Is China planning a Military Strike beyond its borders?

If you start from the working assumption that it would have to be a cold day in hell before I was grateful to Kent Ewing for something that he had written, I guess that today then is a day Beelzebub orders them to break out the heaters.

The article at the heart of this is in today's ATOL


China's leaders give little away

The reason I am grateful is that he has pulled together most of the news of the plenum and presented it in a way that even I cannot miss the significance of.

to whit....

HONG KONG - China watchers were disappointed when Vice President Xi Jinping was not given an expected nod as the country's next president at last week's annual meeting of the Communist Party's Central Committee. Also surprising, however, was the party leadership's insistence on holding closed-door meetings shrouded in secrecy that were concluded with meaningless communiques reported by the official Xinhua News Agency.

Click to expand...

What does it mean, for example, that Xi - widely regarded as Hu's heir apparent before the plenum - was not appointed vice chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC)? After all, when the Central Committee gave that key position to Hu 10 years ago, the appointment paved the way for him to be selected as president in 2003.

Xi's failure to secure the post could be a sign that party leaders are still undecided about who will succeed Hu in 2012 and that a power struggle is under way.

Click to expand...

Ironically Kent does miss the most important fact of all, that these meetings are about formalising decisions which have already been made (which is why they are described as "widely expected") So when something that is "widely Expected" fails to materialise, this is big news as it means that the expected event has been overshadowed by something more important.
Think about this for a moment, because what could be more important than the anointing of the heir apparent for the next President of the PRC, especially as he not done or been associated with anything wrong?
The key I believe lies in the manner of the anointment, namely promotion to the CMC.

In a nutshell, it is this:

We are seeing an unprecedented Geopolitical contest in central Asia, one which may be even stirring tension along the China/India LOC as well as causing considerable disruption throughout the Central Asian region and may even have caused Barak Obama to sacrifice his predecessors missile defence plans to try and drive a wedge between his two main allied rival powers. In this tussle, the Afghan election has indeed, as predicted, lurched into a dangerous red zone but for some reason the occupying powers have been restrained from delivering the Coup'de'grace and have instead now moved it sideways into a nebulous grey zone (the red zone with the lights out!) of electoral review. This situation remains volatile and probably even more dangerous than before, still having much capability for exploding out of the depths of the calm flat duck pond of International Diplomacy and into the real world in stark plain sight. A equally real possible consequence of such an eruption would be SCO and NATO forces finding themselves deployed against each other on Afghan soil each in support of their favoured electoral candidate.

Under such circumstances, where the PLA would need to be assured of strong and established political leadership, the decision to induct a novice to the top table would be unwise and unwelcome. Further to make such an inclusion at this time would send the wrong message to NATO and increase the possibility of misunderstanding and miscalculation. As it stands, the message sent from Beijing is loud and unequivocal!

If NATO hopes that through delay it can weaken the position of Hamid Karzai they are probably setting themselves up for a great disappointment as even the BBC is having to concede now.


Little Afghan appetite for more voting

It's hard to find Afghans with much enthusiasm for a second round presidential election run-off - or even for the drawn-out process of investigation into widespread allegations of electoral fraud.

Click to expand...

Which means that resentment will be directed by the populace against those instigating the delay in finalising the results and those perceived to the intended beneficiaries of it.

"I voted for Dr Abdullah but we should accept the election result now. Everybody should compromise in the interests of the nation."

Click to expand...

Afghans love a strong man and somebody who knows how to make deals, Karzai is a such a man and is respected as such. Western backed Technocrats would have no such support and this is fact is now finding its voice in the nations Kasbahs and Souqs. Furthermore..

Afghans know that elections here bring violence. They can also divide the country's main ethnic groups against each other.

Click to expand...

A fact that may also fast becoming reality


Blood and thunder in embattled Balkh

Which relates to the outbreak of near civil war in the hitherto relatively peaceful northern province on the highly strategic Uzbek border.

Pulling these strands of growing instability and growing popular Afghan support for Karzai as the the winner of the election together, only enhances the prospect of direct SCO intervention if NATO attempts to gerrymander the result and foist a failed candidate onto the country.

There can also be little doubt that the NATO commanders on the ground are under no illusions of the prospects they are facing which is why US General McChrystal has made yet another impassioned plea for substantial reinforcements over and above the extra troops already committed to the surge.


US in Afghanistan failure warning

This has actually given me pause for thought, as my automatic assumption has always been that the SCO would be content to simply set up its own security zone centred mainly around the north eastern province of Badahkshan which includes the Trehan valley connecting to China. Now, think briefly about the form that such an Intervention would take: clearly it would not include shooting as that would be madness, instead it would have to be exercise in manoeuvre, taking and holding territory and doing so in a way that denies the other side freedom of movement through your sides zones of control. Clearly such a undertaking favours the side with the most troops at its disposal.

Now this is pure conjecture, but suppose that the objective is not to simply occupy a discreet area in the North East and establish a security zone, but to then penetrate as far into Afghan territory as possible until contact with NATO units is actually made and all options for further advance is stopped? In that case NATO would need to be able to form a solid Line of control through which no SCO forces could penetrate. If they cannot do this, they face the risk of strategic disaster through mass deployment throughout the Afghan nation and could easily end up as a group of Isolated NATO Islands around major Airports and Cities in an Ocean of SCO forces. China could easily provide the manpower for this, as once the static positions and road blocks are established, the watching does not need front line troops as even the Militia and Afghan forces (they seem pretty loyal to Karzai) would be adequate for this task.

While the SCO and Afghan forces would be able to reinforce and resupply with ease, NATO would be largely isolated with only its Pakistan route entering the country and no guarantee of these supplies actually getting far across the border. To make matters worse, the results of the surge would simply mean that there was a larger NATO force to maintain with the limited and rapidly dwindling supplies - not a happy position to begin the Afghan winter in!

Why would the SCO/China want to take any of the aforementioned actions? China doesn't give a rat's ass what happens in Afghanistan. The most they would do is offer moral support for any actions that the Russians may propose or take. China has nothing to gain from occupying Afghanistan. Do you think it envies the daily losses in material and personnel that the NATO forces enjoy every day? Do you think it will want to pour money into a useless military action during the economic downturn, when it is already expending hundreds of billions in bailout programs? What about the risks involved? Accidental conflict with NATO forces? A insurgent movement that can easily carry over to Xinjiang? China has no appetite for sharing NATO's fate of being bogged down in the mountain wastes of Afghanistan.

Well my old hot and stirred young buddy, why do you think NATO is in Afghanistan? to chase naughty bearded extremists up and down mountains or to secure rich regional energy deposits and pull the regions small nations out of the SCO orbit and into its own?

What do you think the SCO achieves by forcing a NATO withdrawal?

What do you think would need to be at stake for NATO to open fire on SCO forces if the SCO is asked by President Karzai to intervene in his country?

Has not the insurgency already carried across into other SCO member countries including western China?

Well, you do make very valid and true points, but I still do not believe China has enough at stake in Afghanistan to warrant a military deployment.

why do you think NATO is in Afghanistan?

Click to expand...

Well, call me naive if you would like, but I still feel that the ORIGINAL reason for NATO intervention was as retaliation against the terrorists. However, I do agree that the US and certain NATO countries do have certain vested economic and geopolitical interests in that region now.

What do you think the SCO achieves by forcing a NATO withdrawal?

Click to expand...

A possible insurgency that may aggravate the situation within China as well as bleed off men and material in Afghanistan. Keyword here is possible, since it is somewhat probable that the local population react in a more positive manner to the Chinese forces than NATO, especially if they are invited in. However, even a peaceful occupation would be a financial and logistical challenge given the location and geography of the region. On the other hand, the PRC achieves a lot by following its current strategy of using a combination of soft power, economic pull, and diplomacy. The most lucrative natural resources deal signed in Afghanistan in the last few years was a $2.8 billion copper deal that went to China. The Chinese ability to create jobs and inject cash into the Afghan already provides it with a good deal over influence and leverage in Kabul. Why would you fix something that works, or worse, risk putting it at jeopardy? Instead of spending the money on a military deployment that helps no one, why not create goodwill and secure resources instead? The presence of NATO has not been shown to be an impediment to Chinese access to Afghan resources thus far.

What do you think would need to be at stake for NATO to open fire on SCO forces if the SCO is asked by President Karzai to intervene in his country?

Click to expand...

The keyword is accidental. Given all the fratricide incidents in Afghanistan, don't you think there exists the chance that SCO/NATO troops in close proximity could inadvertently fire on each other? A Chinese armored commander isn't going to call Beijing first if a stray bomb hits his column. He will identify and shoot down the threat. Similarly, an American commander being hit by a stray rocket is going to call counter-battery fire prior to notifying Washington. Protocol and ROE may easily break down once you come under fire from things as powerful as GBUs and WS-2s. Other things such as flareups between patrols, target misidentification, etc may all lead to incidents. You don't need a situation to escalate into a firefight to create a major incident that can set Sino-Western relations wayy back. China may deploy a token PLA/PAP force to Kabul upon the insistence of the Afghan government, but a large-scale deployment would only provide necessary risk and headache for the PRC.

Has not the insurgency already carried across into other SCO member countries including western China?

Click to expand...

There is the risk of escalation. Currently, things in Xinjiang are mainly under control, but the situation there is very fragile. Why risk upsetting the delicate balance?

My viewpoint remains that China has little to gain from a major troop deployment to Afghanistan. Economically, China has more to lose than gain. Politically, such a move doesn't bring about any benefits for Beijing either. In fact, if there is anything we learned is that military presences do not build strong alliances and friendly relations. Economic cooperation does. As far as the SCO is concerned, Afghanistan is more in the Russian sphere than the Chinese sphere anyways. However, given past history, I cannot foresee any major Russian deployment to the region either. Historically, China has not attempt to extend its sphere of influence west of Xinjiang since the Tang dynasty. It is more concerned with integrating Xinjiang with China proper and asserting its influence there than to extend its sphere of influence any further. Afghanistan may share a border with China, but it is very far from China proper indeed. The Pacific is of much more vital strategic concern for China than Central Asia, and it is there that China seeks to expand its sphere of influence. Too much Chinese encroachment into Central Asia would stir up tension with the Russians anyways.

Militarily, China can put more pressure on NATO with a deployment to Xinjiang, since it affords them both the initiative as well as freedom of maneuver, while insulating their forces from NATO's firepower advantage. In the very rare case of any form of conflict, the PLA has a much better chance sweeping south from Xinjiang than dug-in in static positions facing NATO forces. Furthermore, with a strong deployment in Xinjiang, the PLA can serve a kind of "fleet in being," function, thus deterring NATO from doing anything seriously threatening Chinese interests.

I think that FriedRice has it spot on here. The threat in Xinjiang is not large enough to warrant a military offensive outside of China. Furthermore China has nothing to gain from such an offensive (it would just destabilize Xinjiang more and would be a political disaster for reasons already said and understood), and much to lose. China's not going to use it's military just to do it.

SampanViking said:

?

Has not the insurgency already carried across into other SCO member countries including western China?

Click to expand...

I think you're not recognizing that connections between the Xinjiang insurgency and the Taliban/Al Qaeda are marginal at best. Only relatively small numbers of separatists ever received training in Afghanistan, something that has become even less common now that the large Al Qaeda camps there have been destroyed. I admittedly can't prove that the Taliban doesn't support the Xinjiang separatist in a significant manner but it stands to reason, at least in my mind, that when we look at the facts of the situation any support that might have been provided by the Taliban and their ilk to the separatists in Xinjiang has not been large enough to warrant the claim that "the insurgency carried across" into Western China. Ideologically, organizationally, they are entirely different. I mean the IRA and the PLO occasionally trained a few operatives together and exchanged bomb making techniques, but no one suggested that the Troubles were the result of tension in the Middle East or that the UK should bomb southern Lebanon to calm down Belfast.

Thank you Fried and Finn for your responses and there is certainly a lot to respond to!

However, rather than just rattle of pages of self justification it will probably be most constructive just to examine one of the basic assumptions to the whole thread/scenario etc.

So, is the NATO mission in Afghanistan of itself benign or malign towards the interests of the Regional powers or at least how is it perceived by those same powers?

Well we in the west are told; quite naturally, that our mission is wholly benign towards all, other than the terrorists. But does this stand up to examination?

Surely; as indeed the SCO itself argues, if the NATO mission were truly benign, it would have no difficulty including regional Security Organisations and there forces in the mission and sharing responsibility and command with them. Indeed; they say, NATO has every good reason to want to do this, the mission is critically short of personnel, growing casualties are fostering disenchantment at home, the trouble is escalating rather than subsiding and much of the blame is being put on the presence of wholly foreign troops in the region. The SCO has further pointed out that it would be able to provide front line personnel that shared ethnicity and language with all the main population groups of Afghanistan and be able to produce a security structure in which the Afghan Government was an equal member/participant, rather than appear as just subjugated and subordinated.

All of this was made clear at the SCO Regional Conference in Moscow earlier this year and actively supported by President Karzai who was in attendance.

The reality however is that NATO insists that the Afghan mission remains its own monopoly and actively moves to discredit and prevent the re-election of the Afghan President who supports the SCO initiative.

Well what does this suggest to you and how do you think that the Regional Powers will read this?

I think this is more than just a ripple on the Duckpond!!

A Xinhua reprint of a China Daily article calling bluntly for a NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan

Afghan peace needs a map

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2009-09-28 08:14:07 Print

BEIJING, Sept. 28 -- Afghanistan's political and social turmoil has been aggravated by different intentions of the participating nations that constitute the coalition forces.

In the short term, the fragile Afghan regime is finding it difficult to tame its restive domestic situation. Still, a prescription could help bring the country out of the mess if key players adopt a peaceful and reconciliatory approach in their push for the end of the war.

The United States should first put an end to the war. The anti-terror war, which the former US administration of George W Bush launched in 2001, has turned out to be the source of ceaseless turbulence and violence in the past years.

To promote much-needed reconciliation among the parties concerned, the US should end its military action. The war has neither brought the Islamic nation peace and security as the Bush administration originally promised, nor brought any tangible benefits to the US itself. On the contrary, the legitimacy of the US military action has been under increasing doubt.

Public opinion within the US on the war has undergone dramatic change. According to a recent poll, opinion in favor of the war has declined from 53 percent in April to 39 percent, while opinion opposed to the war has increased to 58 percent from 46 percent. The US Congress has also cast doubt over the Obama administration's Afghanistan strategy. The opposition from 74 percent Democrats and 70 percent independent votes to the war would be a big restraint on the Obama administration's larger military strides given that the new president cannot afford to bet his political fate on a unpopular war.

Since taking office as president, Obama has been under pressure from the Pentagon for military reinforcements in Afghanistan. The calls of war opponents over that of supporters will give the young US president the best chance to extricate himself from the Pentagon's pressures. If Obama resolutely decides to stop the war, that would not only meet the US public expectations and save more American lives, but also help recover the US' peaceful image and enhance the president's personal political prospects.

Another way to help Afghanistan break the current deadlock is to promote reconciliation among the Afghan government, the Taliban and the country's major warlords, all being key actors that can play an influential role in deciding the country's prospect. In addition to the US factor, the chaos in Afghanistan is also closely related to the long-standing domestic strife between factions. Afghanistan experienced numerous wars and conflicts in history, including invasion by the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and the US war. The war-ravaged Asian nation is undergoing a chaotic battle that has involved the US-led coalition forces, its government troops and domestic warlords, the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces. The disorderly confrontations and strife do no good to anyone but have only caused untold suffering to Afghan people.

Afghanistan's political disorder is also the main cause of its domestic chaos. The country's presidential election on Aug 20 has so far failed to produce a final result.

The recount of votes in more than 600 polling stations alleged to have suffered fraud is expected to last another two or three months, which will add to the chaos. The US has urged Afghan president Hamid Karzai to hold a second round of voting. It seems that Karzai has hammered home the perception that the US is not a reliable partner that can help end Afghanistan's current predicament. Talks, he thinks, is the only way out. The Afghan president is likely to open the process of tri-party peace talks with the Taliban and major warlords provided that the US ends its military action.

Support from the international community is needed to help Afghanistan make a substantive move toward peace. The international community can take advantage of the ever-mounting anti-war calls within the US to prompt the Obama administration to end the war and withdraw US troops. Germany, France and Britain have planned an international conference this year to discuss the gradual withdrawal of Afghanistan military deployment. International pressures may offer Obama another excuse to withdraw US troops. The UN Security Council should carry the baton from the three European nations to convene a conference on the Afghanistan issue and try to reach a consensus among its five permanent Security Council members and draft a roadmap and timetable for resolution of the thorny issue. In the process, a ticklish issue is whether parties concerned can accept the Taliban as a key player in Afghanistan and how to dispose of the Al Qaeda armed forces, an issue that has a key bearing on the outcome of any international conference on the Afghanistan issue.

Surely, an international peacekeeping mission is needed in the absence of US troops. With the aid of international peacekeepers, the Afghanistan government and its security forces can be expected to exercise effective control over domestic unrest and maintain peace and security.

The author is deputy secretary-general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies

(Source: China Daily)

Click to expand...

This is backed by the commentary by Ambassador Bhadrakumar in todays ATOL



China maps an end to the Afghan war

The article "Afghan peace needs a map" [1] which appeared in the English-language China Daily newspaper on Monday should receive careful attention. China Daily is government-owned and the article is a very rare piece of focused opinion that proposes concrete steps to be taken on the way forward in unlocking the Afghan stalemate.

The article is credited to the deputy general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies, Li Qinggong. A conspicuous increase in the Chinese reportage on Afghanistan is noticeable lately. Conceivably, in the period since unrest appeared in Xinjiang, there is heightened concern in China over the deepening
China maps an end to the Afghan war
By M K Bhadrakumar

The article "Afghan peace needs a map" [1] which appeared in the English-language China Daily newspaper on Monday should receive careful attention. China Daily is government-owned and the article is a very rare piece of focused opinion that proposes concrete steps to be taken on the way forward in unlocking the Afghan stalemate.

The article is credited to the deputy general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies, Li Qinggong. A conspicuous increase in the Chinese reportage on Afghanistan is noticeable lately. Conceivably, in the period since unrest appeared in Xinjiang, there is heightened concern in China over the deepening crisis in Afghanistan, which impacts China's national security

Click to expand...

The China Daily article makes several important points. First, it bluntly calls on Washington to forthwith bring the US military operations in Afghanistan to an end. There are no caveats here while making this demand, no alibis. Simply put, the war has only resulted in aggravating the political and social turmoil in Afghanistan, causing great turbulence and violence and it has brought neither peace and stability as the George W Bush administration promised nor any "tangible benefits" to the US itself. "On the contrary, the legitimacy of the US military action has been under increasing doubt."

Click to expand...

China's position is becoming rapidly more public and unambiguous!

Dear Sirs:

Of all possible actions that the People's Republic can undertake in Central Asia, or on China's periphery, military intervention is probably the least likely one.

No one is more aware of the current delicate geopolitical position China is in than its senior leaders led by Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao.

One must always keep in mind that post-Deng China does not really have an executive leadership in the Western sense. When the older leaders of the Communist Party (and the Army - the PLA) held the stature of Mao Zedong and Deng Hsiao Ping that kind of broad authority was still possible, but when those men died, so did the generation of Party members that held them in sufficient esteem to obey them relatively unquestioningly.

Those men are all gone, replaced by a new generation of men (and women) who have known no other China except the post-1949 China led by the Chinese Communist Party.

For them, the defining moment in their lives was living through the mistakes and consequences of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

Without exception, all of them are engineers, and all were purged and sent to the countryside for 're-education'. Furthermore, none of these men is a professional soldier or has spent any meaningful time in the military.

Growing up, they saw firsthand the results of misguided government policies where 'politics is in command'.

Now the Chinese Communist Party eschews the 'strongman' concept, and governs by collective leadership, which I need not remind you, tends to result in careful, well-thought-out and argued policies (lethargy and bureaucratic inertia to some) based on extreme pragmatism.

Bitter life experience has taught them that 'ideology' - whether Western capitalist, neo-liberal, socialist or communist, means little if it leads to policies that don't work. You make it up as you go along and you go with what works - in Deng's words - "crossing the river, by feeling for the stones."

You might even call them timid. Military adventurism is not likely with collective leaderships.

One of the best examples of such behavior is from Winston Churchill - himself no mean adventurer, commenting on the Chiefs of Staff system, he said

"It leads to weak and faltering decisions - or rather indecision's. Why you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman, or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears!"

The present Chinese leadership is focused on China's economic and technical development, not military adventurism. They hope (in the tradition of Sun Tzu) to declare war on their terms, when China has absolute superiority.

While they are aware of all the West's schemes and tricks to try to sabotage China's development, nothing short of an existential threat would make them bring about a premature confrontation.

Given that attitude, the earliest date that I would expect a confrontation is 2050. They would like nothing better than to live in a predictable, peaceful world until that blessed day comes - when they may not even have to fight to win.

That being said, what are the conditions that would force China into an offensive beyond its borders? Lets look at history.

There are only 3 occasions when the People's Republic actually decided to wage war outside her own borders - 1st in 1950 in Korea, 2nd in 1962 in the border war with India, and last in 1979 in Vietnam.

In Korea, a one-year old People's Republic of China (which had already endured a multi-generational civil war) was faced with the prospect of having a hostile, Western-client state on its borders. Partly for communist solidarity and its own regional security it was necessary to ensure that North Korea remained unconquered and independent. The PLA intervened and fought the West to a negotiated stalemate.

In 1962 India's Prime Minister - Jawaharlal Nehru, tried to impose upon China the territorial ambitions of the former British Raj, and declared all of India's borders to be settled (unilaterally by India).

All the while he refused to negotiate those same borders and initiated the so-called 'Forward Policy' - a brazen attempt to use his frontier troops to occupy all of India's territorial claims - thus presenting China with a fait accompli - China reacted with large-scale offensives that utterly defeated the Indians and restored the status quo.

Lastly we have the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese border war. This war, fought at Deng's behest, is one of the best examples that all politics are local. Flush with their victory over the US and lavishly equipped with Soviet Arms, the Vietnamese actively participated in the Soviet strategy of encirclement of China, mainly by attacking and occupying Cambodia.

At the time Deng was arguing for a large cut in military spending in order to concentrate on economic development. His critics were worried that the Soviets were going to attack China. He demonstrated there was nothing to fear by attacking Vietnam with 2nd rate troops openly daring the Soviets to fulfill their 'mutual defense treaty' with the Vietnamese.

If history is our guide, then it would take outright aggression or invasion of China or an important border state (although even that is unlikely) or a declaration of independence by Taiwan to force China into offensive action.

As of 2009, China is the largest trading partner of Japan, Korea, Mongolia, India, Vietnam, Myanmar (Burma), etc. It is pleasantly watching the debacle of the US-NATO intervention in Afghanistan. The Taliban and the Al-Qaida are doing well enough by themselves (without even having to supply them with arms or money). It has signed (along with BP) a contract to develop Al-Rumaila - Iraq's largest oil field - that is what is called a 'tangible benefit' from the Iraq War. It will develop South Pars (and maybe North Pars) - Iran's largest gas fields, and has a contract to supply refined products and ultimately a refinery to the Iranians.

There is no need to do anything military here. Let the West stew in their own juices. For now leave the fighting to somebody else, there's just too much money to be made while they kill themselves proving how tough they are to the Afghans.

The CIA used to carry out armed actions in conjunction with the Dalai Lama people in Tibet. This stopped in 1974, according to what I've read. China used to support insurgencies in various countries, such as the one in Myanmar, also in the 60's through to around 1976-7. Quite possibly, it was quid pro quo. In any case, China is not accusing anybody OF THIS, this time around. Rather, they are peeved about the American Congress funding both the Dalai Lama and Rebiya Kadeer through the National Endowment for Democracy. I think the German government also funds some of these creeps in some way, and both countries give them haven as well as political space. The ambassador in the original quote was denouncing specifically this, and it is in this connection that support from other countries comes into the picture in every statement or news item on this issue.

But carrying an action in Afghanistan and "finding" the suggested "evidence" would contradict this (assuming you can carry it off successfully). Any conspiracy your operation "uncovers" will involve locals, weapons (not siringes), etc, and will present a picture which is entirely different from the one the government is intent on presenting. Chances are you will end up letting the NED and the American Congress off the hook. This would be my first objection to such an action.

A second objection to this plan also involves an obvious problem with the locals. I have never heard that the area in Afghanistan which borders China is a Taliban area, or even a Pushtun area. I've never heard of fighting in the area either. Chances are, the people living there are relatively similar to the people living accross the border in Tajikistan, and also similar to those living across the borders in China itself and Pakistan. If you "roar over the hills" you will kill a lot of these people. If you go in there nicely and quietly, as some have suggested, then you no longer achieve the original goals (the Perceptions mentioned in late July), and there's still a good chance of killing innocent people. Regardless of how the media will play it in London and Washington, or in Shanghai and Beijing, the locals will now hate China, whereas there is no evidence that this is so now. Far from solving any problems, this would create new ones. Now there would be a real danger of a cross-border insurgency.

My third objection has to do with the question raised by SampanViking in one of the most recent posts, regarding the view of China and Russia towards the NATO doings in Afghanistan. I get the sense in various posts here that China and Russia are seen as having the SAME position, or even that the SCO has full solidarity on the question. Of course, neither country wants NATO or American bases there, neither wants NATO inspired "color revolutions", and if terrorism and drugs can be dealt with that's cool too.

But Russia and China differ on the solution to these problems, because they have always differed on Afghanistan to begin with. In the 80's, the Soviet Union's presense in Afghanistan threatened Pakistan because the Soviet Union was India's friend and China's enemy. Thus it supported the American initiative there (or the US supported ITS initiative). China benefited from this, of course, as Pakistan's security prevented China's encirclement. When the Taliban was in power, Afghanistan was strategically in Pakistan's hands. This pleased China, and they also had relations with them.

Bush policy by 2005 had turned very clearly towards handing Afghanistan to Pakistan's rival, India, and towards favoring India over Pakistan in everything else too it seems. China could not have been especially happy about this, but it adapted and established and built relations with Karzai. Karzai's foreign minister was in Beijing, I think it was a few months ago, well before the elections. He was quoted by Chinese media as saying that he didn't think permanent American bases (read Bagram) were in the interests of Afghanistan. Pakistan did not adapt during these years, of course, and the result has been disastrous for NATO.

It took until this year for the US to change plans, and try to bring Pakistan back into the picture. So if Obama wants an Afghanistan more to the liking of Pakistan, is China against this? Not really. Again, Pakistan is their ally. However, while the Taliban's foes in Afghanistan, including Karzai, are friendlier to India than to Pakistan, they are not India's clients in any way. They are much closer to Iran, and in some cases Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. And this is the catch: Iran is also, today, basically China's ally. I am using the word "ally" loosely in all of this, of course, but China has recently stated quite clearly that it has interests in Iran and does not want to see the country destabilized. Put simply, while Russia is a 'protector' of Iran, China is a 'protector' of both Iran and Pakistan.

While Obama has to mollify Russia in order to work out some deal bringing Pakistan and the Taliban into the picture, and has to put a ton of pressure on Iran to acquiesce to this, China can deal with it just fine as is, with the tiny, itsy bitsy little modification: the US should get out. The Afghanistan roadmap article quoted above is spells it out, NATO ceases operations so that the negotiations can begin. The interesting thing about this is that China is actually an honest broker in this, it is the only power on the planet that can be trusted by both Pakistan and Iran. I think it was mentioned somewhere on this forum that Brown has suggested inviting China to send troops to Afghanistan. It is quite possibly this fact, China's unique position in the proxy struggle between Pakistan and Iran, which makes it tempting for them to invite China. Now China is setting down its conditions: you end the war and leave first!

China's is ideally positioned to be the peace maker in this situation and this is hardly something you would want to waste away. A military adventure risks upsetting one or both of China's friends, and thus putting China in the same rotten position everybody else is in.