What's wrong with China becoming Afghanistan's main patron?

Posted By Steve LeVine Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - 1:26 PM Share

We are hearing that Pakistan has urged Afghan President Hamid Karzai to turn away from the United States, and embrace China as his country's chief big-power patron. Is that a wacky idea? The answer is no. As we've observed with the flow of oil and natural gas from Central Asia, an active Big China serves U.S. and western interests when it comes to this particular region.

Let's start with the Wall Street Journal report. Eleven days ago, according to WSJ's Matthew Rosenberg, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani collared Karzai in Kabul, and suggested that the United States is an unreliable partner. Afghanistan would be better served, Gilani said, by throwing his lot in with Pakistan and its own "all-weather" friend, China.

Rosenberg reckons he was leaked the details of the meeting as part of an internal Afghan government political struggle (i.e., the debate over who will be its latest Great Game favorite). U.S. officials with whom he spoke think similarly, and dismiss the talk of a leading Chinese role as "fanciful at best."

If the U.S. officials mean fanciful because Beijing is unlikely to willingly be sucked into Afghanistan, they may be right. But Washington ought to encourage China to think about it. In terms of U.S. and western interests, there is much to gain, and no downside, to a paramount Chinese role there. Read on to the jump for why.

In Central Asia, the main U.S. economic interest the last two decades has been fortifying these new former Soviet nations, and weakening Russia's grip, by helping to build an oil-and-natural-gas export superstructure from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. The result would be financial independence. The chosen plan failed -- neither Kazakhstan nor Turkmenistan would risk provoking Russia by embracing the U.S. pipeline route west across the Caspian Sea and on to Europe. But the overarching strategy succeeded because Beijing built a 400,000-barrel-a-day oil pipeline connecting Kazakhstan and China, along with a 40-billion-cubic-meter-a-year natural gas line from Turkmenistan. Central Asia obtained an alternative route for its hydrocarbons, thus undermining Transneft and Gazprom. Washington hasn't, but it could declare victory.

In Afghanistan, China has been similarly proactive. As soon as Buddhist archaeology (pictured above) can be put away and protected, the China Metallurgical Group plans to begin mining for copper in Logar province, south of Kabul.

But so far, Beijing appears not to have been invited to help figure out a resolution to the labyrinthine challenge of achieving Afghan and Pakistani stability. The reason is manifest -- in Washington and elsewhere in the West, almost any Chinese commercial, political or military activity of any type is regarded as necessarily detractive.

For instance, the Pentagon -- egged on by Washington analysts Fred Starr and Andrew Kuchins -- has become as eager as romantic teen-agers about the idea of erecting a gargantuan network of roads, energy pipelines and electric grids connecting Afghanistan with the rest of the world. At O&G, we have regarded this idea as wacky, solely because of its impracticality. But if China were drawn in as a full partner, such a network would at once gain cachet. Why? Because China has a record of actually building what it says it's going to build, and not waiting for bankers to see a dime to be earned on the interest, or necessarily for a civil war to wind down. Yet, we have heard of no invitations going to Beijing.

Pakistan's notion of a favorable outcome would be an Afghanistan open to the return of the Taliban. That should not miff the United States, which did not attack Afghanistan to dethrone the Taliban, but al Qaeda.

As for China, the only matter about which it's more obsessive than its political agnosticism in search of resource riches is its obsessive suppression of anything Uighur, the Turkic Muslim people native to Xinjiang Province. Beijing is absolutely certain that Uighurs are intent on destroying Han Chinese dominance in Xinjiang (they are probably right), and have pursued exile Uighurs throughout Central Asia, and into Afghanistan and Pakistan. China has made it a quid pro quo with these neighbors -- suppress local Uighurs, and obtain Chinese goodies. Therefore, a strong China would probably not encourage the revival of dangerous local militancy in Afghanistan. That is the paramount American goal -- ensuring that a new big terrorist threat doesn't emerge there.

The question of Chinese influence isn't wacky, but it is notional -- the Chinese simply are unlikely to follow the United States into the Afghan mire.

Update: Myra MacDonald at Reuters tweets to remind me that in November, President Barack Obama  urged the Chinese to get involved in solving the Afghan and Pakistan mess. What he did not suggest, and is the distinction, is China taking the lead.

Shah Marai AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, AYNAK, CHINA, KARZAI, PAKISTAN, TALIBAN
 

MARTY MARTEL

12:05 AM ET

April 28, 2011

Has Pakistan stopped being Washington’s ‘trusted ally’?

When Steve Levine talks about China NOT being ‘invited to help figure out a resolution to the labyrinthine challenge of achieving Afghan and Pakistani stability’, who does he refer to as ‘inviter’?

Because when Pakistan promotes ‘China’ in lieu of ‘U. S.’ as Afghan ally, Pakistan has to have Beijing‘s blessings for Beijing wanting to play such a role. Clearly Pakistan would prefer Communist China’s influence in Afghanistan more than that of democratic U. S. or democratic India.

That by itself shall be a kick in the butt to the ‘powers to be’ in Washington who are apologists for Pakistan.

After all the billions of dollars in military and economic aid, Pakistan still trusts its ‘all weather friend’ China more than its economic savior U. S.

And why does Steve Levine think that ‘in Washington and elsewhere in the West, almost any Chinese commercial, political or military activity of any type in Afghanistan is regarded as necessarily detractive‘? Afterall ‘such Chinese activity in Afghanistan’ is promoted by Washington’s trusted ally Pakistan. Or has Pakistan stopped being Washington’s ’trusted ally’?

Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009 that ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly SPONSORING four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money‘, as diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.

Ambassador Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department and U. S. government.

Pakistan issued its customary denials about this report from Afghanistan just as it has issued such denials umpteen times in the past but Afghan officials have NO reason to mislead the world anymore than ambassador Patterson had.

Let us see if this ‘Pakistani call to Karzai to dump U. S. and align with China’ serves as a wake-up call to all the Pakistan apologists in American government - Congressmen starting from Senator Carl Levin and Rep. Daniel Burton as well as Administration officials starting from Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates and military officials from Mullen to Petraeus.

 

STEVE LEVINE

1:22 AM ET

April 28, 2011

Response

Marty refers to a Wikileaks cable of fall 2009 from Patterson. The cable refers to four militant groups including Lashkar-e--Taiba, which is responsible for the deadly Mumbai attack. Al Qaeda is not cited in the cable. Here is a link to a piece about it: http://www.theworld.org/2010/12/pakistan-funds-taliban/

As stated in the post above, Pakistan's preference is a Taliban government in Kabul. Any Taliban leadership would be obviously be headed by Mullah Omar, so that Pakistan has been supporting him and his retinue in Quetta is hardly surprising. There has never been any secret of Pakistan's fealty to the Taliban, to the militants and to supporting their return to power in Afghanistan. Any suggestion otherwise is naive.

Is is equally naive at this point to believe that the Taliban under whatever circumstance is not going to regain some share and probably dominant power in Kabul. The question is what is the U.S. upside to a long-term presence in Afghanistan. I personally see none. The U.S. went in to dislodge al Qaeda. period.

 

SANMAN

4:19 AM ET

April 28, 2011

Plenty of Downside, Steve

Steve,

Guess what, Pakistan is now heading to have the world's 5th-largest nuclear arsenal. AlQaeda is not going to pass up the golden opportunity to seize that arsenal, and to seize the world by the throat. For AlQaeda, the real prize is Pakistan and its nukes.

Mullah Omar has of course never abandoned his alliance with AlQaeda, and it's quite obvious that his return to power will mean AlQaeda riding on his coattails, possibly as his elite guard.

Another question is - will AlQaeda once again resume its international terror operations in full force after an American withdrawal and a Taliban return to power? Will the US be able to pre-empt any and all plots for terror being hatched in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan?

Will AlQaeda help Taliban to turn the tables on Pakistan, for the purpose of seizing control of the Pakistani state and its nuclear arsenal? Will the Pakistani rulers who have been riding the tiger reap the whirlwind?

 

SANMAN

4:29 AM ET

April 28, 2011

Fool's Paradise

Furthermore Steve, who exactly does Karzai speak for? He himself is a Pashtun, as are the Taliban. The non-Pashtun northern half of Afghanistan isn't exactly Karzai's faithful constituency. His main political opponent Abdullah Abdullah is likewise from the Northern Alliance. So if Pashtun Karzai negotiates a power-sharing deal with Pashtun Taliban - kind of like the foxes getting together with the hen to discuss what's for dinner - then what's going to keep the non-Pashtun North from bolting such a nutty negotiation? How does the US expect to make them toe the line? The Northerners certainly don't trust Taliban, and still revere Ahmad Shah Masood as their hero. He's the same guy AlQaeda bumped off as a favor to Taliban, which they repaid by giving the green light for the 9-11 attacks, just in case you don't remember. By supporting the withdrawal, I feel you're just tossing everything into the air, and letting the chips fall where they may.

The only silver lining to another successful 9-11 attack, is that this time the US will probably take the fight directly to Pakistan. But why pay such a price ahead of doing so?

 

FLYINGONE

7:02 PM ET

May 1, 2011

the longer we stay, the worse

the longer we stay, the worse it is for our economy and nation. The more weak we become, but we don't need to be afraid of anyone attacking us like say China or Russia. I mean we virtually have no resource besides our consumer market to offer them.

The only war I ever see China taking part in is one for land, but that is so far out of the picture, that it will not happen. Besides, why go to war, when they can virtually buy our land from as at a discounted price?

 

ARYABHAT

8:56 AM ET

April 28, 2011

What is wrong with China being Patron of Burma/Sudan/Zimbabwe?

By the same logic of this author, we should be celebrating Chinese patronage to Burma, Zimbabwe, Venezuaela and Sudan? China buying Iranian, Venezuelan and Burmese Oil/gas indirectly keeps Oil and Gas prices lower too!

Firstly, just like Pakistan differentiates between Taliban that fight them and Taliban/Haqquani that they actively support, so does and will China. In fact China DID support Taliban Govt. in Afghanistan in past and bought peace with the condition that author has mentioned - Suppress Uighur radicals (but not others), which Mulla Omar did. Least you forget, it was THAT Mulla Omar's Govt that nutured Al-Qaeda and brother Osama who did 9/11 while Chinese looked away!!!!!

Author need to think and suggest on a wider perspecive of this move. The contours of the new great game in the region point to a confluence of interest between China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia on one side and India, US, Iran and Russia on the other side. But while China consolidates the former group, the US splits the latter!!

 

FLYINGONE

6:48 PM ET

May 1, 2011

wishful thinking, the end of American journalism

This article simply appears to paint a rosy picture to suit US/Western interests, and the future for them which is already bleak. China has already taken a role in Afghanistan, contrary to what the author claims here. Wishful thinking does no service to readers. On the contrary is actually points to the simple truth that US hegemony is over. I wonder what you guys will be writing about when more people are on food stamps. I doubt that China even considers the US a threat to them. If you need a dose of reality, go and read their journals and newspapers. Rarely, do they even mention anything about US other than its economic collapse which I am sure they inwardly celebrate, and not mourn as this author would have you all believe.

The truth is this, as US global hegemony continues to fall apart, so will its interests in the world, one most notably being Israel which I am sure you Levine are primarily concerned about.

Israel, lacking any foresight, attached themselves solely to the US, serving as a US client state for over 60 years. No good relations exist between them and China or Russia. The new era of global relations has already begun, and in that, nations who strengthen their ties with China stand to gain whereas those who remain tied to the US, stand to sink along with them.
Israel has nothing to offer China, except maybe a consumer market which China already has access too.

In the big scheme of things, it would be better to accept reality rather than to live in a dream where your painting of the world reflects your hopeful, yet futile vision, and not reality. The same thinking happened during the collapse of the Soviet, Roman, and Ottoman Empires, so maybe I can't blame you for such thinking as it is symptomatic of delusional significance.

China acts through Pakistan (its client state), and I assure you that those demands were most likely affirmed by China.

Obviously, China and Russia will not tolerate a US presence in the region, and look for this to be the end-game.

In short, the game is over with the Libya operation being called US swan song.

 

Steve LeVine is the author of The Oil and the Glory and a longtime foreign correspondent.

Read More

Enter your email address to get The Oil and the Glory delivered to your inbox each night:

Delivered by FeedBurner