I mean, if Pakistan's politicians can be bought by American money, why would you expect local mass movements to be any different.
Maybe a reason why the US wasn't than panicked by Pakistan's turn towards China. They were always in control from the beginning
I've always being skeptical that trade could possibly prosper through an unstable, ailing state such as Pakistan(just stating facts here, I'd much rather Pakistan succeed), especially one harboring a separatist movement.
I remember a BBC interview whereby the journalist is unironically surprised at how glad the rural farmer (that he's interviewing) with leaving the farming work behind for the cities and asks "But it's the traditional way of life for thousands of years?".
I'd like to believe every country is destined for development, but it is clear that many communities are short-sighted/reactionary to a fault and would reject any sort of development because it bothers them (notice how none of their complaint are even related to the port, but insists they are related just because). There's a very good reason why the communist party cracks down on regionalist, superstitious and reactionary groups without mercy.
They are the deadweight that drag everyone else down with them, make no mistake, there were plenty of short-sighted idiots of such variety in China, such those who are against joining the WTO because it would "endanger the livelihood of small agricultural workers", people who cannot fathom a world beyond their current meager living are destined to fail. I'm just glad they didn't win in the end, in China at least.