China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

[Ken White]

China wants a stable Central Asia, not least of all for the purposes of energy security... Instability in Afghanistan feeds instability in the CARs.

...spluttered Vlad, "that might interfere with my plans..." (LINK).

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.

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...

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).

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.

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.

[Steve the Planner]

Harvey Corman, Blazing Saddles:

All that stands between us and that valuable property are the rightful owners.

Gwadar is intrinsically valuable as a port. It's trade area does not change by national status/control factors.

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.

[Dayuhan]

Gwadar is intrinsically valuable as a port.

Gwadar's value as a port is actually fairly limited. It has good sea access to numerous ports, but on land it's nowhere: there's nothing for anyone to ship goods to and nothing there to ship out. As a point of transit it's too close to other established and much better equipped ports to have much relevance. Commercially viable, probably, but in no way the next big thing.

I think the talk of a Gwadar-China link is much overblown. Possible, yes, but of fairly marginal significance and nothing to get all fired up about. I very much doubt that the Chinese would wade into Afghanistan to advance that idea; it would be miles outside the parameters of any cost-benefit analysis.

[davidbfpo]

Is the often cited phrase 'strategic depth' actually relevant in modern strategic thinking?

It appears to be only cited in the South Asian context. Secondly, apart from distance and consequent impact on travel time, what does Afghanistan have to offer?

From this armchair there is very little to offer, albeit with some very modern airfields added since 2001; nor would any meaningful presence be sustainable locally.

From a puzzled civilian.

[Dayuhan]

Is the often cited phrase 'strategic depth' actually relevant in modern strategic thinking?

Probably not, but what's going on in some quarters in Pakistan may not be modern strategic thinking.

I can see how the Pakistanis would be upset at the idea of an Indian foothold in Afghanistan. I can also see how they might relish the prospect of baiting India into a substantial military commitment there. India would find it extremely difficult to supply and maintain a substantial force in Afghanistan, and a guerrilla war in Afghanistan is one of the few strategic scenarios in which Pakistan and its unconventional allies have an odds-on chance of defeating the Indians.

Of course Pakistan will protest any Indian move into Afghanistan. Behind the protests, though, would they really object to having India in a position where they can do unto them as they've done to the Russians and the US?

[Ray]

Afghanistan is not ‘strategic depth’ as is understood in pure military terms means the depth from the front line to the core area consisting of economic centres to including industrial complexes and complexes for military production and major cities.

When addressing what is strategic depth one has to take into account the vulnerability of these assets to an enemy offensive and the ability of this depth to absorb the offensive and yet not be unbalanced.

Afghanistan being a foreign country, thus, cannot be taken to be a ‘strategic depth’ for Pakistan.

The interpretation has been adopted only to muddy the issue. It has gained credence amongst certain vested interests so as to obfuscate and promote their strategic interests. The appeal has been given ‘credibility’ incorrectly because Pakistan has been in the frontline, promoted by the US and with active assistance of China (Bear Trap by Brig Yousaf of the ISI) against the Soviet Union in the form of jihad.

It must be understood that any war in the name of jihad does not automatically mean that the areas where there is this so called jihad automatically becomes a part of the country sponsoring this so called jihad. If it were so then a large part of the world where terrorists have attacked including 9/11 would be a part of the country that sponsored the same! Obviously, that is a ridiculous assumption!

Therefore, by no stretch of imagination is Afghanistan (an independent and sovereign country) the ‘strategic depth’ of Pakistan. I will concede that distance and vested interests blurs comprehending the reality!

That apart, Afghanistan is a ‘strategic interest’ to Pakistan since keeping it under its control, keeps India and Russia at bay.

To keep my post short, both India and even Russia has interest in Afghanistan. It keeps the fundamentalist footprint at bay. For India, it is very important strategically to have Pakistan at bay in Afghanistan as it will stop the conduit of ‘unemployed’ pan Islamic terrorists from Kashmir as also will allow India access to the resources of CAR, which is being impeded by having Pakistan in between.

This brings in the issue of Chahbahar port in Iran. I read that China is building the same. As far as my knowledge goes, it is India which has built this port and has connected it with the Highway constructed by India in Afghanistan and onto the North toward CAR!

I have given the railways being constructed and the Chinese interest in the railways including construction.

I wonder if China is that altruist as to spread happiness around the world without self-interest, be it economic or strategic.

[Ray]

As far as guerilla warfare against Indians in Afghanistan, it would be worth noting that a200km (124-mile) highway, costing about $85m, links Zaranj on the Iranian border with the main road between the cities of Herat, Kandahar and Kabul has been completed and handed over to Afghanistan.

And how many causalities should have been there if the Afghans were hostile to Indians, even though there must have been Pakistani encouragement?

In another thread there was some interesting comment to my statement of doing things the 'Indian way'.

Justified if post were doubting my contention.

Here is the proof of the pudding!

The officer who was the in-charge of this road project spoke to me.

He said much, but we will leave it at that!