously China has an economic aim as also a strategic aim.
One should not take China's approach to issues to be executed in a similar manner as to what the USSR or US did or doing.
They would not have become such a huge Empire as is the Han landmass or what is China today, if they went about it in any other way than what they have done. The very fact that, notwithstanding the reality that it is a variety of peoples that the Hans conquered, 92% of their population claim that they are Hans.
If they increased their land mass by doing it the way others did, then Xinjiang and Tibet should have been burning, but they are not!
One has to see the manner in which they are increasing their strategic reach without stepping on any country's toes.
It is the Chinese way of doing things that one has to understand. This Chinese way of doing thing is called Yongxiabianyi in Manadrin. It is does not believe in muscle power and instead is based on a complex persuasive power.
Therefore, what is China's real intent?
Last edited by Ray; 10-06-2011 at 01:48 PM.
That's not the question to ask. The question to ask is what is there for China to harvest in Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East? And the answer that is - a lot. Afghanistan can be a spoiler in any of those endeavors.
No empire actually wants to go into Afghanistan, but they are forced into doing so in pursuit of greater objectives.
“[S]omething in his tone now reminded her of his explanations of asymmetric warfare, a topic in which he had a keen and abiding interest. She remembered him telling her how terrorism was almost exclusively about branding, but only slightly less so about the psychology of lotteries…” - Zero History, William Gibson
Are they?
Or is that simply a way to appear to have an ability to harvest (or something...). Many empires have gone there, most discovered, belatedly, that it really wasn't worth the trouble and then went elsewhere to achieve their goals...
There are many better ways to attain objectives than by stirring up folks who live in mountains. That is always a bad idea.
Agree with Ken. Afghanistan has little or no bearing on Chinese engagement in Central Asia and South Asia and none on the Middle East. There's no incentive for China to go in and every reason to stay out.
Bein' one of them folks who live in the mountains, I have to agree...There are many better ways to attain objectives than by stirring up folks who live in mountains. That is always a bad idea.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Really?
China wants a stable Central Asia, not least of all for the purposes of energy security, and domestic stability vis-a-vis Xinjiang. Afghanistan was a sanctuary and source of funding (via narcotics) for insurgencies in both Tajikistan and Uzbekistan during the 1990's. Instability in Afghanistan feeds instability in the CARs.
China wants to connect Pakistani ports (Gwadar) to western China through rail, road and pipeline. But Pakistan has no strategic depth with regard to its India front. Those connections would be disrupted in the advent of war with India since they are within easy striking distance. And this is to say nothing of Pakistan's own goal of maintaining control of Afghanistan for strategic depth. As the Sino-Pak partnership strengthens – so to will China's interest in Afghanistan.
With regard to the Middle East, China's principle interest is hydrocarbons and securing their transport. China aims to secure transport by opening up alternatives to Indian Ocean routes – namely through Central Asia and Pakistan (see above).
“[S]omething in his tone now reminded her of his explanations of asymmetric warfare, a topic in which he had a keen and abiding interest. She remembered him telling her how terrorism was almost exclusively about branding, but only slightly less so about the psychology of lotteries…” - Zero History, William Gibson
But...
...spluttered Vlad, "that might interfere with my plans..." (LINK).Does China want that or does Pakistan suggest that China wants that? Does Pakistan want that (to include routing through Afghanistan, thereby...) and receive lukewarm Chinese support? IIRC, China has already backed down on adding Naval facilities at Qwadar...China wants to connect Pakistani ports (Gwadar) to western China through rail, road and pipeline. But Pakistan has no strategic depth with regard to its India front...As the Sino-Pak partnership strengthens – so to will China's interest in Afghanistan.Do you know that is fact or is that simply a logical supposition that may be bruited by some commentators (to include Chinese). My check of the map indicates your inclusion of Pakistan makes little sense due to the difficulties terrain will impose routing either rail or pipelines through Afghanistan or Pakistan -- not to mention that India would likely object to any construction by either China or Pakistan in Kashmir. Better and cheaper a straight shot to Iran which supplies about 12% of Chinese oil, a figure likely to rise. There's already a large Ahwaz-Tehran line and a smaller one goes on up to Neka on the Caspian and plans to extend it into Turkmenistan are underway. The Shiraz line could be extended to Chah Bahar but the terrain is horrendous -- probably be cheaper to run a new line through the desert from Neka. Such routing also offers some 'protection' from any possible future Indian bellicosity, a line through Pakistan could and likely would be interdicted; one in Iran is far less likely to be trifled with.With regard to the Middle East, China's principle interest is hydrocarbons and securing their transport. China aims to secure transport by opening up alternatives to Indian Ocean routes – namely through Central Asia and Pakistan (see above).
Yemen and Oman provide almost 25% of China's oil and sea shipment is thus obviously required but Qwadar offers no significant military and only slight commercial advantage. Not to mention the Baluchis are not one bit favorably disposed. Of course, Baluchs can be bribed -- but like the Afghans, they don't stay bribed...
For that matter, Chah Bahar -- where the Chinese are also involved in port construction and operation -- is even closer.
Speculation is fine -- but it isn't fact. Stage management is a worldwide skill.
Last edited by Ken White; 10-27-2011 at 01:20 AM.
Harvey Corman, Blazing Saddles:Gwadar is intrinsically valuable as a port. It's trade area does not change by national status/control factors.All that stands between us and that valuable property are the rightful owners.
China's interest in basic Afghan resources is low-grade/future oriented. The railroad they will build will do the job. They will be happy as long as no one f----s with it.
Why would China want more hassles that produce no results. It ain't oil, gas or high grade ores.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-07-2011 at 10:28 AM. Reason: Citation in quotes
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks