Bottom Line
Why is Zardari visiting China?
PAKISTAN President Asif Ali Zardari's visit to Beijing from October 14-17 for talks with the Chinese leadership will not go unnoticed by India. News of Mr. Zardari's visit came as the president paid his first visit to the National Command Authority that controls nuclear warheads.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Gang reportedly said: "China is looking forward to and welcomes Zardari's visit." During his stay, Zardari is expected to hold talks with President Hu and meet with other Chinese leaders, including top legislator Wu Bangguo and Premier Wen Jiabao.
The two countries, both perceived as rivals of neighbouring India, have been close allies for decades, and China has been a leading source of investment and arms supplies to Pakistan.
Security dynamics in South Asia
Many analysts have said that the US-India nuclear deal will increase the arms race in South Asia because Pakistan is not expected to be a silent spectator to the deal, although India claims that it will provide a boost to generation of energy for economic growth. It seems that Pakistan is not convinced with India's claim. Pakistan's doubt about India's claim arises from the fact that the countries of South Asia do not have a shared security perception. In South Asia, at least some of the countries perceive security threat as arising from within the region. Furthermore, the region is asymmetrical in nature. India is larger than other six countries of the region combined. Furthermore, India sits right in the middle of South Asia and shares borders with all countries except Sri Lanka. No other country in the region shares borders with another. This geopolitical situation has many ramifications for the region. Traditionally, Pakistan assesses its security concerns against India's position. Pakistan has intensified its missile capabilities not only as a defence strategy but also as a symbol of power and prestige. Pakistan has been able to make Hatf-6 (Shaheen-2) with a range of 2,000-2,500 kilometres. Pakistan and India are both capable of striking any part of each other's territory with missiles. It is reported by the Arms Control Association, a US weapons research organisation that India has between 45 and 95 nuclear bombs, while Pakistan has between 30 and 50, and China has about 300. Both India and Pakistan have been investing money to improve the range and mobility of their missile systems for delivering nuclear warheads. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, India's Defence Ministry has earmarked $2 billion annually to build 300 to 400 nuclear weapons over the next 5 to 7 years. In the case of Pakistan, it has comparatively less strategic depth than India. More significantly, all Pakistani airbases and nuclear and ballistic missile research and deployment sites are extremely vulnerable to pre-emptive air strikes. Missile capability owes its effectiveness to its speed and assured penetration, together with its deterrent value. Furthermore, India's plan to acquire Theatre Missile Defence system from Israel and Russia as part of its efforts to neutralise missile capabilities of Pakistan is likely to upset the balance of power in South Asia, that Pakistan wants to maintain. India has also undertaken a number of naval and air projects, including a military reconnaissance centre in the Maldives and Sri Lanka. In 2005, India began constructing a 37,500-tonne aircraft carrier that will fly MiG-29 fighters, joining the navies of big powers in such capabilities. It also plans to lease two nuclear submarines from Russia. The US has openly discussed the sale of naval vessels and combat helicopters to India. Pakistan is also building with Chinese support the Gwadar naval base in Balochistan to counter India's supremacy in the Indian Ocean. Recent events in world politics have not only highlighted the indispensability of military capability, but they have also accentuated the possession of the latest nuclear technology and weapons. Why the visit?
Recently the US and India signed an unprecedented nuclear accord. It is the first nuclear deal with a country that is not a party to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Pakistan says that the US should conclude a similar nuclear deal with it and should not discriminate between Pakistan and India. Although Pakistan has been a strong ally of the US on the war on terror, the Bush administration appears not to trust Pakistan in providing nuclear technology partly because of past activities of its atomic scientist Abdul Qadir Khan, who was alleged to have sold nuclear technology to other countries. Another concern of the US is that nuclear technology and nuclear fuel in Pakistan may fall in the hands of Islamic militants. However, Pakistan is not siting idle. Soon after the US Senate overwhelmingly approved the Indo-US nuclear deal on October 4, Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani indicated that Islamabad might seek a similar arrangement with China after the US repeatedly said no to Islamabad's plea for a bilateral atomic pact. "Pakistan will now make efforts for a civil nuclear deal and they (the international community) will have to accommodate us," Gilani said. Stressing that there was "no need to worry," Gilani said: "Now that the civil nuclear deal with India has been finalised, Pakistan will have the right to ask for a similar deal because we do not want there to be any discrimination." Asked if Pakistan would seek nuclear technology and know-how from China, Gilani said Beijing and Islamabad had a "unique relationship" that was a "time-tested and all-weather friendship." The visit of Pakistan's president to China to acquire sophisticated nuclear technology and fuel demonstrates that both India and Pakistan look to foreign powers for their security. India used to look at Moscow during the Cold War for its security but currently to the US after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Pakistan, to counter India's threat, looked towards the US in the past. Now that scenario has changed because the Bush administration considers China as a strategic competitor not a strategic partner. Against the background, the US administration is keen to contain China and India, not Pakistan, and is the only country that is capable of arresting China's power in the Asia-Pacific. In international relations, Lord Palmerston's dictum that there are no eternal allies, and no perpetual enemies but national interests are eternal and perpetual, and that those interests should be pursued vigorously seems to apply in the case of US's rejection to conclude a nuclear deal with Pakistan similar to that with India. Many strategists say that military superiority of India over Pakistan would not bring peace between the countries or in the region.
Many analysts have said that the US-India nuclear deal will increase the arms race in South Asia because Pakistan is not expected to be a silent spectator to the deal, although India claims that it will provide a boost to generation of energy for economic growth. It seems that Pakistan is not convinced with India's claim. Pakistan's doubt about India's claim arises from the fact that the countries of South Asia do not have a shared security perception. In South Asia, at least some of the countries perceive security threat as arising from within the region. Furthermore, the region is asymmetrical in nature. India is larger than other six countries of the region combined. Furthermore, India sits right in the middle of South Asia and shares borders with all countries except Sri Lanka. No other country in the region shares borders with another. This geopolitical situation has many ramifications for the region. Traditionally, Pakistan assesses its security concerns against India's position. Pakistan has intensified its missile capabilities not only as a defence strategy but also as a symbol of power and prestige. Pakistan has been able to make Hatf-6 (Shaheen-2) with a range of 2,000-2,500 kilometres. Pakistan and India are both capable of striking any part of each other's territory with missiles. It is reported by the Arms Control Association, a US weapons research organisation that India has between 45 and 95 nuclear bombs, while Pakistan has between 30 and 50, and China has about 300. Both India and Pakistan have been investing money to improve the range and mobility of their missile systems for delivering nuclear warheads. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, India's Defence Ministry has earmarked $2 billion annually to build 300 to 400 nuclear weapons over the next 5 to 7 years. In the case of Pakistan, it has comparatively less strategic depth than India. More significantly, all Pakistani airbases and nuclear and ballistic missile research and deployment sites are extremely vulnerable to pre-emptive air strikes. Missile capability owes its effectiveness to its speed and assured penetration, together with its deterrent value. Furthermore, India's plan to acquire Theatre Missile Defence system from Israel and Russia as part of its efforts to neutralise missile capabilities of Pakistan is likely to upset the balance of power in South Asia, that Pakistan wants to maintain. India has also undertaken a number of naval and air projects, including a military reconnaissance centre in the Maldives and Sri Lanka. In 2005, India began constructing a 37,500-tonne aircraft carrier that will fly MiG-29 fighters, joining the navies of big powers in such capabilities. It also plans to lease two nuclear submarines from Russia. The US has openly discussed the sale of naval vessels and combat helicopters to India. Pakistan is also building with Chinese support the Gwadar naval base in Balochistan to counter India's supremacy in the Indian Ocean. Recent events in world politics have not only highlighted the indispensability of military capability, but they have also accentuated the possession of the latest nuclear technology and weapons. Why the visit?
Recently the US and India signed an unprecedented nuclear accord. It is the first nuclear deal with a country that is not a party to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Pakistan says that the US should conclude a similar nuclear deal with it and should not discriminate between Pakistan and India. Although Pakistan has been a strong ally of the US on the war on terror, the Bush administration appears not to trust Pakistan in providing nuclear technology partly because of past activities of its atomic scientist Abdul Qadir Khan, who was alleged to have sold nuclear technology to other countries. Another concern of the US is that nuclear technology and nuclear fuel in Pakistan may fall in the hands of Islamic militants. However, Pakistan is not siting idle. Soon after the US Senate overwhelmingly approved the Indo-US nuclear deal on October 4, Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani indicated that Islamabad might seek a similar arrangement with China after the US repeatedly said no to Islamabad's plea for a bilateral atomic pact. "Pakistan will now make efforts for a civil nuclear deal and they (the international community) will have to accommodate us," Gilani said. Stressing that there was "no need to worry," Gilani said: "Now that the civil nuclear deal with India has been finalised, Pakistan will have the right to ask for a similar deal because we do not want there to be any discrimination." Asked if Pakistan would seek nuclear technology and know-how from China, Gilani said Beijing and Islamabad had a "unique relationship" that was a "time-tested and all-weather friendship." The visit of Pakistan's president to China to acquire sophisticated nuclear technology and fuel demonstrates that both India and Pakistan look to foreign powers for their security. India used to look at Moscow during the Cold War for its security but currently to the US after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Pakistan, to counter India's threat, looked towards the US in the past. Now that scenario has changed because the Bush administration considers China as a strategic competitor not a strategic partner. Against the background, the US administration is keen to contain China and India, not Pakistan, and is the only country that is capable of arresting China's power in the Asia-Pacific. In international relations, Lord Palmerston's dictum that there are no eternal allies, and no perpetual enemies but national interests are eternal and perpetual, and that those interests should be pursued vigorously seems to apply in the case of US's rejection to conclude a nuclear deal with Pakistan similar to that with India. Many strategists say that military superiority of India over Pakistan would not bring peace between the countries or in the region.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments