The uneasy truce between China and America
Since the 2011 global economic crisis, a small minority of
analysts have been suggesting that the
US had no short- to
medium-term
alternatives on the
geo-economic mosaic except to join hands with the Chinese
Shaukat Qadir
Quite clearly, Chinas new silk route can only work if it is connected to the Middle East. While China already has a land/rail link with Iran through Central Asia, its commercial vision cannot be fulfilled unless it has access to the port of Gwadar in the Pakistani province of Balochistan.
Chahbar, the Iranian alternative, has neither the depth nor the capacity that China requires. Consequently, containment of China necessitates a hybrid war along its commercial corridor and Pakistan is ideal for this purpose. Not only is it the prime mover in the Chinese silk route, it has most of the exploitable vulnerabilities that Korybko listed in his book for prospective targets of hybrid wars.
Therefore, if I contend that the United States has ceased to target Pakistan it can only be if the US has decided that it no longer wishes to contain China. The obvious question now is: why?
Until mid-2015 it seemed clear to me that the US had picked on Pakistan as a target. But, even then, its efforts seemed half-hearted. I concluded then that Washington wasnt certain which way events would turn out in Afghanistan.
If the US succeeded in stabilising Afghanistan, it would need a stable Pakistan to access resources in Central Asia and Afghanistan. Even as Iran offered an alternative, Pakistans Gwadar was the preferred option. On the other hand, if Afghanistan remained unstable and China seemed to be the sole beneficiary, then Pakistans instability was a prerequisite to contain China.
Today, when China seems to have emerged as the sole beneficiary, the US still seems to have decided not to contain it.
The international geostrategic and geoeconomic landscape is under constant change. It seems to me that, at least for the time being, the US has decided to contain Russia and give China some space. Why remains unanswered.
The US-Russia confrontation in the Middle East, particularly Syria, where the Russian-supported Syrian regime seems to be gaining the upper hand, has increased concerns of an expanding confrontation. This is also the case in Ukraine, which is clearly a red line for Vladimir Putins Russia.
Consequently, Russian containment is an immediate imperative. The US has also overstretched itself militarily and economically, just as the Soviet Union did in the 1980s, causing it to implode.
One apparent reason for the change in US policy seems to be that of capacity, military and economic.
The US national debt stands close to $16 trillion (Dh59tn) and the largest portion owed to any external country is held by China more than 8 per cent in notes and bonds. Furthermore, while US consumerism accounts for most of the global demand, China is emerging as the largest supplier.
If either component is disturbed, the world might be hit by a big recession.
As far back as 2011, when US hostility towards Pakistan reached its zenith, China issued an unequivocal warning to Washington that it would consider an attack on Pakistan to be an attack on Beijing the first ever such warning by China and the first by any country to the US since the 1961 Berlin Crisis.
Nevertheless, the hybrid war targeting Pakistan accelerated in 2012-13. In late 2014, China put up some of its US bonds for sale. When even this warning went unheeded, in 2015 it dumped more and the dollar fell sharply.
China had found its response to a hybrid war. Not only did this clearly imply that China would no longer underwrite US debt but it was prepared to dump its holding of US bonds and suffer the loss, if the US continued to threaten its economic interests, particularly in Pakistan.
I think this was the threat that broke Washingtons back; and sensibly so.
Since the 2011 global economic crisis, a small minority of analysts have been suggesting that the US had no short- to medium-term alternatives on the geoeconomic mosaic except to join hands with the Chinese. I believe that this is where things stand today.
Whoever replaces Barack Obama in the White House next year will decide whether this policy should continue. And that, I am afraid is not good news.
In their first term, all US presidents are governed by the desire to be re-elected. Its in their second term that some acquire the wisdom and courage to attempt bold decisions.
Will the next president not be tempted to follow suit? And neither of the present front-runners has impressed by their wisdom and sagacity, let alone a desire for peace.
The writer specialises on strategic affairs
