Revival of the Silk Road

Posted by Admin On Friday, 19 April 2013 0 comments

Synopsis
After enjoying a history of about 1600 years, the Silk Road had lost out to the Southern Ocean Corridor connecting Europe and Asia. But now there are signs that the old Silk Road is being revived.
Commentary
THE SILK Road refers to the historical network of trading routes that connected Asia with the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. Actually there were two major Silk Roads. The Northern Silk Road began from the present day Xian in China, which branched further west into two routes which converged in Kashgar, in what is now the largely Muslim Xinjiang province of China, before continuing on.
There was also the less well-known Southwestern Silk Road (SSR) which began in the Yunnan province of China. Bin Yang, a historian at the National University of Singapore, has noted that the SSR had four sections: the Sichuan-Yunnan-Burma-India Road which began in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan, and then proceeded to Kunming and Dali in Yunnan province before entering Burma and India, the Yunnan-Vietnam Road, the Yunnan-Laos-Thailand-Cambodia Road and the Yunnan-Tibet Road. DP Singhal has, in addition, alluded to trade over two overland routes through Nepal and Tibet to China.
Marco Polo’s Silk Road
The Silk Route witnessed its zenith during the Mongol Empire around the middle of the 13th century when political stability allowed more trade in the region. There were significant complementarities in trade: Merchandise that did not seem valuable to the Mongols – such as silk, lacquerware, porcelain – was often seen as valuable by the west and the Mongols in turn received large amounts of luxurious goods from Europe and dates, saffron, and pistachio nuts from Persia. It was during this time that Marco Polo travelled the Silk Road to China.
Trade on the Silk Road started to decline after the collapse of the Mongol Empire in the 14th century. The isolationist foreign policies of the Ming and the subsequent Qing dynasties also did not help. The Europeans, therefore, started to reach the prosperous Chinese Empire through the sea route.
The sharp lowering of shipping costs which began with the invention of the steam engine during the Industrial Revolution also led to further increase in Europe’s maritime trade with Asia on the so-called Southern Ocean Corridor. This Corridor linked the Mediterranean in a trade route which continued through South Asia, the Straits of Malacca which straddled the old regional trading hub of the Malacca Sultanate, and up the East Asian coast to Korea and Japan.
Land connectivity in Asia
Now things are starting to change and the case for reviving land connectivity in Asia or the Silk Road has strengthened. Firstly, Maritime Asia, defined as the dynamic north-south coastal region from Korea to Indonesia, is starting to become more continental with expanding networks of roads, railways, and pipelines. This is most obvious in China where sharp increase in real wages in the coastal regions is leading to the relocation of industries to the interior of the country where labour is cheaper.
Under its “Go West” policy of 2005, China has identified a number of “bridge heads” for sub-regional connectivity such as the Yunnan province for the Greater Mekong Sub-region, and the Xinjiang province for cooperation with Central Asia. The Qinghai-Tibet Railway will reach Xigaste in Tibet this year, and is to be extended soon to reach the border with Nepal. The Beijing-Lhasa expressway has also been completed up to Xining, the halfway point.
Secondly, the encouraging but gradual political and economic reforms in Myanmar – as Burma is now known and is a node between South Asia and East Asia – has also provided a fillip for land connectivity. Both China and India are actively involved. Chinese strategists write about the “Malacca Dilemma” with the Strait being a natural choke point and the need to find an alternative route. In May, an 800 km gas pipeline from Kyauphyu, a port in Myanmar, to Kunming will be operational. Next year, an oil pipeline will open along the same route. Road and railway will also follow. Work on the Kaladan Multimodal Project seeking to connect Kolkota in India with Sittwe in Myanmar by sea and then the North East region of India by river and road transport is on-going.
Newer theories of trade
Thirdly, to realise the potential of dynamic complementarities associated with the newer theories of trade pioneered by some scholars there is a need to develop different types of service links. Under the traditional theory of comparative advantage, developing countries produced labour intensive goods which they then exchanged for relatively capital and skill intensive goods produced by the more advanced countries. All separate tasks involved in producing a good, however, were done entirely in one country.
Under the newer theories, production is sliced and diced into separate fragments and production of parts and components are located in production blocks around the world which are linked by efficient service links. The type of service link required depends on the sector being considered.
While for bulky items, sea freight is still the most cost effective way of moving goods, for less bulky parts and components, road transportation could be quicker especially among neighbouring countries. For perishable items, air transport might be necessary.
Actions needed to revive the SSR
A number of regional efforts are also being made to revive the Silk Road. The Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity of 2010 seeks to promote physical, institutional, and people-to-people connectivity among its 10 member countries. The Master Plan also emphasises the importance of ASEAN’s connectivity with neighbouring countries, such as India and China and the other members of the East Asia Summit (EAS). In response to the request of EAS, the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) has come up with two projects for ASEAN-India Connectivity, namely, the Mekong-India Economic Corridor and the Trilateral Highway connecting India and Myanmar with Thailand.
While the first project focuses on connecting production blocks in Southeast Asia with those in India, specially the automotive industry in Bangkok with those in Chennai (India) by sea, the second project focuses on the development of the North East Region of India.
What has been lacking so far is effort to promote the China-ASEAN-South Asia Connectivity by reviving the Southern Silk Road. The ERIA should consider a Yunnan-Myanmar-India-Nepal-Tibet-Yunnan Economic Corridor or a Circular Economic Corridor in Asia and sensitise the project concept and its feasibility.
Such a project would lead to a win-win situation for the countries concerned especially to Nepal which, as a land-locked country, has the potential to be a “land bridge” between India and China. Other “land bridges” in Asia that have benefited significantly from regional connectivity are Laos and Mongolia.
Pradumna B. Rana is Associate Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU). He is also the coordinator of economic multilateralism and regionalism studies at the RSIS’ Centre for Multilateralism Studies.
READ MORE

Pakistan contributes to China’s growth

Posted by Admin On 0 comments



China’s recent accession to the top five global arms exporters may alarm Western strategic planners seeking to contain its military rise, but Pakistan has reason to celebrate. Farhan Bokhari reports
China has replaced the United Kingdom in fifth position behind the United States, Russia, Germany and France as the world’s largest exporters of weapons, according to the annual report on the global arms trade by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), released in March. The rise is largely due to growing arms exports to Pakistan, which according to SIPRI, are likely to continue.
“Pakistan – which accounted for 55% of Chinese arms exports – is likely to remain the largest recipient of Chinese arms in the coming years due to large outstanding and planned orders for combat aircraft, submarines and frigates,” the SIPRI report said.
Defence ties between the two countries have combined materiel sales and shared geopolitical interests – not least a common enemy in India and a mutual suspicion of the United States. The latter is of particular interest as it was a US embargo in 1966 that first led China to become a materiel supplier to Pakistan in the form of MiG fighter aircraft.
The 1966 MiG sale followed the US decision to withhold further arms sales and spare parts in response to Pakistan’s use of US weapons in its 1965 war with India. “The historical moment of 1966 has created the vital and indispensable relationship between Pakistan and China,” a senior Pakistan military officer toldIHS Jane’s .
Chinese green light
More recently, Pakistan’s military officers point to the United States’ 1990 decision to impose sanctions over its violation of the Pressler Amendment – a US law put in place to guard against Islamabad’s development of nuclear weapons.
The most visible and high-profile consequence of the sanctions triggered by the amendment was a US decision to withhold the delivery of 28 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter aircraft, for which Pakistan had made a partial payment.
In an act of further defiance, Pakistan conducted its first nuclear tests in May 1998 – just three weeks after a series of similar tests were carried out by India.
Within months of the US decision on the F-16s, Pakistani nationalists began denouncing Washington for its “broken promises”.”We had people paint crude images of F-16s on the back of trucks alongside anti-US slogans,” recalled a senior Pakistani diplomat.
Behind the scenes, discussions between the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) to jointly manufacture a new fighter aircraft were under way. On the drawing board was an upgraded version of the F-7: a Chinese variant of the Soviet MiG-21. Those discussions eventually bore fruit when the idea of a jointly manufactured aircraft became a reality in the form of the JF-17 Thunder.
A single-engined light fighter aircraft designed by Chengdu with assistance from MiG, the JF-17 was Pakistan’s first experience of manufacturing fighter aircraft. So far, the PAF has produced about 40 JF-17s at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) north of Islamabad, but there are plans to eventually manufacture up to 150 aircraft. While it was originally mainly an assembly and test-flight facility, PAC is now manufacturing 60% of the airframe and 80% of the avionics.
Although the JF-17 was initially visualised as a second line of defence to fly alongside the US-manufactured F-16, senior PAF officers said they do not discount the possibility of the PAF one day relying almost exclusively on China for its frontline fighters.
The PAF has previously revealed discussions with China of the purchase of up to 36 Chengdu J-10 fighter aircraft, although IHS Jane’s understands that a final agreement has been on hold since early 2012 due to Pakistan’s fraught finances. One way to finance the J-10 purchase could be to export the JF-17s in partnership with China to third countries.
In early 2012 IHS Jane’s reported that China and Pakistan expect to sell 300 JF-17s to markets across Africa, Asia and the Middle East by 2017, marketing the aircraft as a cost-effective alternative to surplus US Air Force or other second-hand F-16s that they might otherwise consider.
In mid-2012 Pakistan’s ambassador to Indonesia was quoted by Indonesian media confirming that Islamabad had made an offer to sell a batch of JF-17s to the Indonesian Air Force, which faces this situation.
While the JF-17′s development is one outcome of closer strategic ties, Western defence officials say the largest single defence contract between China and Pakistan is yet to come. The Pakistan Navy and China have been in discussions for the past two years over the potential purchase of up to six new Chinese submarines, although neither country has confirmed the types of boats under consideration.
In February IHS Jane’s reported that the China Shipbuilding and Offshore International Corporation (CSOC) had offered rare information on the export version of China’s latest conventionally powered submarine, the S20 or Yuan class.
Western defence officials say the Pakistan Navy’s previous experience of operating Khalid-class (Agosta 90B) submarines purchased from France in the 1990s gives it the ability to add modern systems that are currently not standard features on the S20.
The systems mentioned include the air independent propulsion (AIP) system installed on the Agosta 90B boats.
Tri-service arms provider
The PN has also received Azmat-class fast-attack craft, 63 m-long, 560-tonne vessels based on Houjian-class (Type 037/2) missile craft in service with the People’s Liberation Army Navy.
Designed to carry eight C-802A (YJ-83/CSS-N-8 ‘Saccade’) surface-to-surface missiles, two 25 mm guns and two 12.7 mm machine guns, two have been built – one in China and the second by Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works (KSEW) under a technology transfer agreement.

China also previously agreed to sell four Sword-class (F-22P) frigates – a modification of the Jiangwei II (Type 053H3) design – to the Pakistan Navy in a similar deal involving collaboration between KSEW and Chinese shipbuilders.
China has either jointly produced or provided the Pakistan Army with main battle tanks in the form of Al Khalid (MBT 2000), Al Zarrar (Type 59/59M), Type 69 and Type 85-IIAP, artillery, including Norinco 122 mm Type 83/D-30 howitzers, and indigenously produced Anza Mk II air-defence systems based on the China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) Qian Wei 1 (QW-1) Vanguard surface-to-air missile and the Anza Mk III based on the QW-2.
East looks west
In addition to meeting the defence hardware needs of Pakistan’s armed forces, Beijing also appears to be working to further solidify its strategic ties with Islamabad.
In February the Pakistan government formally handed over the management of the Gwadar deep sea port in southwestern Pakistan to a Chinese operator.
The move followed a decision to revoke an earlier contract with Port of Singapore Authority (PSA), which signed a 40-year management contract for Gwadar in 2007 but had been criticised by Pakistani officials for failing to fulfil promises to develop the facility. The facility is about 700 km west of Karachi but only 80 km east of the Iranian border and close to the Gulf.
Other sources said that Pakistan Navy intransigence over its development of a nearby base, PNS Akram, had blocked PSA’s development opportunities at the site. Pakistan Navy senior navy officers who have spoken toIHS Jane’s have denied these claims.
Senior Pakistani government officials told IHS Jane’s that the contract for Gwadar was a significant attempt by Pakistan to lure Beijing into establishing a larger presence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).
Some reports seen by IHS Jane’s have suggested that China has promised Pakistan that it will spend USD1 billion to develop a road and train network linking Gwadar to western China.
This will radically reduce the travel time between China and the Gulf region and reduce China’s dependence on the energy supplies travelling through the South China Sea, through which 80% of its gas and oil currently passes.
China has so far resisted Pakistan’s overtures to establish a naval presence at Gwadar, but the strategic advantages of diversifying its energy lines of communication will not be lost on Beijing.
That closer ties with Pakistan also complicate India’s plans to develop strategic dominance of the IOR is a definite bonus for China, while Pakistan’s decision to pursue Chinese co-operation rather than rely on US technology offers a potential path for other developing nations that are leery of the threat of Western embargoes.
Farhan Bokhari is a JDW Correspondent, based in Islamabad. 
Additional reporting by James Hardy IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly Asia-Pacific Editor, London
READ MORE

Obama’s reluctance in picking a war with Iran

Posted by Admin On 0 comments

For many people, the rhetoric and political manoeuvring around Iran have a familiar feel. Whether in North America, Europe or the Gulf it is reasonably easy to turn on a TV set or open a newspaper and find a pundit warning that Washington is once again pushing the Middle East towards war.
US President Barack Obama spent most of last year insisting that just because his attitude towards Tehran was less belligerent than Mitt Romney’s, one should not assume that he is willing to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons. For many observers, however, the sight of repeated rounds of talks with the Iranians, even as rhetoric on both sides grows more heated, has an ominous feel to it.
It is difficult to look at all of this and not think of the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War. Yet, appearances can be deceiving. Make no mistake: The US is in a dangerous moment when a small miscalculation can trigger a war, but that does not mean that war is inevitable. Despite the superficial similarities, the spring of 2013 is not a replay of 2002-2003 — not as yet, at least.
For all of the ways this moment seems to mirror that of a decade ago, the fact remains that, to put it simply, Iran is not Iraq.
First, and most importantly, while Obama seems willing to go to war with Iran, if he feels he must, he appears far from eager to do so. When George W. Bush talked about finding a peaceful solution to America’s stand-off with Iraq, one that would not involve regime change or the use of force, it ought to have been clear to any rational observer that he did not mean it. Bush’s body language in front of the microphone, and his actions away from it, belied his true intentions.
The years since the invasion have removed any doubt about whether Bush’s decision to go to war was really left, as he claimed at the time, until the last minute. The July 2002 British cabinet document, known as the ‘Downing Street Memo’ speaks of a decision already having been made by the Bush administration as do the recollections of Richard Haass, who headed the State Department’s policy planning staff in the months leading up to the war. In his 2009 book War of Necessity, War of Choice, Haass recounts a meeting with the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, also in July 2002. “You can save your breath, Richard,” she told him. “The president has already made up his mind on Iraq.”
Is America in a similar moment, when a decision to fight has been made and all that remains is putting a battle plan in place while selling a new war to the public?
There are certainly some in Washington and elsewhere who would like to believe that to be the case, but can anyone look at Obama today and really believe that he is spoiling for a fight in the way Bush so obviously was?
Obama kept to the Iraq withdrawal timetable negotiated by the Bush administration in its final months and did not seem particularly bothered when talks on an agreement to leave a residual force in Iraq failed. He seems determined to keep his promise to bring US troops home from Afghanistan by the end of next year despite increasingly loud protests from America’s political right.
Add to this Libya, where the administration’s mantra was “leading from behind”, and what is clearly a firm policy of not getting sucked into Syria and it is hard to argue that the Obama administration is eagerly copying its predecessor, going abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
Even the clearest, and most controversial, military escalation of the Obama years — the ever-growing use of drones to kill America’s enemies from afar — is seen in America itself as a way of avoiding deeper involvement and inevitable escalation in far-off conflicts (a questionable assumption, but that is not today’s topic).
Put simply, the Obama administration may yet find itself in a shooting war with Iran or dragged into a war with Iran, started by the Israelis, but it is hard to look at the facts dispassionately and believe that it is itching to get such a war started.
Hardly a ringing endorsement, I grant. However, when compared to, say, January 2002, it is surely an improvement having someone in the White House who sounds sincere when he says he will prefer not to fight.
READ MORE

Quake wipes out nearly entire Pakistani town

Posted by Admin On 0 comments


Pakistani army personnel carry person injured in an earthquake in Mashkel, southwestern Baluchistan province, Thursday, April 18, 2013 in Pakistan. Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers joined the effort to rescue victims of a deadly earthquake near the Iranian border, evacuating 16 of the more seriously injured by helicopter, the military said Wednesday. Arshad Butt / AP Photo

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/18/3351624/quake-wipes-out-nearly-entire.html#storylink=cpy

MASHKEL, Pakistan -- Zar Bibi's 7-year-old son was napping when a massive earthquake demolished this small Pakistani town earlier this week near the Iranian border. The mud walls of the family's home were no match for the tremor that destroyed the house and, within seconds, buried the sleeping boy in rubble.
"I called for his father and his elder brother," Bibi, a resident of Mashkel, said Thursday. "They came with the relatives and removed the debris and pulled his body from the debris."
The boy, Abdul Salam, was one of 35 people killed in Pakistan when the magnitude-7.8 earthquake struck Tuesday on the Iranian side of the border. Authorities fear the death toll could rise once rescuers reach other villages and towns in this desolate area far removed from government infrastructure and aid.
Mashkel and its roughly 20,000 inhabitants bore the brunt of the earthquake that shook buildings across Pakistan and the Gulf region. The remoteness of the town has made delivering aid a challenge. Mashkel is closer to Iran, just 20 kilometers (12 miles) away, than it is to the Pakistani provincial capital of Quetta.
During a trip to Mashkel on Thursday, which the Pakistani military arranged for the media, many residents complained to reporters that help has been slow to arrive.
Bibi said she and her husband and remaining two sons have been sleeping outdoors because their house was totally destroyed and they had no tent.
Pakistani villagers pause while collecting their belongings from a debris of their house collapsed by Tuesday's earthquake in Mashkel, southwestern Baluchistan province, Thursday, April 18, 2013 in Pakistan. Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers joined the effort to rescue victims of a deadly earthquake near the Iranian border, evacuating 16 of the more seriously injured by helicopter, the military said Wednesday. Arshad Butt / AP Photo

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/18/3351624/quake-wipes-out-nearly-entire.html#storylink=cpy
"We are sleeping on this open ground, this open sky," she said. "We are just waiting for assistance from the government. No one has come here to check on our condition."
Roughly 1,000 of the 1,200 homes in Mashkel were demolished in the quake, said Col. Saqiv Elahi of the paramilitary Frontier Corps, which has a base in the town and has been providing some aid to residents. Elahi said many of the houses that did not collapse have dangerous cracks in the walls and roofs that make them uninhabitable.
He said they had about 300 tents for residents, but that 700 more were needed.
Elahi said 35 people in Pakistan died in the earthquake but cautioned that the death toll could rise because authorities have yet to reach some of the even more remote villages affected by the quake.
Many of the people in this area hold both Pakistani and Iranian citizenship, and some might have taken their injured relatives to Iranian hospitals on the other side of the border, he said.
The Pakistani military has evacuated 23 injured quake victims to Quetta and Dalbandin, another city in Baluchistan province. The military also has sent food, medicine, blankets and tents, the military said in a statement Thursday. They've also set up a field hospital and dispatched 550 troops to assist.
Still, many residents complained that prices at the local shops had shot up in the days after the quake and that there was a shortage of drinking water. Tankers usually bring in drinking water because their local well is salty, but the water tanks were damaged by the earthquake.
"We have no money to construct the tank or buy the water," said Ali Ahmed Raiki, another local resident. "We are compelled to use this salty water,"
Villagers build a makeshift shelter in the ruins of their home that collapsed after Tuesday's earthquake in Mashkel, southwestern Baluchistan province, Thursday, April 18, 2013 in Pakistan. Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers joined the effort to rescue victims of a deadly earthquake near the Iranian border, evacuating 16 of the more seriously injured by helicopter, the military said Wednesday. Arshad Butt / AP Photo

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/18/3351624/quake-wipes-out-nearly-entire.html#storylink=cpy
In comparison to the devastation in Mashkel, the Iranian government has reported only one person killed and 12 injured on its side of the border. Iran's state-run Press TV initially reported a much higher death toll in Iran, saying 40 people had been killed, but later backed away from that figure.
Iran lies on seismic fault lines and experiences one slight quake a day on average.
On Thursday afternoon, a moderate, magnitude-5.2 earthquake rattled the town of Tasooj, about 600 kilometers (370 miles) northwest of the capital, Tehran., Iran's state TV said. The U.S. Geological Survey reported that it was a magnitude-4.8 quake. There were no immediate reports about any damage or casualties.
Last week, a magnitude-6.1 quake struck another part of southern Iran, killing 37 people and injuring hundreds.

BY ABDUL SATTAR

ASSOCIATED PRESS



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/18/3351624/quake-wipes-out-nearly-entire.html#storylink=cpy
READ MORE

Retaining our Sovereignty

Posted by Admin On 0 comments



There is a saying: there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Relationships between unequal states are never just.
A deeper look at the so-called “strategic relationship” between Pakistan and the US raises the question that can such cooperation between a superpower and a middling power, as between Pakistan and the US in the war on terror, strictly be termed a strategic partnership? One is afraid it cannot always be described as such. There may be more than one interpretation but perhaps, it would be more accurate to describe the relationship as a temporary confluence of interest in a given scenario.
The US reacted to a terrorist attack and Pakistan became a victim of circumstances due to what we once prided ourselves on, that is, our strategic geopolitical location, which, incidentally, proved to be a double-edged sword. The US understandably over-reacted in the manner of all superpowers. We capitulated without having ensured a loophole for ourselves in case the going got too hot to handle. That was our first mistake!
Over the years, we have been sending the wrong signals to the US. We may have expressed our unhappiness at certain events but we never displayed the gumption to take a firm stand. The US unilaterally opted to move the goalposts several times in the course of the war on terror. Our feeble protestations left something to be desired and our ‘ally’ virtually got away with murder each time. Let us face it: one firm stand on principles is worth a hundred feeble protestations.
Now, as we move towards new elections, it is the right time to pause and introspect. We have to ask ourselves: how often has the sovereignty of the country been under threat since the start of the war on terror? There has, no doubt, been more than one occurrence that can be classed as a violation of sovereignty under international law and norms. Our react ion on these occasions has been more of acquiescence than protest.
The US has, over the past years, been constantly upping the ante, to use an Americanism. On our part, we have taken everything in our stride. Examples abound. The US administration has nurtured the habit of overriding our concerns. So, if they look askance at our taking a stand it should not be entirely surprising.
Now, to briefly touch on the way out of this crisis. We need to do what we should have done in the first place, before we plunged headlong into the war on terror. We should have given serious thought to our options, weighed them against our set of priorities and decided on red lines in terms of our national interest. It may still not be too late to, at least, partially save the situation.
If one has dug oneself into a hole, it is always a good policy to stop digging. So, it may be the time to work out the cost-benefit ratio of our adventure as the frontline state in the war on terror. If this ratio is adverse, we may have to rethink our options in the light of our national interest.
There is also the need to initiate a heart-to-heart talk with our American ally. There is no need at all for public posturing or of carrying out negotiations via the media. These things are best carried out in confidence. Red lines have to be mutually agreed upon. The threat of the cut off of assistance has to be faced maturely. There is no alternative to tightening our belts and reducing the chasms between our means and desires. We cannot hope to eat our cake and have it too.
Last but certainly not the least, it must be recognised that the order of our priorities has gone horribly awry. It is imperative that we reset our priorities to conform to our national interest, that is and must remain supreme.
READ MORE