China Must Become Part of Solution in Pakistan
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Wall Street Journal Asia | December 17, 2008
China’s behavior towards Pakistan is the first big pointer as to whether it will become a responsible stakeholder on the international stage. ++ Both the US and China have for too long engaged in a hands-off approach in Pakistan because of strategic considerations. ++ A coordinated effort from both countries to “bring multilateral pressure to bear on Pakistan” is needed. ++ To this end, China should forego short-term stability and refuse Pakistan its support in the UNSC as well as making economic support conditional upon reform.
Wed, Dec 17th 2008, 10:07
Member deleted
1. China must become part of the solution in South Asia.
2. China's behaviour towards Pakistan is the first big pointer. (I shall stop at this and stop here).
Then one would need to disagree with Mr. Mehta's particular assumptions. Let us put them down here.
1. China is already a part of the solution in South Asia. But what would solution mean would again invite other opinions. One doubts if China has a hands-off appraoch to Pakistan, though one does believe that China is engaged with her own problems and finding solutions to them: something that China's Seventy Years of Peace Initiative suggests.
2. One needs to first isolate the fact whether it is Pakistan that is the problem or is it Pakistan's vulnerability to a particular pesantry-rustic retrograde culture that is a threat and hence puts the state of Pakistan on a fragile footing, when attempting to deal with the problem. A problem that exists as much in india, though less dramatic in any direct violence with particular 'religious' overtones. The initiative by many in India (notably the major sections of its Islamic Community) to de-recognize and distance themselves and their faith from 'acts of terrorism' is something that islamic communities in Pakistan can emulate, though ofcourse the situations in the 'Islamic' Republic of Pakistan are different than in the 'democratic' Republic of india.
One would need to conclude with what Mr. Mehta's brief notations mentioned here convey: The recognition, even if de facto, of China's influence and China's needed role for acquiring peace in South Asia. This of course elevates China's position in the region, given China's non-membership of the SAARC states' regional forum for co-operation. One doubts though if the language is much encouraging given China's pre-occupations with its developement progaramme and other areas that hold more salience for it.
Secondly, the idea behind forgoing short-term stability connotes something that makes one wonder if the Uighur problem (one amongst China's many minority groups - though more visible because of its geographical proximity to Central Asian states & religious orientation as well certain acts of direct violence) is serious enough for China to threaten it with any instability.
The few wars that India and Pakistan have engaged in have not threatened China's stability or threatened to draw it into the Indo-Pak wars. So one wonders if Mr. Mehta may be suggesting the dissolution of Pakistan. That is one aspect that holds serious repurcussions for the entire South Asian region alongwith many other areas of the world. Especially a nuclear-armed Pakistan falling apart - in reality.
The issues are of terrorism and yes, they need to be addressed bynearly every state - including issues of state-sponsored terrorism that may be both internal or external.