A critique of Prof C Christine Fair’s view on CPEC and other maladies of Pakistan
- In Foreign Policy
- 10:31 PM, Oct 11, 2016
- Dipankar Jha
Indians constantly need to stay alert and assess each and every development in Pakistan to ensure a safe and secure environment because a lot of Pakistan’s terror activities are driven against India. India remains Pakistan’s primary obsession and an openly declared enemy.
One Pakistan watcher and analyst is Prof C. Christine Fair, Associate Professor at Georgetown University. Her views on Pakistan have gained considerable following and many Indians, think tanks and policy makers give her a lot of attention. It is imperative therefore to discuss and critique her take on issues directly affecting India’s security situation.
Prof. Fair’s view on Pakistan is important for numerous reasons:
- She has spent a lot of time in Pakistan, with the Pakistan Army and other government institutions.
- She has also spent considerable time in India
- She can read, write and speak Urdu and is fairly conversant with the dominant Punjabi (Pakistani) attitudes.
- She has had access to literature of the Pakistan Army while in Pakistan and other documents
- She has gathered data while researching in Pakistan on a large spectrum of Pakistani activities and its population. A lot of her analysis is data driven.
- She is an Associate Professor at Georgetown University, Washington DC where she is part of the Security Studies Program. She is close to the seat of power in the United States and helps build views on matters affecting Indian subcontinent in that country and is herself in some ways a conduit for views held by the establishment of the day in the United States.
- Her country, United States has been a major ally of Pakistan and has directly contributed lethal weapons that Pakistan carries in its arsenal today. The United States is also a major funder of Pakistan and since 2001 has provided Pakistan the single biggest Economic assistance via the Coalition Support Fund. Strangely, the US helped and combated Pakistan based Jihadi tanzeems at different points in time !! Similarly, US has both sanctioned Pakistan for nuclear proliferation and has also turned a blind eye to this proliferation at different times !!
- Prof Fair represents America centric views on most issues though she does disagree with some views held by her own government.
In India her views find a lot of resonance because:
- Her voice comes across as a concerned American voice similar to what many Indians hold on many issues related to Pakistan
- There is a belief that she will at some level be able to influence American policy related to Pakistan
- Her hawkish (as described by herself) approach to Pakistan which finds resonance with a majority of the Indians whose patience is running thin with Pakistan’s perfidy.
However, do her views always reflect or resonate with Indian views and do they at certain places run contrary to Indian views or course of action beneficial to India? Prof. Fair was in India recently and presented at Pune International Center .And, there is an interview of hers on Rajya Sabha TV hosted by Commodore C Uday Bhaskar. She also has a short interview on NDTV. Her presentation at Pune International center and NDTV was a few days prior to the Surgical Strikes conducted by the Indian Army and her Rajya Sabha TV panel discussion was after the surgical Strike.
The Pune International Center presentation was on “CPEC: Colonizing Pakistan to enrich China” followed by a long Q&A session covering a wide variety of topics. Here is a critique of her views to understand whether they really match those of India’s and do we need to carefully look at the divergence of Indian interests from her point of view.
Disclaimer: The critique is primarily of her lecture at Pune International Centre. Her seminal work – “Fighting to the End- The Pakistan Army Way” is a far better resource for readers to study her views and to learn about Pakistan but here this attempt is to analyze her positions with the latest developments in mind. The presentation video has been used and her views have been paraphrased or inferred from her speech. All attempts have been made to keep her views accurate however if there are any mistakes they are unintentional. Mistakes will be corrected if pointed out. All critique is in italics.
Prof C Christine Fair – CPEC: Colonizing Pakistan to Enrich China
Lecture at Pune International Center, Pune.
- China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is part of One Belt One Road (OBOR) and is the southern corridor of OBOR from Central Asia.
- Connectivity of CPEC to Iran and Afghanistan – Prof. Fair should use accurate maps when representing India. It is a mandatory requirement by Indian Law. I agree with the CPEC routes, Indian map representation is incorrect in almost all maps available online. Yet the law needs to be kept in mind by her.
- CPEC is the route from Gwadar to Kashghar following various alignments. Out of the total US$ 46 Billion in investments, US$ 35 Billion are for energy projects.
- China is building infrastructure to the Xinjang region for economic integration of the region and of the Uighurs like they did in Tibet. This also helps in enhancing security due to the constant threats posed by the Uighur militants. – This has not helped people in Tibet and multiple protests in Tibet is evidence of the policy failure in integrating a region. China is also deliberately changing demographics by resettling Han Chinese and altering cities/towns without consent or participation of the local population. They are also coming down heavily on traditional/cultural/religious practices of the native population, all of which further alienates the native population. Chinese designs therefore are to take maximum economic benefit out of a region and not necessarily integrate the region with China.
- They also hope to bring economic development in Pakistan which in turn might help improve the security situation since the Uighur terrorists are linked to Al Qaeda and Taliban. – In the 60’s Pakistan was poised to take a leap ahead of the neighboring countries because of strong economic metrics riding on the back of strong aid and help from the Western countries and the Arab world. Pakistan’s descent into turmoil and jihadi mindset was a result of deliberate policy and not lack of economic opportunity. Stronger economic indicators or development of Pakistan does not guarantee better or more responsible attitude to security. The aid from US since 2001 alone should have helped Pakistan in economic development but the situation in 2016 is far worse than in 2001 !!
- Some top military leaders in Pakistan are not happy with this as few of the terrorist organizations named above continue to be supported by them.
- The US is unable to criticize Pakistani duplicity in fighting and supporting the war on terror because they themselves are funding the Pakistanis to keep their Ground Lines of Communication (GLoC) through Pakistan to Afghanistan open. – The US would have found a pliant partner to provide GLoC to Afghanistan in an independent Balochistan. Through Balochistan is the shortest route into Afghanistan and at Quetta in Balochistan, Americans could have taken apart the decision making body of Taliban – the Quetta Shura. Americans won’t do this because they are the principal supporters of Pakistan and use it as a State Policy to counter India. Americans have no difficulty in taking apart Syria, Iraq or Libya where at best the dictators are a poor imitation of the tyranny Pakistani Army unleashes on Balochistan. But the Americans constantly find ingenious reasons to keep Pakistan alive from disintegrating. The Americans are not “unable” but are willing partners in keeping the Terrorist State of Pakistan (TSP) alive.
- CPEC gives China levers to control Energy and make Pakistan dependent on their investments that will eventually be utilized to coerce Pakistan in acting against the Uighurs. – China supports Pakistan at the UN Security Council, provides Nuclear energy, missiles and a host of other benefits described amply as a “taller, deeper, sweeter, murkier” friendship. These are levers enough for Pakistan to act against Uighurs. CPEC provides China with no such levers that it does not already have to force Pakistan in acting against Uighurs.
- This is a flaw similar to the US approach on Pakistan. The American Aid and Support actually incentivizes Pakistan to have terrorists on its soil. The moment there are no terrorists in Pakistan, it can expect no investment out of the Chinese and/or the Americans.
- Since this arrangement makes Pakistan beholden to China, there are commentators in Pakistan who are expressing their doubt about the intention of CPEC. Their doubts on many fronts are justified since on many strategic issues China has supported India such as on Kashmir. Chinese did not support Pakistan in the ’65 war, ’71 war and in the Kargil war in ‘99. Weapons supplied by China are of poor quality and economic aid is in form of loans and not grants which in comparison to aid from the US is very costly for Pakistan. - This is quite a laughable analysis as China has provided weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means to deliver them to Pakistan.
- Much of CPEC is not about new roads but rebuilding already existing roads and widening them.
- Colonizing Pakistan is a possibility though China is slow to act on promised investments. Between 2001 – 2011 only 6% of all promised projects have been executed by China.
- Prof. Fairs understanding of Pakistani society, Pakistani army and infrastructure are excellent insights. ?
- Gwadar does not have water. Where will they get water to manage a large port in Gwadar? – Chinese have planned a desalination plant, 300 MW power plants and a 300 bed hospital at Gwadar all at their cost. Pakistan has provided long term tax holidays (up to 40 yrs) and waived import duty on equipment for the port infrastructure to the Chinese.
- Integrating Baloch with CPEC is a major challenge.
- There are two major choke points on CPEC: Aatabad lake and Gwadar Port.
Prof Fair continues on other challenging aspects in Pakistan concerning CPEC, China and Balochistan and then proceeds to handle a long Q&A session. The rest of her points are covered here.
- Baloch are not Secular – Baloch are tribal and mostly Sunni. There are wide divisions within their tribes: Mengal, Bugti, Marri among others. It will be hard to identify all Baloch under one umbrella. Perhaps Prof. Fair is making a hasty judgement. There are extremist Sunni Baloch terrorists whom Pakistan has used against Iran (Jundullah) but they are funded by the ISI and most probably US. Baloch freedom fighters have battled long and hard and are quite capable of fighting the Pakistani Army. Sunni affinities have not healed their differences with a largely Sunni Pakistani Army.
- Baloch are not capable to execute a budget. Handling azadi will be nearly impossible for them because of poor human capital. - Perhaps this is the strongest point of disagreement with Prof Fair. Her views carry shades of Orientalism and British imperialistic thought pre-1947 that “Indians left to themselves will not be able to govern India”. Kalaat had functional houses of legislation in its short independence. Today’s bad governance is more because of the planted rulers or puppets positioned by Pakistani Punjab. The Quetta bombing killed 100 Baloch lawyers but that was not the end of trained and educated Baloch. There are enough capable Baloch to run their country. Here, the good Professor is giving into her biases as the rest of American policies viz. Balochistan either subconsciously or deliberately.
- Pakistani Army is recruiting in Balochistan to integrate Baloch with Pakistan. - This is not true. The Baloch Regiment in Pakistan Army is mostly Punjabis and Pashtuns.
- CPEC does not appear to be economically viable. This is correct. Karachi port is currently utilized at 40% capacity which makes Gwadar redundant. CPEC is a way for China to encircle India
- Gwadar is about a permanent PLAN (Peoples Liberation Army Navy of China) base. Prof Fair does not seem to think this will happen immediately. If PLAN had a base then the US would be in panic just as India. Long term projections for a PLAN base at Gwadar worth considering a threat (20 years) – The Chinese built the Tibetan railway line and road infrastructure in less than 5 years. If they are determined 2019 should see the first permanent PLAN activities in Gwadar. US may just be fine with it. For India, the time to react is now. It is our neighborhood. It is possible that the threat of a PLAN base is being deliberately underplayed. It is consistent with other divergence of views on Baluchistan that India has with US.
- US views China’s role in Afghanistan differently from how they view China’s role in SE Asia. US want China to build a railway in Afghanistan and help pick up the cost of rebuilding Afghanistan. After 15 years of fighting in Afghanistan, US no political will to pay in perpetuity for costs in Afghanistan. China is welcomed therefore to take over the area and stop being the free rider that it is now.
- US is hoping if Pak becomes more dependent on China, then it will influence long term peace prospects between India and Pak over the long term. – She contradicts her own point here when she later says that Americans would welcome if the Indians would take over the role of military hegemony in the area. Either ways, it is not in India’s interest for either China to be integrated with ever increasing depth with Pakistan or for India to be limited to a military hegemony of a limited area perspective. India must strive to truly break out of the limited regional and geographic limitations that the West imagines for her.
- On India and Iran relationship she wishes India had not caved into US sanctions of Iran. Hoping with resurrection of relations between India and Iran, India moves into Chabahar and not China. – There is no greater point of resonance than this.
- US investments in Pakistan are decreasing. – Temporarily, History has taught us that American money is available if American interests coincide. Permanence of policy from US is not guaranteed.
- Pakistan uses Jehadis and Nuclear weapons for coercion of money from US. – Correct from a Pakistani view but Americans have been more than willing partners in the development of both the Jihadi ideology and Pakistani nuclear weapons at different times. It may seem to hurt them in Afghanistan but Americans themselves are not averse to using Jihadi tanzeems through proxies like Pakistan to further State policy. One use of this policy is visible in Syria with the American support to FSA and other taqfiri groups.
- Greater understanding in US that US, India, Afghan and Iran have more in common than US with Pakistan-Saudi Arabia etc. - India does not see this in action by US.
- Possibilities of open Indo-US-Iran-China consortium against security issues in Pakistan cannot be feasible due to public dissent within India and US and other countries. LEMOA is an example of opposition to Indo-US cooperation in India and possible opposition in US (APAC, Israel lobby) over alignment with Iran against terrorism issues in Pakistan. - There could be a role for Asian powers to solve Asian problems.
- Pakistani nuclear weapons holding figures appear to increase every time there is a break in US-Pak relations. - Like Pinnochio’s nose. However these are a figment of US Non Proliferation Ayotollahs lobby to scare India into signing four letter treaties.
- Consequence of taking responsibility of Pakistani nuclear weapons should be with Pakistanis and not US or others. – Prof. Fair forgets that Pakistan is an Ideological State which is also a rent seeking Security State. It has moved so far in positioning itself in this fashion that withdrawal from this posture would break the State. The only Islamic State with a Nuclear Bomb coupled with Jihad factories makes the State of Pakistan an irrational holder of a very large destructive force. It cannot act responsibly about nuclear weapons (in statements or actions) without distancing itself from this position. Hence, Pakistan can never be responsible with its nuclear weapons.
- Pakis believe “it is not what they actually possess but what the world thinks they possess” that matters. - The US NPA lobby actively publicizes these bogus facts.
- China does not care about LeT as it does not bother China. China only cares about Jihadi groups which support the Uyghur (ETIM). - LeT is the umbrella organization for Islamist terrorism in Pakistan. All others utilize the LeT camps.
- China does not care if Pakistan uses nuclear umbrella subsidized by the Chinese in consort with attacks by LET against India. – This is exactly why India is vary of China’s further entry into Pakistan which Prof Fair had earlier welcomed as possibly a step in reducing Indo-Pakistan conflict. However, here she herself shows that it is in China’s interest to keep matters between India and Pakistan on the boil. Today India deals with a weaker neighbor on its West. If Pakistan were to become a Chinese colony of sorts, India would have very strong opponent on both its Eastern and Western front. This may be desirable for China and possibly United States but certainly not India.
- India treats Pakistan as equal. Pakistanis are not scared of our nuclear weapons but many Indians are afraid of Pakistani nuclear weapons. – Professor, there is a reason for this. India has over 70 years shown herself to be responsible power working within the limits of International conventions. India has not resorted to unfair practices and has been more than fair in sharing resources with Pakistan. Even Pakistan knows this. Pakistan on the other hand has the most duplicitous 70 years of existence. Pakistanis know we won’t be irresponsible with our nuclear weapons. Indians know there is no trusting Pakistan.
- The only period Pakistan was better behaved was after 71 war, till the start of terrorist activities in Punjab in 1984. - Correct. The defeat in 1971 war led to peace for about a dozen years.
- Not in favor of negotiations with Pakistan.
- Disappointed with NDA Government for not striking back at Pakistan. – The surgical strikes have altered this point but I am sure the Professor would agree that just one strike will not suffice. This sort of retributive but objective oriented below threshold strikes need to become a regular event.
- Pakistanis were furious with the mention of Balochistan by Prime Minister Modi. – Pakistanis are usually furious with us. That is their natural state of relationship with India
- Prof Fair has very little data on Jihadis taking over Pakistan Army and ISI. Some data can be accessed at her website: http://www.christinefair.net/ Pakistani Air Force and Pakistani Navy by comparison have derelict security. There are greater threats of Jihadis breaking through in these two services.
- Americans want Indians to be the true military hegemon in the region – A point in conflict with her views stated earlier on how Americans view China’s role in Afghanistan and Pakistan Moreover contradicts stated US objectives to prevent regional hegemons. Not sure is clear on this subject
- A strong supporter of Cold Start doctrine. - No one knows if Cold Start is there or not. Its many years since it was enunciated.
- In terms of Indian military response, Indians are tying their hands behind because of Pakistani nuclear umbrella. - The recent surgical strike shows this is no longer valid argument.
These were the few distinct points that were gathered though the Professor’s presentation. The critique here is only an attempt to present an alternative / possible Indian views to the views of the Prof Fair. Her views are in my view from an American perspective and rightly so. As Indian readers we must be able to discern the specific points of disagreements and also find ways to reach common ground with the Americans to solve our problem with Pakistan.
An interesting variation from the analysis of CPEC by Prof Fair is the removal of all land bridge between China and Pakistan in the north whether in POK or Baltistan. If India were to reclaim POK and Baltistan could be severed from Pakistan either to be with India or otherwise, the access to Afghanistan would have a new corridor from India and the Sino – Pak axis would be severely limited from becoming a security challenge in the future. Make no mistake; Pakistan will in future play the same role for China in the West as North Korea does for it in the West.
Pic Credit: https://sfs.georgetown.edu/faculty-bio/christine-fair/
Comments