Normalisation of Pak-India relations is necessary for Asia Pivot to become effective
Addressing a summit at Singapore in 2012, the US Secretary Defense said: “By 2020, the navy will re-posture its forces from today’s roughly 50/50 percent split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to about 60/40 split between these two oceans – including six aircraft carriers, a majority of our cruisers, destroyers, Littoral Combat Ships, and submarines.”
Since Obama came to power he has been promising the world the shift in US policies regarding war and economy. Regarding this, “Pivot to Asia” is one of the initiatives of Obama administration. Economic crisis at home, prolonged military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rise of China (economically, politically and militarily) are the emerging narratives of US focus on Asia-Pacific region. Thus focus of Asia Pivot or “rebalance” is on Asia Pacific.
Asia Pacific region is near the western Pacific Ocean. The region varies in size but mainly includes much of East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania.
Former US National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon specifically mentioned five countries that will play a central role in this rebalancing strategy. These five countries are Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines and Thailand. It happens to be that these countries are at odds with China over territorial or political disputes. Economic/military alliances and political support of these countries will result in creating irritation for China in neighbourhood. While China needs a long spell of no-disturbance to concentrate on its growing economy and hold an influential position in the region in the presence of India (which is seen as a potential competitor to China in regional hegemony).
The vision of Asia Pivot consists of six main ingredients. It was composed by the former administration comprising Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State), Robert Gates and Leon Panetta (Secretaries of Defense) and then National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. The whole idea highlights the interests US wants to achieve in and thorough the region and the means achieve to those interests.
Former US National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon specifically mentioned five countries that will play a central role in this rebalancing strategy. These five countries are Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines and Thailand
Areas of interests are alliances, improving relations with emerging powers, economic statecraft, engaging with multilateral institutions, support for universal values, and increase in military presence.
Main focus up till now of this rebalance seems to be on soft power ie through diplomacy and economic means. An armed conflict is in favour of no one and neither will its impacts remain limited to the victim. China’s vision of “string of pearls” and “new silk route” represent that China is willing to concentrate on long term economic plans for which it requires peace and stability in the region. On the other hand the US has fought two wars in the past thirteen years and will not want to lock horns on military grounds with China in Asia Pacific.
China has continued on the path of development and prosperity since the early 1990s. It has increased its military capabilities along with economic. Now China is seen as a regional hegemon/future hegemon with continuously expanding military capabilities and stretching itself in East and South China Sea waters, where US naval forces have dominated since end of World War II.
A group of Chinese analysts believe that US is utilising not a single hard and fast tool to contain China. But it is using multiple tools in order to create preventions for China in form of trans-Pacific partnerships, military power, defence alliances, arms sales to neighbours of China, and diplomatic support for opponents of China in the region.
China is Pakistan’s number one partner in defense supplies and largest partner in terms of economy, replacing America. Pak-China strategic partnership has always been a thorn in side of India
China is Pakistan’s number one partner in defense supplies and largest partner in terms of economy, replacing America. Pak-China strategic partnership has always been a thorn in side of India. Pakistan has its military and economic dependence on China and these ties are growing deeper with the passage of time.On the other hand India sees China as a threat to its dream of hegemony in the region. US enjoys closer ties with India than China and sees China as a challenger in field of global economy, global politics and military. In this context normalisation of Pak-India relations is necessary for Asia Pivot to become effective. Because having normal relations with Pakistan, India can shift its focus on how to tackle China. In this situation Pakistan will need great focus to formulate foreign policy that will address USA, China and India in same field (ie Asia Pivot policy).
Implications of Asia Pivot on Pak-China relations can be both positive and negative. Mainly it will depend on how Pakistan reacts to China and the US. As China has irritation with almost all of its neighboring states, only Pakistan remains as its window to the outside world and execution of its long term economic plans. While for Pakistan, China has always remained a potential vote in United Nations Security Council and in the region as well.
However, if this containment becomes successful, Pakistan will not have pleasant outcomes. Threat to security of Pakistan will increase even more with China engaged in regional disputes. Kashmir dispute has dragged so long now and if India gets the upper hand in the region, Pakistan will suffer the consequences.
On the other hand if China succeeds in surpassing the US in economy and military, provided by geographical access in Pakistan, is it wise to give that deep access to a foreign country in one’s own? It might sound like violation of international customs.
At the end it seems like whether US is trying to contain China or not, China has its counter measures in place. As Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Qin Gang puts it, “If you come or do not come, we will be here.”
On the other hand if China succeeds in surpassing the US in economy and military, provided by geographical access in Pakistan, is it wise to give that deep access to a foreign country in one’s own? It might sound like violation of international customs.
A very surprising statement, if the U.S. and allies March into different countries ۔ that is alright, but if China requires an economic corridor, which will be both beneficial to Pakistan & China, I see no harm
Friendship in international relations is based upon national interest. Recently I heard Chinese ambassador and he failed to express the enthusiastic support for Pakistan’s claim of Kashmir. However we have to see how much one can bend for other.
[email protected]
The use of financial instruments must interrupt sources of financing of terrorism through the exchange of information on terrorist before the molecular action on prevention. They oppose and fight against terrorism as a new common ground between the United States interests. Therefore, it provide the basis for anti-terrorism cooperation between the two sides interact.
Comments are closed.