Is This Why China Wanted the Land From Tajikistan?

[Toramana]

Is This Why China Wanted the Land From Tajikistan?

In January 2011, Tajikistan ceded 386 square miles or 1,000 square km of land to China, land that was located in the remote, sparsely populated Pamir mountain range. This, China announced, had settled its long border dispute with Tajikistan. We were intrigued. Why would a small piece of land on the border of Tajikistan and Afghanistan be so important to China?




The only answer we could think of was the Wakhan Corridor. This small corridor, 10-40 miles wide and about 140 miles long, is the only border between Afghanistan and China. This corridor was created in 1873 to separate the Russian sphere, that included Tajikistan, from British-ruled India. Today, the Wakhan corridor sits between Tajikistan, China's Xinjiang province and Pakistani-occupied part of Kashmir. China is the biggest investor in Tajikistan and Pakistan is critically dependent on China. So the Wakhan corridor is geo-strategically important to China.

Our conjectures about China's interests in Afghanistan and the resultant importance of the Wakhan corridor to China were laid out in our article Tajikistan Cedes Land to China - A Step Towards Af-Kash-Bet? on January 15, 2011. This article has become the 5th most read article of this Blog since its publication.

While strategic and of long term interest, the Wakhan corridor and its 16,100 feet high Wakhjir Pass is closed during most of the year. So we could not come to grips with how China planned to use the Wakhan corridor to broaden its foray into Afghanistan. This week proved we are simply not as bright or forward thinkers like China's military leaders. We admit it. Hats off to the Chinese and their unrelenting focus.

This week we learned that China is planning to build a tunnel under the Wakhan corridor to establish all-weather access to Afghanistan. This would be a major engineering feat, not unlike the Trans-Himalayan railway built by China in Tibet. Plans for this tunnel were discussed by General V.K. Singh, the recently retired Chief of the Indian Army, in a conversation with The Telegraph, a prominent Indian newspaper in Kolkata. We urge readers to read the article in the Telegraph published on June 5, 2012.

As the graphic below shows, China's current access to Pakistan is through the Pakistani-occupied Kashmir via the city of Gilgit. By building an all-weather tunnel to Afghanistan, China gets direct access to Afghanistan completely bypassing Pakistani occupied territories. By securing a shorter, more direct, secure and all-weather road access to Afghanistan, China can increase its presence in Afghanistan and get land access through Afghanistan to Iran and beyond. This will make Pakistan even more dependent on China rather than China being dependent on access via Pakistani-occupied Kashmir.



The Battle for Influence and Supremacy in Post-America Afghanistan

Way back in December 2009, we discussed our views about the new and inevitable great game in our article titled The Battle For Afghanistan, Kashmir & Tibet - A Post-American Withdrawal View Of The Region. The pieces are falling into place.

This week, China emphasized its interest in post-America Afghanistan. President Hu Jia Tao met Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai on Friday and announced a new strategic partnership between China and Afghanistan. Afghanistan has already signed a strategic partnership with India. But India does not have a direct land access to Afghanistan. Its air access can be shut down at any time by Pakistan.

China does not have a direct land access with Afghanistan either. But with an all-weather tunnel under the Wakhan corridor it will. Until then, China gets land access to Afghanistan via Pakistani-occupied Kashmir and China already maintains a contingent of military engineers in Pakistani-occupied Kashmir. China's goals in Afghanistan are complimentary to Pakistan's goals in Afghanistan, at least for the near term. In fact, we can picture an Afghanistan living under a loose confederacy of Pakistan dominated Pashtuns in the south, Chinese dominated Tajiks in the northeast and Iranian dominated Hazara in the northwest with possibly Russian-influenced Tajiks-Uzbeks in the north.

The country that will be shut out is India and the country that might lose its considerable investment in Afghanistan is America. This may be why America has begun arguing for a greater role for India in Afghanistan. Frankly, we are not impressed by this soft overture. More importantly, according to Stratfor, Pakistan is not impressed either.

Unlike India or America, China keeps demonstrating its farsightedness, its laser like focus on its strategic goals and its determination to physically build the infrastructure to implement its strategy. The conception of an all-weather tunnel under the Wakhan corridor is the most recent evidence of these traits.


Editor's PS: The article in the Telegraph was brought to our attention by a reader. We thank him for his help and interest in the Blog.

http://cinemarasik.com/2012/06/09/is-this-why-china-wanted-land-from-tajikistan-.aspx?view=threaded

[Toramana]

Tajikistan Cedes Land to China - A Step Towards Af-Kash-Bet?

This week, China and Tajikistan announced that they have settled their old border dispute. Under this settlement, Tajikistan ceded 386 sq miles or 1,000 sq km of land to China in the remote Pamir mountain range. China said that the move thoroughly solved their century-old border dispute. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei gave no details on the treaty but said that the dispute was solved "according to universally recognized norms of international law through equal consultations".

Right, China and Tajikistan dealt in "equal consultations" when China has become the largest investor in Tajikistan. The above is the extent of the coverage by BBC and Washington Post. The New York Times did not even cover this story.

So why should we care about a tiny piece of land in the remote, sparsely populated Pamir mountain range? Read our reasoning below.

Where is the Pamir range? It runs along the Tajikistan's border with Afghanistan and China. Why is that important? Remember the story about Afghanistan containing over a trillion dollars of mineral reserves. China got the first contract to mine these reserves.

The land deal begins to make sense in the context of China's long term interests in Afghanistan. But why should a small piece of land matter so much? The answer usually lies in the maps. Look at the map below from Wikipedia and focus on the "Corridor de Wakhan".




The Wakhan Corridor

Look at the small white corridor titled "Corridor de Wakhan" that leads from mainland Afghanistan to China. This small corridor , about 10-40 miles wide and about 140 miles, is the only land border between China & Afghanistan. This corridor was carved out to separate the Russian sphere that included Tajikistan from the pre-1947 India. This agreement was sealed between England and Russia in 1873.

Today, the Wakhan corridor sits between Tajikistan and Pakistan, or more specifically the Pakistani-occupied portion of Kashmir. India's unequivocal position is that this part of Kashmir is an integral part of India.

So if you are China with unlimited amounts of money, with an increasingly aggressive military and with far-reaching long-term interests in Afghanistan, would you be satisfied with the tiny Wakhan corridor as your only link to Afghanistan?

We wouldn't. This is why we believe the land ceded by Tajikistan to China is just above the Wakhan corridor and that would enable China to build a wider, more robust military infrastructure connecting Afghanistan with China.

And what part of China is this? It is the Xinjiang province where the Chinese faced riots by the local Uighurs. Based on what we read, China plans to make Xinjiang its springboard in to Central Asia. It has already become the largest investor in Tajikistan and a major investor in Kyrgyzstan. Remember, Kyrgyzstan has the Manas airbase that is used by the US airforce to supply Afghanistan from the north.

Do you know who was the Chinese Leader in charge of Xinjiang until recently? It was Xi Jinping who will take over as the President of China in 2013. This is another reason why we think this small deal between Tajikistan and China is much more important than it seems.

After Tajikistan & Kyrgyzstan, the next step is a deeper foray into Afghanistan, a business foray while US troops remain in Afghanistan and a different kind of foray after US troops leave Afghanistan. But Tajikistan is only one part of the access to Afghanistan. The other part is below the Wakhan corridor and through Pakistan or Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.



Remember that China is a strategic ally of Pakistan and Pakistan gets substantial aid from China. But the American involvement in and aid to Pakistan is much much larger. So as long as American troops remain in Afghanistan, China & Pakistan will mind their manners.

But once America leaves Afghanistan, China will become Pakistan's sole patron. Will China then hold "equal consultations" with Pakistan and sign a deal for Pakistan to cede the land below the Wakhan Corridor to China?

Look at the map below to see how logical this is. Look the Wakhan Corridor in the northwest corner of the map below. The area in green just below the Wakhan corridor is called the Gilgit Agency, the Northern Areas or Baltistan. The capital of this area is Gilgit. It is a bit hard to see but Gilgit is located just above the orange highway line above and to the left & above of the word Northern Areas.




China is already building a railway line between Gilgit and Kashgar, the principal town in China's Xinjiang province. China is already constructing power plants in this Northern Area with the "permission" of Pakistan.


Will Pakistan Cede the Gilgit-Baltistan area to China a la Tajikistan?

So how natural would it be for China to make a deal to "let" Pakistan cede this green Northern area to China in exchange for money, military and strategic assistance to Pakistan's military? Very natural we think, especially after America leaves Afghanistan.

This is not just conjecture and China is not waiting passively for America's withdrawal. Last August, Selig Harrison broke the story in the New York Times that Pakistan is handing de facto control of the Gilgit-Baltistan region to China. This created a firestorm in strategic circles. Read our September 2010 article titled Baltistan - Where the World Meets for its Next Geo-Crisis? for a detailed discussion of that story.

Once China gets the Northern Area of Kashmir, look at the map above to see how vulnerable the Indian areas of Ladakh becomes. It gets sandwiched between Chinese Tibet to its right, Chinese-occupied Aksai Chin to its northeast and the Chinese-occupied, Pakistan-ceded Northern Area of Kashmir to its northwest. And China already claims large areas of Ladakh as its own territory.

By the way, this is all historically consistent. Through out history, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet have been politically and administratively administered by the same Sovereign entity. Our acronym for this broad region at the top of the world is Af-Kash-Bet.

Remember, a mere 65 years ago, the Sovereign of the entire Af-Kash-Bet region was British-administered India. The British-led Indian Army occupied Tibet as its protector; Kashmir was a part of India and Afghanistan was a suzerain of British-administered India.

Will China become the next Sovereign of Af-Kash-Bet? Not as long as American troops remain in Afghanistan. But after America leaves? For a more detailed scenario analysis of that, read our December 2009 article titled The Battle For Afghanistan, Kashmir & Tibet - A Post-American Withdrawal View Of The Region .


Why is Af-Kash-Bet Important?

There is enormous geographical, geo-strategic and geo-commercial advantage to the control of Af-Kash-Bet. Af-Kash-Bet spans the entire Himalayan range. This is no longer the inhospitable terrain it has been through out history. China is already building a railway network across the Himalayan range to integrate areas under its control today. Look what Af-Kash-Bet opens up for China.

In the northwest, it opens up the entire Central Asian region, rich with mineral and energy resources. As the New York Times reports, China is already extending its footprints into Central Asia .

To the west, it allows control of the famous silk route, the old trading route that connects China with Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

To the southwest, it allows access to the Persian Gulf through Balochistan and Pakistan. To the south, it controls access to the Indo-Gangetic plain, India's heartland.

To the southeast, it allows easy access to the Bay of Bengal through Bangla Desh and Burma. To the Northeast, it controls access to South East Asia.

In other words, control over Af-Kash-Bet will allow China to become a modern equivalent of 19th century Britain.


An early move in a long-term geo-strategic chess game?

When considered in the above perspective, the ceding of land by Tajikistan to China does not seem small or insignificant. On the contrary, it seems like an early move in a long game of geostrategic chess played for huge global stakes.

This is one reason the US-India strategic relationship makes natural sense. But that requires American presence in Afghanistan for at least the next 10 years.

http://cinemarasik.com/2011/01/15/tajikistan-cedes-land-to-china---a-step-towards-af-kash-bet.aspx

[Toramana]

The Battle For Afghanistan, Kashmir & Tibet - A Post-American Withdrawal View Of The Region


Prologue

President Obama has essentially told the world that the American Military will begin its withdrawal from Afghanistan sometime in or after 2011. Clearly the date is subject to change based on circumstances. But even more clearly, the decision to leave Afghanistan seems firm.

This is new news. Many readers may not be aware that when America toppled the Taleban regime in 2001, India's Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh told a visiting American senior official that America would stay in Afghanistan for at least 50 years. The American Official did not disagree.

So we have no doubt that President Obama's announcement not only surprised the region but, more importantly, it accelerated development of plans and tactics for the region post America's withdrawal.

In this article, we provide our views of what is likely to come after America's withdrawal. Our projections are likely to be very different than those found in mainstream Print or TV media.

We remind readers that we have been in this situation before. In June 2008, we wrote our first article describing the military tensions between China & India. That article was triggered by a comment by a celebrity thinker and that is why our article was titled Dr. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of Yale - Is his ignorance symptomatic of Global Investors? Since then, we have written other articles on this subject, the most recent being our October 2009 article titled A Period of India-China Tension - Now a Mainstream View. This article described views on this topic from the Wall Street Journal & the Council of Foreign Relations, views that we began writing about year and half ago.

Will our projections below be proved correct or get adopted by mainstream media? Time will tell.


Afghanistan, Kashmir & Tibet ("Af-Kash-Bet") - A Macro View

Most celebrity thinkers in America express the opinion that America has very little at stake in Afghanistan. At best, they are likely to say that the more important job at hand is to protect Pakistan from becoming a failed state with nuclear weapons. Tom Friedman of the New York Times is perhaps the most rational of the celebrity thinkers of this school. We think these celebrities labor under a wrong and a highly dangerous misconception.

The same thinkers consider Kashmir to be a problem between India and Pakistan, which it is. But they do not seem to understand its relationship to Afghanistan.

Tibet to these thinkers is a completely separate and totally segregated issue that is relevant only from a Dalai Lama perspective.

Our own view is that Afghanistan, Kashmir & Tibet have been linked geographically, politically, administratively through out history. Once America withdraws from Afghanistan, the conflicts in these three regions will rapidly blend into one intricate and dangerous struggle for Supremacy of the Top of The World.

The title of this article has been drawn from the excellent book by Eric Margolis titled War at the top of the world: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet. This book was first published in 1999 and then again in 2002 to reflect the post 9/11 world. Apparently there is a 2007 edition that we have not read. The best parts of this book are the chapters on how China, India & Russia look at this integrated region and their strengths & weaknesses. Unfortunately, Margolis does not have a historical perspective of the relationships between these Afghanistan, Kashmir & Tibet.

In the Buddhist era, these three regions were often ruled by a single ruler, the most celebrated ruler being Emperor Kanishka of the Kushan Period (about 300 years after Alexander).

More recently, during the Sikh Era of Ranjit Singh (early 1800s), the Sikh Confederacy of Panjab fought wars with China's Qing Dynasty for control of Tibet, Kashmir & Afghanistan. After two wars, the two antagonists agreed to split up the region. Sikhs kept Kashmir and Afghanistan while Qing Dynasty kept Tibet. Then around 1900, the British-Indian Army took control of South Afghanistan, Kashmir and made Tibet its protectorate under Dalai Lama's rule.

Control of South Afghanistan, Kashmir & Tibet remained under the British Indian Army until 1947. After the partition of India, South Afghanistan was given to Pakistan, Kashmir was de facto partitioned in the 1947 war between Pakistan & India and in late 1950s, the Chinese Army walked in to annex Tibet. The Dalai Lama fled to India, where he resides to this day.

Today, this entire region is beset with intense border disputes between China & India as well as Pakistan & India (see map below). India faces a two-pronged dispute with Pakistan & China who have formed a strategic alliance. The Aksai Chin area (light brown area) used to be a part of India's Kashmir. The Chinese Army annexed Aksai Chin in the early 1960s and obtained a land bridge between Chinese Tibet and Pakistan occupied Kashmir across the Karakorum Pass. To monitor this border, Indian Army mounted an airborne operation in the 1980s to occupy the Siachen Glacier (small white strip). Pakistan has ceded a critical piece of its occupied territory to China (red shaded area).

This situation was manageable as long as Pakistan was an effective state, capable of being held responsible for its actions.




Light green in NorthWest - Northern Areas of Gilgit Agency - Pakistani control,
Area shaded in red above Northern Areas - ceded by Pakistan to China
Yellow in the middle - India's Jammu & Kashmir,
Small white strip in Top Right corner of light green Northern Area - Siachen Glacier - occupied by Indian Army
Light Brown area in NorthEast - Aksai Chin occupied by China
Dark Grey in East - Tibet occupied by China
Dark Grey in Top Right - Afghanistan


New Strategic Forays & Intensifying Tensions

History will likely conclude that the brilliant terrorist attack on Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists was a major turning point for the Af-Kash-Bet region. This was an act of war by a non-governmental organization like the 9/11 attack on New York. Just as the 9/11 attack was supported by the Taleban regime, the 26/11 Mumbai attack was supported by the Pakistani regime. But unlike America, India had very few good options to damage the rogue Pakistani Army-ISI elements.

The best short-term and long-term option for India was to enter Afghanistan and create a second front for Pakistan. After all, Afghanistan has been an ally-enemy of New Delhi for 3000-4000 years. This Indian initiative was welcomed by Afghanistan because it was peaceful and economic. India is today the second largest donor-investor in Afghanistan and its aid is popular among the Afghans. Besides, the soft Indian power of Bollywood & Cricket is already pervasive in Afghanistan.

The prospect of a substantial Indian presence in Afghanistan petrifies the Pakistani Army. They fear being encircled by India and slowly balkanized via India's potential support from Afghanistan for Pakistan's Pashtun and Baluch minorities. The Pashtun area occupied by Pakistan (called North West Frontier Province) has been claimed by Afghanistan as Afghan territory. India's diplomatic support and physical support for this territory from Afghanistan could lead to a further breakup of Pakistan or so they believe.

The major weakness of India's foray into Afghanistan is Pakistan's occupation of the Northern Area of Kashmir (light green area on the map above). Without this territory, India does not have land access into Afghanistan.

So Pakistan has begun inviting China into its Northern Area, also called the Gilgit agency after Gilgit, the major town in the area. So far, China is building power plants and a railway. China plans a major rail link between Gilgit and Kashgar, the main center in China's Xinjiang province. This railway could enable Chinese Army to pour into the Northern Area, thus encircling Indian Kashmir from Tibet in the east and from Gilgit in the west & north.

More importantly, the entry of Chinese Army into the Northern Area of Kashmir will provide China a broad land access into Afghanistan, a major strategic advantage for China and an unmitigated disaster for India.

The presence of American military forces in Afghanistan limits these initiatives and prevents the situation from getting out of control. Remember the last war in Kashmir was in 1999. Pakistan lost this Kargil War and this loss led Musharraf to topple the civilian rule and establish a military dictatorship in Pakistan. Two years later, American military entered Afghanistan. America's conflict in Afghanistan has dominated this region since then.

If this complexity is not enough for you, consider the new role Turkey has chosen for itself. Turkey is harking back to the glory days of the Ottoman Empire. In those days, Turkish influence was fairly strong in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. It was a period when Indian Muslim sardars and warlords would invent a Turkish ancestry to label themselves "Turki". Turkey is now getting involved in Afghanistan and believes that it can play a mediation role in the Pashtun Taleban and Pakistani Panjabi ethnic struggle.


Post American Withdrawal from Afghanistan

America's withdrawal from Afghanistan will create a large vacuum in the region. Geostrategy like nature abhors a vacuum and we already see activities from Pakistan, India & China to fill this vacuum. Large scale military operations were not feasible 50 years ago because of terrain and logistics. Not so today.

China and India have invested very heavily in military infrastructure including forward airbases and troop transport aircraft. China has built excellent rail and road links to be able to move troops quickly. India has completed its own rail link in Kashmir. India has also reopened airbases along the border between Indian Ladakh and Chinese Tibet. Pakistan has heavily fortified the line of control in Kashmir to prevent a land campaign by India.

Unfortunately, Pakistan is on the verge of becoming a failed state despite American presence and aid. The withdrawal of American forces will lead to an escalating conflict between the Pakistani Taleban and Pakistani Government. Pakistan will badly need a major patron who could provide financial and military aid. There is only one such patron around, China.

In our opinion, China could offer Pakistan a very large amount of long term funding in exchange for ceding the Northern Area of Kashmir to China. The Chinese Army could then "legally" enter the Northern Area and occupy it. This will enable China to exert its influence on the new "government" in neighboring Afghanistan. As China has done with Sri Lanka, Myanmar & to a smaller extent in Bangladesh, China will provide a great deal of financial aid to the new Afghan regime and offer military support in exchange for strong influence & semi-vassal status.

Thus, except for a small part of Indian Kashmir, China will control the bulk of Af-Kash-Bet region and gain control of the Top of The World. According to Edmund Wong of the New York Times, China's leaders want the boundaries of today's China to be those of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) at its height. The Qing Empire was defeated in its campaign to capture Kashmir. What could be sweeter to Chinese leadership than to annex the bulk of Kashmir, control Afghanistan and make modern China greater than the Qing Dynasty empire? All this could be achieved by monetary and diplomatic negotiations with Pakistan.

China could then keep India hounded and on the defensive by funding & supporting the Pakistani Army in its terrorist attacks on India.

In our opinion, either India will forced to send its military into Pakistani-occupied Kashmir to prevent the Chinese Army from entering Kashmir or accept a vastly diminished global profile as a subordinate nation to China.


Parallels to Pre World War I Europe

The situation we describe reminds us of Europe before World War I. This, of course, is an extension of the analogy developed by Niall Ferguson, the Harvard-Oxford professor. He has compared today's China to Kaisar Wilhelm's Germany, then a new ascendant power in Europe.

You have China trying to remake itself as the modern Qing Empire. You have Turkey getting reinvolved in Afghanistan as the modern successor of the Ottoman Empire. In an astonishingly stupid move, the Obama political advisors have invited both China & Turkey to become more involved in Afghanistan. Listen, folks! Focus on Chicago style politics at home and leave foreign policy to Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates.

In this WW I analogy, what is India? France or the Austro-Hungarian regime? We do not know the answer. But we do know that this situation is fraught with enormous danger. It is also similar to World War I because, in our opinion, neither the China-Pakistan axis nor India is likely to win a decisive victory. It will be a long drawn battle out in an inhospitable and heavily fortified terrain, unless of course one of the players plays the tactical nuclear card.

What could be the trigger? The analogy to the assassination of Duke Ferdinand might well be an assassination of a Pakistani General by the Taleban, the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into Taleban hands or a terrorist attack against India with a small nuke.

It is our sincere hope that our projections prove to be misguided or utterly wrong. Nothing would please us more. But as analysts, we have to consider scenarios that could actually occur. We feel that the scenario we describe could certainly develop into a frightening reality.

This is why we fervently hope that the Obama Mission in Afghanistan succeeds in making both Afghanistan & Pakistan stable entities. Because, if President Obama decides to leave Afghanistan without achieving this aim, then our scenario is likely to occur in some form within a few years of America's withdrawal.

http://cinemarasik.com/2009/12/05/the-battle-for-afghanistan-kashmir--tibet--a-postamerican-withdrawal-view-of-the-region.aspx

[Toramana]

China Quietly Extends Footprints Into Central Asia



MURGHAB, Tajikistan — On the outskirts of this wind-scoured town, founded in 1893 as a Russian military post, the construction of a new customs compound heralds the return of another major power.

When it opens this year, the sprawling new lot will accommodate much larger caravans of Chinese trucks than the existing trade depot, speeding the flow of clothing, electronics and household appliances that have lately flooded Central Asia, from nomadic yurts on the Kyrgyz steppes to ancient alleyways in Samarkand and Bukhara.

“Trade is growing between China and all these countries around it,” said Tu’er Hong, whose truck was one of about 50 from China transferring goods to Tajik drivers one day recently at the current post.

While China is seizing the spotlight in East and Southeast Asia with its widening economic footprint and muscular diplomacy, it is also quietly making its presence felt on its western flank, once primarily Russia’s domain.

Chinese officials see Central Asia as a critical frontier for their nation’s energy security, trade expansion, ethnic stability and military defense. State enterprises have reached deep into the region with energy pipelines, railroads and highways, while the government has recently opened Confucius Institutes to teach Mandarin in capitals across Central Asia.

Central Asia, says Gen. Liu Yazhou of the People’s Liberation Army, is “the thickest piece of cake given to the modern Chinese by the heavens.”

The five predominantly Muslim countries that won independence after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan — are once again arenas for superpower rivalry, much as the region was during the 19th century Great Game between Russia and Britain. This time the players are China, Russia and the United States, which uses Central Asia as a conduit for troops to Afghanistan.

Chinese officials are wary of what they view as American efforts to surround China, seeing American troops and military alliances in Central Asia, India and Afghanistan as the western arc of a containment strategy that also relies on cooperation with nations in East and Southeast Asia.

China is flexing its own military muscle in the area, conducting sophisticated war games in Kazakhstan in September as part of annual exercises that traditionally include several Central Asian nations. According to a State Department cable released by WikiLeaks, American officials suspected China of offering Kyrgyzstan $3 billion to shut down the American air base there.

The cable, dated Feb. 13, 2009, described an awkward meeting between Tatiana C. Gfoeller, the American ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, and Zhang Yannian, the Chinese ambassador there, in which Ms. Gfoeller confronted Mr. Zhang with her suspicions of the $3 billion bribe. “Visibly flustered, Zhang temporarily lost the ability to speak Russian and began spluttering in Chinese to the silent aide diligently taking notes right behind him,” the cable said. Mr. Zhang then rebutted the accusation.

But China’s new presence in Central Asia is in many ways more Silk Road revival than Great Game redux. Chinese analysts say one goal of Beijing is to economically integrate Central Asia with the restive western region of Xinjiang, breaking down trade barriers, even if the Central Asian governments are wary.

“The growing economic footprint in Central Asia is pretty significant,” said an American official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about Chinese policy in the region. “In many ways, the investments are welcomed, not only by those countries, but also by the U.S. But there’s a lack of transparency in terms of China’s investments and relations with those countries.”

Local people are cautious too, especially in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, where they have long feared that Chinese migration could tip the balance of economic power in sparsely populated countries. In Almaty, Kazakhstan, a protest erupted last January against a proposed land deal involving China.

“Many of us Kazakhs are very suspicious of the Chinese influx in general, but what can we do?” said Aidelhan Onbedbayev, 35, a driver who shuttles merchants and travelers between Almaty and Zharkent, a border town. “The government makes these decisions and invites them in for investment with free-trade zones and land offers.”

Some Chinese officials have been blunt about their interests.

1 2 NEXT PAGE »
Xiyun Yang and Benjamin Haas contributed research from Beijing. Teo Kaye contributed reporting from Zharkent, Kazakhstan.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 21, 2011


Because of an editing error, an article on Jan. 3 about China’s increasing economic ties in Central Asia misstated the year in which China helped establish a precursor to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional strategy group that includes Russia and most Central Asian nations. It was in 1996, not in 1966.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/world/asia/03china.html?scp=1&sq=china%20extends%20footprints&st=cse&_r=moc.semityn.www

[Toramana]

Baltistan - Where the World Meets for the Next Geo-Crisis?


At your next cocktail party, drop the word Baltistan. The blank stares you get would be an ego-booster. Then drop the name Gilgit, the capital of Baltistan, and you will be regarded as an elite intellectual. This is because very few people have heard of Baltistan or Gilgit.

Baltistan is where the world meets today. This is a small province that sits between US controlled Afghanistan, China, India and Pashtunistan territory occupied by Pakistan. Russia and its interests in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan are a short distance away.

This is not just a poor, landlocked territory at the top of the world. It happens to be one of the most strategic areas of the world. Because it is the key to Chinese land routes to the warm waters of the Persian Gulf. It is the battleground where China-Pakistan could engage in a sharp, vicious military conflict with India. Baltistan is also the key to a Chinese domination if not control of Afghanistan after America leaves. So this is the province that may force USA to stay in Afghanistan far longer than it wishes to.

China is already building an all-weather rail line from Kashgar in Xinjiang to Gilgit across the Khunjerab Pass, the highest paved border crossing in the world. This rail line would allow Oil and raw materials to travel from Gwadar, the Chinese built port at the entrance of the strategic Straits of Hormuz to Kashgar in 48 hours. Alternatively, it can allow the Chinese Army to reach the Persian Gulf in 48 hours.

Baltistan could be the key to the historical pursuit of unified control of Afghanistan, Kashmir & Tibet. British-led India was the last entity to have such control. China wants to be the next entity to control Af-Kash-Bet. We discussed this topic at length in our December 2009 article The Battle For Afghanistan, Kashmir & Tibet - A Post-American Withdrawal View of The Region. But when we wrote that article, we had little idea that Baltistan would emerge as a focus within a few months and long before America withdraws from Afghanistan.

Take a look at the map below. The area in light green titled Northern Areas is Gilgit-Baltistan, its new name. If China gets military control of Baltistan, how would the strategic picture look? To illustrate this point, we annotated this area by drawing red lines across Baltistan. Control of Baltistan would enable China to encircle Jammu & Kashmir of India and chop it off at leisure. In addition, the loss of Baltistan to China would forever cut off India from the mineral rich Central Asian region. It would also allow China to penetrate Afghanistan from the east and link up with Iran's penetration of Afghanistan from the west.




This is a geo-political crisis if we have ever seen one. The credit for bringing this to the world's attention goes to the New York Times and its Op-Ed Contributor, Selig S. Harrison. Mr. Harrison is the Director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy and a former South Asia bureau chief of the Washington Post.

Harrison made frank and candid assertions in his article China's Discreet Hold on Pakistan's Northern Borderlands . In this article, Harrison stated:
a quiet geopolitical crisis is unfolding in the Himalayan borderlands of northern Pakistan, where Islamabad is handing over de facto control of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to China.(emphasis ours).
China wants a grip on the region to assure unfettered road and rail access to the Gulf through Pakistan. It takes 16 to 25 days for Chinese oil tankers to reach the Gulf. When high-speed rail and road links through Gilgit and Baltistan are completed, China will be able to transport cargo from Eastern China to the new Chinese-built Pakistani naval bases at Gwadar, Pasni and Ormara, just east of the Gulf, within 48 hours.
Mystery surrounds the construction of 22 tunnels in secret locations where Pakistanis are barred. Tunnels would be necessary for a projected gas pipeline from Iran to China that would cross the Himalayas through Gilgit. But they could also be used for missile storage sites.
But reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers reveal two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan: a simmering rebelion against Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army.
This article by Selig Harrison created a fire storm in strategic circles. This Chinese incursion into Kashmir was discussed in last week's meetings between Admiral Robert Willard, head of U.S. Pacific Command and his counterparts in the Indian Military. Admiral Willard said that "any change in military relations or military maneuvers by China that raises concerns of India could fall within U.S. Pacific Command's area of responsibility" but also maintained that this is an issue for the Indian Military to handle on its own.

The United States is being exceedingly cautious in defining its role in this affair as it should. But it cannot avoid getting caught in the China-India-Pakistan triangle. Any time, US & Indian defense officials get together to discuss China & Pakistan, it makes Pakistan draw even closer to to China. It also makes the withdrawal from Afghanistan more complex for the Obama Administration.

Niall Ferguson of Harvard has compared China to Kaiser's Germany before World War I. In this analogy, India would be France, a perennially soft, complacent country that almost invites attacks from its neighbors. But like France, India can only be pushed so far and Baltistan could prove to be the last straw.

Our own analogy is to Japan's drive to secure its own natural resources in the late 1930s. The economic conditions are similar. The 1930s were a decade of deflation in the USA and a decade of global trade tensions. Japan was an emerging power in Asia and needed guaranteed, secure access to natural resources. Japan spent the decade of the 1930s in modernizing its Navy and building up its Army and Air force. Then it launched a military campaign in Asia to annex territories to seize resources.

Does this not suggest a parallel to current economic conditions and to today's China?

http://cinemarasik.com/2010/09/11/baltistan--where-the-world-meets-for-the-next-geocrisis-thanks-new-york-times.aspx

[Toramana]

China's Discreet Hold on Pakistan's Northern Borderlands
By SELIG S. HARRISON
Published: August 26, 2010

While the world focuses on the flood-ravaged Indus River valley, a quiet geopolitical crisis is unfolding in the Himalayan borderlands of northern Pakistan, where Islamabad is handing over de facto control of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to China.

The entire Pakistan-occupied western portion of Kashmir stretching from Gilgit in the north to Azad (Free) Kashmir in the south is closed to the world, in contrast to the media access that India permits in the eastern part, where it is combating a Pakistan-backed insurgency. But reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers reveal two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan: a simmering rebellion against Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army.

China wants a grip on the region to assure unfettered road and rail access to the Gulf through Pakistan. It takes 16 to 25 days for Chinese oil tankers to reach the Gulf. When high-speed rail and road links through Gilgit and Baltistan are completed, China will be able to transport cargo from Eastern China to the new Chinese-built Pakistani naval bases at Gwadar, Pasni and Ormara, just east of the Gulf, within 48 hours.

Many of the P.L.A. soldiers entering Gilgit-Baltistan are expected to work on the railroad. Some are extending the Karakoram Highway, built to link China’s Sinkiang Province with Pakistan. Others are working on dams, expressways and other projects.

Mystery surrounds the construction of 22 tunnels in secret locations where Pakistanis are barred. Tunnels would be necessary for a projected gas pipeline from Iran to China that would cross the Himalayas through Gilgit. But they could also be used for missile storage sites.

Until recently, the P.L.A. construction crews lived in temporary encampments and went home after completing their assignments. Now they are building big residential enclaves clearly designed for a long-term presence.

What is happening in the region matters to Washington for two reasons. Coupled with its support for the Taliban, Islamabad’s collusion in facilitating China’s access to the Gulf makes clear that Pakistan is not a U.S. “ally.” Equally important, the nascent revolt in the Gilgit-Baltistan region is a reminder that Kashmiri demands for autonomy on both sides of the cease-fire line would have to be addressed in a settlement.

Media attention has exposed the repression of the insurgency in the Indian-ruled Kashmir Valley. But if reporters could get into the Gilgit-Baltistan region and Azad Kashmir, they would find widespread, brutally-suppressed local movements for democratic rights and regional autonomy.

When the British partitioned South Asia in 1947, the maharajah who ruled Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan, acceded to India. This set off intermittent conflict that ended with Indian control of the Kashmir Valley, the establishment of Pakistan-sponsored Free Kashmir in western Kashmir, and Pakistan’s occupation of Gilgit and Baltistan, where Sunni jihadi groups allied with the Pakistan Army have systematically terrorized the local Shiite Muslims.

Gilgit and Baltistan are in effect under military rule. Democratic activists there want a legislature and other institutions without restrictions like the ones imposed on Free Kashmir, where the elected legislature controls only 4 out of 56 subjects covered in the state constitution. The rest are under the jurisdiction of a “Kashmir Council” appointed by the president of Pakistan.

India gives more power to the state government in Srinagar; elections there are widely regarded as fair, and open discussion of demands for autonomy is permitted. But the Pakistan-abetted insurgency in the Kashmir Valley has added to tensions between Indian occupation forces and an assertive population seeking greater of local autonomy.

The United States is uniquely situated to play a moderating role in Kashmir, given its growing economic and military ties with India and Pakistan’s aid dependence on Washington. Such a role should be limited to quiet diplomacy. Washington should press New Delhi to resume autonomy negotiations with Kashmiri separatists. Success would put pressure on Islamabad for comparable concessions in Free Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. In Pakistan, Washington should focus on getting Islamabad to stop aiding the insurgency in the Kashmir Valley and to give New Delhi a formal commitment that it will not annex Gilgit and Baltistan.

Precisely because the Gilgit-Baltistan region is so important to China, the United States, India and Pakistan should work together to make sure that it is not overwhelmed, like Tibet, by the Chinese behemoth.

Selig S. Harrison is director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy and a former South Asia bureau chief of The Washington Post.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27iht-edharrison.html?scp=3&sq=Baltistan&st=cse

[faye]

'rasik', looks as though most of the articles are written by an indian, upset at chinas continuance at being 'the quiet achievers.'

[Toramana]

This is true faye. That is why it should be read skeptically. But anyhow, this is one shade of India's strategic assessment of the region.

[faye]

well none of the governments/multinational companies should be trusted, going by historical and todays example, but china will be investing in afghanistan and these other stans, just like india and the rest. damn smart move on chinas behalf.
i like to find who writes an article. especially ones with a specific leaning, like those.

[Karachi]

why do indians refer to Northern areas of pakistan as Kashmir?

[asad71]

Once Kashmir becomes free of India and Pakistan, she is bound to have certain issues remaining to settle with China.

[drona]

why do indians refer to Northern areas of pakistan as Kashmir?

I am not surprised that Pakistanis do not know even basic facts about the issues closet to their hearts. The so called "Northern Areas" and "Azad Kashmir" were part of the Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir, before the British officer in charge of colonial forces stationed there, surrendered their administration to newly formed Pakistani Dominion.

[drona]

Once Kashmir becomes free of India and Pakistan, she is bound to have certain issues remaining to settle with China.

Yeah. And once I become king of the world, there will be no wars.

[Tjanaparh]

China got territory not only from Tajikistan, but some 7-8 years ago from Kyrghyzstan too.

[fzpz]

why do indians refer to Northern areas of pakistan as Kashmir?

Because they have their head stuck in imagining a former british colony as their "mother country" and a colonial designation as their "integral part". Forget the people living there are not Kashmiri. Nor want to be associated with Kashmir. Or the fact that they fought for their freedom against the Sikh-Hindu dictator and their British overlords and voluntarily became part of Pakistan. Or the fact that Gilgit and Baltistan were invaded from the south and were ruled by the so-called "Jammu & Kashmir". A brush-up on history and facts would do them well before spouting more mythology. Good of you to point out the dissonance.

Thanks Tora Bora for the link to "strategery" by the indian. Lost in the long-winded splurge was any mention of the PEOPLE that actually live there. Facts must be kept in the closet.