# A New Look At The Afghan-Pakistan Problem



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2006)

The article below puts the problem we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan in a different light. The Pashtuns span both countries similar to the way the Kurds span a number of nations. Arbitrary borders have split up ethnic groups which are causing problems today. Not sure what the solution is but I think we need to go after the radicals and try to coopt the rest. A tall order to be sure.







http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1159725516.shtml


----------



## 3rd Herd (2 Oct 2006)

Tom,
I think the blame for the boundaries rests with our colonial ancestors who carved up the world by following a compass bearing and ignoring established tribal ethnic boundaries. If you look in an atlas of Africa you will see some very straight international boarder lines. Off the top of my head these areas have seen a high amount of strife since the post war colonial disintegration.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Oct 2006)

Too true - I read somewhere that cartographic lines in West Africa tend to go North-South while tribal lines went East-West.  What's the solution?  Dramatic redrawing of the atlas?  There is an interesting article by Lutwaak that postulates that allowing 3 years of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans helped "stablize" the ethnic lines; a sad but maybe true thesis?

If only we would have listened to T.E. Lawrence, who had his own idea on what a stable, independent Mid-East would look like....


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Oct 2006)

In the case of Lawrence's map of the middle east, the isue isnt arab vs whatever, its religious sects that are the problem. Sunni vs Shia. Historically its been arab vs Iran/Persia. The Iranians are busy trying to thwart democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranian volunteers have been captured fighting for the taliban. For Iran democracy is a bigger threat than the sunni "heretics" they support in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....


----------



## 3rd Herd (2 Oct 2006)

In addition to the marching the compass bearing there was "more significant, perhaps, was the competitive outward orientation of transport networks that did not link African territories to one another but rather tied each to a port within its own colonial domain and ultimately to trade with its European metropole."

source: Austen, Ralph A. Mapping Africa: Problems of Regional Definition and Colonial/National Boundaries
            http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122619/


----------



## geo (2 Oct 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> In the case of Lawrence's map of the middle east, the isue isnt arab vs whatever, its religious sects that are the problem. Sunni vs Shia. Historically its been arab vs Iran/Persia. The Iranians are busy trying to thwart democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranian volunteers have been captured fighting for the taliban. For Iran democracy is a bigger threat than the sunni "heretics" they support in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....


T6... 
also consider that the heretics can kill themselves off and it's no skin of the Iranian's noses - deniability... Perfect


----------



## Journeyman (2 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> There is an interesting article by Lutwaak that postulates that allowing 3 years of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans helped "stablize" the ethnic lines; a sad but maybe true thesis?


Edward Luttwak has argued that peace is more likely if we let the combatants duke it out enough for them to appreciate a peaceful settlement. One version is available [_should_ be available, but I'm a paid member] at the Foreign Affairs website: Luttwak, "Give War a Chance"

I don't know if you've read Ralph Peters' June 2006 article in _Armed Forces Journal_, "Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look.", but he points a route to Middle-Eastern/Central Asian peace based on realigning borders with populations. It sounds logical, but it would obviously cause some heartache if implemented. He says that the alternative is several decades (centuries?) of bloodshed until the balance is inevitably reached.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It sounds logical,



And there you have the logical fallacy in the argument.  Logic has got nothing to do with any of this.



> but it would obviously cause some heartache if implemented. He says that the alternative is several decades (centuries?) of bloodshed until the balance is inevitably reached.



Decades/Centuries of heartache and blood, with blood borders at the end, sounds a more reasonable appreciation - based on past performance.


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2006)

Journeyman....
talk to Pakistan & India about redrawing the borders of Kashmir.

Do you have any friends who are / were Armenians?
How about Kurds?

you want heartaches, they have heartaches.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2006)

No argument from me. I'm just saying he's laid out a logical (yep, that word again) realignment of borders...then said that the likely outcome is many generations of killing to get the borders where they "should" be, in his opinion. 

Peters gets bashed pretty regularly, from several different quarters, for his views. From the AFJ article in particular, several people jumped on the line, "Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works." I doubt if they read the whole article. But it's his willingness to state such things that makes his writing refreshingly honest, with no academic waffle-words or political correctness.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Oct 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> . Iranian volunteers have been captured fighting for the taliban. For Iran democracy is a bigger threat than the sunni "heretics" they support in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....



Ok it was my understanding that Iran has given tacit support for the removal of the Taliban as they were sworn enemies of the Shites and this removed a threat to their border. Now I could see them funding groups to make life for the US miserable, but I would be surprised to see Shites working hand in hand with hard-core Sunni's.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ........., but I would be surprised to see Shites working hand in hand with hard-core Sunni's.



It would depend on who they consider the greater enemy or threat at the time.


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Ok it was my understanding that Iran has given tacit support for the removal of the Taliban as they were sworn enemies of the Shites and this removed a threat to their border. Now I could see them funding groups to make life for the US miserable, but I would be surprised to see Shites working hand in hand with hard-core Sunni's.


Clin,
What Tehran says and what they do is 2 different things


----------



## DSB (3 Oct 2006)

It was my understanding that Iran was allied/funding the norther alliance, and were apposed to Taliban rule. 

Ethnic cleaning needs to be total and complete to work.  Otherwise conflict will continue to spiral in one way or another.

DSB


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2006)

While Islamabad claims to be against the Taliban - then have made peace with the tribes in the northern territories..... freeing up jahadists to occupy themselves (and hopefuly die) in Afghanistan...........

While Tehran was against the Taliban.... that does not mean they are cozy with the Afghan gov't that is friendly with the west (and most particularly the great satan (aka US))


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

Would it not serve Iran's interests just to keep the pot boiling by supporting whoever will keep the area destabilized thus weakening their neighbours and at the same time weakening and discrediting (in their view) the West?

I think that Iran is doing what Churchill did with Uncle Joe Stalin.  He had no love for communism.  The longer that he could keep Russians and Germans killing each other then the fewer British lives he would have to risk.  At the end of the war he then got into a three way tussle with the Russians and the US about having the Americans or the Germans confront the Russians in the post war world.

I am still wondering what happened to all those aircraft that Saddam flew to Iran in 1991 when the US countered his move into Kuwait.  I don't think much over there is as it seems.  There is always a deal to be made.


----------



## Centurian1985 (3 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If only we would have listened to T.E. Lawrence, who had his own idea on what a stable, independent Mid-East would look like....



Interesting map!  Could you provide a link to where that came from? I tried a net search and couldnt find it.


----------



## 3rd Herd (3 Oct 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Interesting map!  Could you provide a link to where that came from? I tried a net search and couldnt find it.



try:T.E. Lawrence's Middle East Vision
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4967572


----------



## dglad (4 Oct 2006)

This past weekend, I attended a talk by Nelofer Pazira, an Afghan-Canadian who was the star of "Khandahar" and is a journalist and writer.  I won't go into all the details, as she clearly has her own views and agenda to further, but she did make some interesting points:


among the many competing interests in south-central Asia is a nationalistic desire among the Pashtun people to form a greater Pashtunistan, independent from both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Somewhat reminiscent of the Kurds in Iraq, no?

she believes that the "Taliban" actually consists of 3 fairly distinct factions--the hard-core, ideologically motivated zealots, who are raised on a diet of intolerance and sectarian dogma, mainly in the some 2500 madrassahs in Pakistan; a second group, composed of predominantly ex-mujahadeen and criminal elements who are primarily interested in a power-and-profit agenda; and the largest group, composed of ordinary Afghans, mainly farmers, who see the other two groups as the least of current evils and support them as along as it maximizes their own chances of simple survival.  Obviously, the "swing" group is the third one; if they can be "wedged" away from the other two, the "Taliban" as a movement will be seriously undermined.  Interestingly, the second group is probably also subject to changing their ways, simply because mercenaries blow with the wind anyway.  The challenge, of course, is in the "how" of this.

she contends that Iran is actually opposed to the Taliban (hard-core Shiites don't really like supporting hard-core Sunnis), but are probably opposed to the US and "the West" more.  That said, her belief is that Iranian support for the Taliban is, at best, sporadic; she feels that in Iran, a largely progressive and reasonably well-educated population is stuck under the repressive rule of a despotic theocracy.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is a different story.  She states that in that country, a large, generally under-educated and impoverished population is under the shakey control of a small group of pragmatic militarists who are really only interested in keeping that control.  She believes that Pakistan is the true disaster waiting to happen in the region, especially given that they have nuclear weapons.


All in all, an interesting talk.  As I said, I left out some of her own ideological stuff...it was interesting, too, but doesn't necessarily add much to the discussion.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2006)

As Robert Kaplan noted in "Balken Ghosts", all these factions want is a "return to their historical boundaries". The problem is the "historical boundaries" happen to coincide with the greatest expansion of that group's power and influence.

Ralph Peters, although a very astute writer, also misses (or is perhaps not emphasizing) the point that boundaries are not static, but change through time as demographics and even climate change. China's western boundary has changed over the millennia to follow the ebb and flow of arable land. In cold, dry periods, the Steppe expands to the east and the nomads become dominant, Han farmers are forced out and the Imperial government can no longer hold the region. During warmer, wetter periods, the Steppe moves west, the Han farmers can occupy "new" farm land (and the nomads no longer have forage for their herds and horses), and Imperial rule can be asserted over the territories again.

We have difficulty grasping these concepts because in our experience "Nation States" are virtually permanent features on the landscape. (Historians and educated people know this is not true, but even the USSR or Yugoslavia lasted over 70 years, enough to be part of the landscape for several generations). All our institutions revolve around the explicit or implicit existence of Nation States, which is another difficulty when dealing with entities like the Kurds or Pashtun people. NGO's and non state actors like the ISI fall into similar institutional and mental "blind spots". We may have to study the Middle Ages in Europe to understand the new landscape of sub and trans national entities with "state" powers.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2006)

+1 Arthur.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Oct 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> *(Historians and educated people know this is not true......) *


Historians AND educated people??  Are you suggesting there is no overlap there?   :rofl:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Oct 2006)

Not in our current system, military history is so not PC, except for the nagging problem of it being so damm popular with the unwashed masses.


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Oct 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not in our current system, military history is so not PC, except for the nagging problem of it being so damm popular with the unwashed masses.



And the revisionists.


----------



## 3rd Herd (5 Oct 2006)

Found an interesting quote on this topic:

"I hold it a principle in Asia that the duration of peace is in direct proportion to the slaughter you inflict upon the enemy."
General M.O. Skobelev
Conqueror of Turkestan, 1881


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Oct 2006)

One of the arguments constantly thrown in the faces of the old colonialists is that their admininstrative boundaries didn't take into account ethnic realities on the ground.  Not unreasonably perhaps because a lot of the territory was inaccessible to them at the time the boundaries were drawn but still.....  Anyway, despite disagreements over the basis of the boundaries it is interesting to note that when the colonialists decamped the locals were quick to seize on their right to those boundaries. They have then fought all comers to maintain tribal suzerainty within them and also to expand their range to include potential supporters located on the neighbour's turf.

Woodrow Wilson is noted for his stated belief that each "nation" (tribe?) was entitled to self-determination and its own "state".

Is there an opportunity to weld these to concepts into a realpolitik strategy that would meld with Canadians' view of themselves and would also break up the influence of the islamists?

3 cases in point:  Darfur, Kurdistan and Baluchistan (Balochistan).

Darfur has much in common with Chad rather than Khartoum.  Chad is amenable to French influence. Should Chad be encouraged to extend its borders so as to protect the Darfur region?

Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey all have Kurdish populations.  They are in the ascendance in Northern Iraq ( and influential in Iraq generally ).  They are disposed towards the west.  They are considered threats to Syria and Iran (interesting that there is a non-contiguous Kurdish enclave on the Afghanistan side of Iran).  They are also a threat to Turkey.  Could Kurdistan be used to bring down Syria and Iran and also used to prop up Turkey?

Baluchistan presents a similar problem to Kurdistan occupying SW Pakistan, SW Afghanistan and SE Iran.  Interestingly it contains Quetta from where Mullah Omar's Pathans and Arabs operate as well as the Pakistani and Iranian coast from Karachi to the Straits of Hormuz.  Therefore it has three critical strategic assets for the West.  Access to Bandar Abbas, a sea connection to Afghanistan and opportunity to deny Quetta to the ISI and the tribes.

The question is can the aspirations of the Baluchis and the Kurds be combined with the aspirations of secularists in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey to create something of an EU type of arrangement?

Suppose we in the west were to let it be known that if Musharraf, Ahmadinejad and Assad don't come in line then we will actively campaign to assist Baluchis to form a union with Afghanistan and all Kurds with Iraq?  Both Iraq and Afghanistan would gain because Iraq would gain an outlet to the Mediterranean for its oil - reducing the importance of the Straits of Hormuz - and Afghanistan would gain an outlet to the Indian Ocean.  This would reduce both the strategic importance of Pakistan and Iran as well as putting Syria in its place - Turn Al Ladiqiyah into a Kurdish port.

These days it is easy to forget that not all Pakistanis are tribal, burkah'd fanatics.  Pakistan is also the home of Benazir Bhutto - and many of her ilk - professional women that run businesses, expose their faces, wear make-up and western dress as well as the shalwar kameez and occasionally a head scarf.  Where english is still a widely spoken language. I don't think that the people of Karachi and Lahore are necessarily of a single mind with the people of Peshawar and the tribal areas.  Perhaps if some sort of accomodation could be reached amongst the people of the Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan and Afghanistan then the tribes could be isolated and Iran discomfited.

But such a strategy would be at odds with the United Nations concept of inviolable borders although it would be in sync with the notion of self-determination and the responsibility to protect.  It would also be in sync with practice in the Balkans.

PS this does draw on the notion of "logical" borders - courtesy of Ralph Peters  http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899  and Journeyman http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51227/post-454975.html#msg454975

While logic may not be involved in the current discussion perhaps it can be turned to our advantage.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Oct 2006)

Even if you could get all the countries to agree to having their borders redrawn one has to consider the viability of the new country you are creating. In many cases the new countries would not be economically viable. Second problem would be other ethnic groups that also want their own state.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2006)

Arthur - accepted.

tomahawk - agreed on all counts. The point is one of trying to break a log-jam.

With respect to Chad for example - how much would it cost to set up an aid package to encourage them to extend their "support and protection" to Darfur?  Make the aid contingent on their observance of the rights of the Darfurians and bring them into some sort of assembly.

Similarly with Iraq, Turkey and the Kurds. Make the Shia and the Sunnis the offer of access to the Mediterranean if they accept an extended federal Kurdistan and assist Turkey to see the benefits of allowing a "friendly" Kurdistan on its borders rather than an "unfriendly" Kurdistan within its borders.

No matter what happens from here on out it is likely to be messy and likely to involve deals and compromises.

PS - This would not be so much about countries agreeing to revised borders as the UN backing the realignment of borders in order to protect at risk populations - Just like it did in Palestine/Israel in 1947.  And we all know how well that worked out.  

Israel survives on foreign aid and military strength.  No reason Chad/Darfur, Iraq/Kurdistan, Aghanistan/Baluchistan couldn't survive on the same basis.


----------



## Trinity (8 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Israel survives on foreign aid and military strength.  No reason Chad/Darfur, Iraq/Kurdistan, Aghanistan/Baluchistan couldn't survive on the same basis.



Israel also has one hell of an economy based on developing technology (read it or saw it on tv).
That really helps to have well trained/educated people as your population.  I don't think you can
say the same for the other countries mentioned.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2006)

Point taken Trinity. 

You're right.  But what was the state of play in 1947?  Or for that matter Korea in 1952?  There was an infrastructure base in Israel and an educated population. I could be mistaken on this as well but I don't think that Korea was much more advanced than Afghanistan is just now.  It had been pretty badly beaten up by Japan first and then the Korean War.  

In fact, if you go back to the 1940s many of the current economic miracles and developing powers were peasant societies.

We are talking about a multi-generational effort here.


----------



## Trinity (8 Oct 2006)

True

thats if we survive the next few generations to see if it would work again .   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2006)

Given the news out of North Korea, maybe we should just worry about getting past tomorrow.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2006)

Answering my own question on the Pakistan & the Taliban thread:



> And an incidental - is there any cultural affinity between the Balochis and the Omanis across the Arabian Sea?  I ask that because apparently a good chunk of the Sultan's forces were/are Balochis and he has proven a good friend to the west and fairly moderate by the standards of the region.


   

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51455/post-458393.html#msg458393




> In the early 19th century, Oman was the most powerful state in Arabia, controlling Zanzibar, the southern coast of Iran, and much of Baluchistan (between Pakistan and Iran). Zanzibar was separated from Oman in 1856, and the Persian coast and much of Baluchistan was detached from Oman during the latter half of the 19th century. In 1958 Oman's sole remaining Baluchi possession, the city-state of Gwadar, was ceded to Pakistan in return for a monetary settlement



http://travel2.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/travel/NYT_ALMANAC_WORLD_OMAN.html?ex=1160452800&en=fb1ecbd097d3e773&ei=5070

Is there an exploitable modernizing nexus there that could tie Pashtun Karzai, the Afghan Northern Alliance, the Baluchis and the Sultan of Oman? He has managed to keep the lid on his country since the 1970s and has been slowly converting the country into a modern state with a bicameral legislature and universal suffrage for men and women over 21.

Such an alliance would have the advantage of creating one friendly entity that straddled Iran's access to the Indian Ocean as well as putting pressure on Pakistan and Iran.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2006)

More than that, this is a great avenue for the "purple finger" strategy to gain more traction in SW Asia. If the Sultan is seen as the leading light of democratization, and his people are the ones on the front line with the "Diplomacy" and "Development" "D's", then quite a bit of oxygen will be removed from the Jihadis.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2006)

Further to the discussion on Balochistan/Baluchistan.  It appears that the Great Game continues.

http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1188

Iran's Pasdaran, Ex-KGB, Indian Mafia, Baluchi Liberation Army, Pakistan, Dubai, Oman, China, Russia, America, Chines pipelines and ports, Anti-Pakistani training camps.......Only thing missing is James Bond.

Edit:The article seems to come from a Turkemistan friendly paper - lots articles about Gazprom and oil.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2006)

And here's another.  Seems, as usual, I am late to the game.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GA15Df07.html



> South Asia
> Jan 15, 2005
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2006)

And this - from 2003.
http://www.pabe.org/news21.htm

Interesting that the other articles reference the Chinese investment in Gwadar - the port that the current Sultan of Oman's father sold to Pakistan in 1958.



> Oman plans investment in Balochistan
> 
> 
> March 10, 2003 - The Daily Dawn News Paper
> ...



So how "on-side" is the Pakistani business community of Karachi and Lahore, Sind and Punjab with the Army and the Tribes?  Are the Tribes the real reason for the army to exist?  Unrest in the hills, even moreso than unrest with India, justifies military rule to protect the people of the plains?

And, as always, China is playing its own game in the region.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2006)

Last one - and I will shut up for a while.  Really intriguing though.



> 'Balochis will rise again'
> Muslim World News
> By G.S. Bhargava
> 
> ...



http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2006/september/05/muslim_world_news/balochis_will_rise_again.html?PHPSESSID=9e827e998d85d0c6f98d22cf32a7c27d

OK Last one.  Really. I mean it.



> In 2001 steps were taken by Pakistan to develop a deep-sea port at Gwadar and China agreed to participate in its construction and development. The Chinese were nudged into action and involvement by the arrival, post 9/11, of United States forces in Afghanistan. and in March 2002, Chinese vice-premier Wu Bangguo arrived to lay the foundations of Gwadar deep-sea port.
> 
> The first phase of the port (which includes three multi-purpose ship berths) was completed in January this year, ahead of schedule, and the plan was that Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, would inaugurate it on his visit to Pakistan during the first week of April. However, the formal inauguration had to be cancelled at the last minute for to ‘security’ reasons. As is usual, Balochistan was in turmoil, with widespread rocket and bomb attacks on government installations. A further put-off was last year’s killing of three Chinese technicians and the wounding of nine others by Baloch nationalists opposed to the building of the port. An additional reason was the rain and flood damage to the highway linking Gwadur and Karachi. Not at all a felicitous situation.
> 
> ...



http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20050911.htm


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2006)

What I see, woven through this and other threads, news releases, etc., is that China is really pushing the envelope in the Asia/Pacific and South American regions where they are gaining footholds as Russia and the US lose them for fall out of favor. This does not bode well in the next few decades.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2006)

While not discounting the vast efforts the Chinese have made, I wonder if they are actually capable of exploiting this in a cultural sense. 

Back in the 1400's, the Chinese built vast fleets of ships, both greater in size individually and collectively than the European fleets of the day. These vast ocean going junks sailed throughout the Indian Ocean basin, and archaeological evidence clearly establishes these fleets landed in India and East Africa. There seems little doubt they were also active in the Indonesian and Phillipines as well, and there is no technical reason they could not have reached Australia or even the West Coast of North America (although there are very few indications this may have actually happened, Gavin Menzies excepted).

Despite the vastly superior organization and technology of these treasure fleets, the Chinese never established colonies, full time trade networks or even (apparently) diplomatic relations with the various kingdoms and peoples they encountered. Even with tiny cogs,the Hanse in the North Sea did far more in their trading voyages across Northern Europe, and of course when the Spanish finished the Reconquista; they very rapidly moved in force out into the global ocean and established themselves pretty much wherever they landed.

The Chinese are very smart, determined and hard working, what I might not be able to wrap my head around (and I think many others are in the same boat here) is if they are doing these things in Pakistan, the Sudan, Venezuela etc. for the same sort of motivations that we would have. Ascribing the incorrect motivations to Chinese activities could lead to disaster, as we either react to something which isn't really there or our activities upend some sort of calculation that the Chinese are making and they ascribe this to malice on our part.

Regardless, we have to remain awake at the wheel, and certainly can outperform the Chinese or anyone else with our cultural attractors should we need an asymmetrical lever to move things in our direction. Clever co opting of people and groups like the Sultan of Oman simply make our job that much easier.


----------



## couchcommander (9 Oct 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Ascribing the incorrect motivations to Chinese activities could lead to disaster, as we either react to something which isn't really there or our activities upend some sort of calculation that the Chinese are making and they ascribe this to malice on our part.



Indeed Mr. Majoor, especially with the historical context.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2006)

Malaysia was mainly agrarian with some tin and rubber at the end of WWII, mind you it escaped the full wrath of the war. It was in the 60's their PM decided that Malaysia was to be an industrial country and redirected all effort to do so.

Korea was quite worn out from war, occupation, the US played a big part in the rebuilding of SK, helped by a semi-stable government system. Thanks to the French, Vietnam was to mucked up to save, all of the capable moderates had been killed off or exiled.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2006)

Interestingly, with respect to Malaysia and Vietnam, not to mention Indonesia and Singapore,  ethnic Chinese have been heavily engaged in the local economy.  This has not always been well received by the local indigenous population.

While Admirals and Emperors may have ignored the rest of the world the same can't be said of all Chinese.  

Another question to ask is how much of China's foreign involvement is centrally organized. Or perhaps it is just centrally encouraged? Or maybe it is private enterprise on the part of the same companies that co-opted prisons as toy factories.

Remember that in addition to the Foreign and Colonial Offices Britain had The East India Company as well as that chap Jamieson in Rhodesia.  They also had the Bank of England.

Regardless, while China may not be planning on direct military action any time soon,  and it is indeed difficult to discern intentions, it does appear as if China is heavily engaged in a lot of "high risk ventures" in a lot of unstable parts of the world.  Maybe they are just looking to take advantage of opportunities.  Maybe all they are looking for is an opportunity to catch up to the west commercially.  If they do that then other opportunities may open up.

It may be that their involvement is as innocent as GM's involvement in Ford's market place.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2006)

Taking the bus from Thailand back to Malaysia in Nov 2001, I remember talking to a malay/Chinese businessman. He said that after the US invades Afghanistan he is going to Kabul to start a Chinese Restaurant, I said that I did not realize there were Chinese in Afghanistan.

He replied, there isn’t, but there will be. The Chinese are always looking for the next opportunity. 

Although Malaysia is considering one of the most successful “Islamic” states, they real economic power rests with the Chinese and the Indians. The Malay government know that they are the golden goose and won’t rock the boat to much.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Taking the bus from Thailand back to Malaysia in Nov 2001, I remember talking to a malay/Chinese businessman. He said that after the US invades Afghanistan he is going to Kabul to start a Chinese Restaurant, I said that I did not realize there were Chinese in Afghanistan.
> 
> He replied, there isn’t, but there will be. The Chinese are always looking for the next opportunity.
> 
> *Although Malaysia is considering one of the most successful “Islamic” states, they real economic power rests with the Chinese and the Indians. The Malay government know that they are the golden goose and won’t rock the boat to much.*



If you take a look at Uganda, it didn't prevent Idi Amin dada from ejecting said golden goose.

Fast forward to Zimbabwe.... golden goose being cooked once again...............


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> If you take a look at Uganda, it didn't prevent Idi Amin dada from ejecting said golden goose.
> 
> Fast forward to Zimbabwe.... golden goose being cooked once again...............



The Malays like the good life and it's only in the last 20 years that radical Islam has had any impact. Yet for the most part the Malays aren't really that interested in a Jihad lifestyle. Plus their leaders take a more Asian long tern approach to government then the nutbars in Africa.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2006)

Sure....... till they change their mind or it becomes politaly expedient to find a whipping boy.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Sure....... till they change their mind or it becomes politaly expedient to find a whipping boy.



And that is why you have a job for life geo..... and your great-granddaughter if she wants it.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> The Chinese are very smart, determined and hard working, what I might not be able to wrap my head around (and I think many others are in the same boat here) is if they are doing these things in Pakistan, the Sudan, Venezuela etc. for the same sort of motivations that we would have. Ascribing the incorrect motivations to Chinese activities could lead to disaster, as we either react to something which isn't really there or our activities upend some sort of calculation that the Chinese are making and they ascribe this to malice on our part.
> 
> ......



From meself:



> Interestingly, with respect to Malaysia and Vietnam, not to mention Indonesia and Singapore,  ethnic Chinese have been heavily engaged in the local economy.  This has not always been well received by the local indigenous population.
> 
> While Admirals and Emperors may have ignored the rest of the world the same can't be said of all Chinese.
> 
> ...



Thinking this one through a bit more.

The secret to the British Empire was free enterprise and the Bank of England backed by the Royal Navy.
The secret to American Hegemony (copyright the Communist Party of China) is free enterprise and the Treasury Board backed by the US Navy and Air Force.
The secret to Chinese influence in foreign countries has been the entrepreneurs of the Chinese diaspora, some of which are subject to direction from the homeland.
The secret to China's remarkable growth has been the encouragement of free enterprise amongst farmers, workers and Generals.

Unlike the Soviet Union (or Mao's China) China is creating banks.  A lot of them.  And encouraging foreign investment in China as well as having China invest overseas.

Unlike Western Banks which invest in stability Chinese Banks appear to be willing to accept higher risk investments in unstable environments. (And in environments that Western Governments are not allowed to invest in because of squeamish populations).

This suggests that instability breeds more investment opportunities for China, with higher rates of return on successful ventures, while simultaneously discouraging competition.  The effect is to make the West poorer and tied to a diminishing pool of opportunities while China becomes richer with an expanding pool of opportunities.  Eventually China could/will overtake the west but as a Beijing directed free-market economy.

The old Soviet Union was widely believed to have perfected the ability to destabilize regimes for political ends.

Perhaps China is employing similar tactics for commercial ends.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2006)

Following on from the previous thought - 

Is the counter to be found in Pearson's 0.7% of GDP for foreign aid?  However instead of direct aid is it better to use it as a leverage fund to underwrite conventional loans to troubled areas by commercial banks?

That together with destabilizing the area around China itself making it a less attractive venue for foreign investment.  As it stands now we are loaning China money at 5 cents on the dollar.  They could comfortably rent out our money to their clients at 15 cents on the dollar and cover a lot of risk.  An alternative to Lenin's dictum that the capitalist will cheerfully sell you the rope by which you can hang him.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill............ we're going off on a tangent here..... we've gone from Afghans & Pakistanis and now findourlseves talking about Chinese, Indonesians & Indians.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2006)

geo - I wouldn't call it a tangent so much as a major diversion.  

In my defence - as you can gather - I think the two things are not entirely unrelated.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2006)

Heh.... true....

Throw in a good measure of North Korea into the soup, stir, bring to boil, cover, let simmer of a couple of years...........


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2006)

OK

To put this back on track.....

This link takes you to a detailed UN Security assessment map of Afghanistan.  
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-35,RNWE:en&q=afghanistan+UN+security+accessibility+map

One of the things that has been bothering me about the commentary about the Taliban being supported out of Pakistan and yet the places that the Canadians, Brits and Dutch are being hit from, by and large, only seem to have open desert between them and the Pakistan/Baluchistan border in the south. I would have thought that this would have been relatively easy to monitor for movement with technology.  

By contrast the northern approaches are via mountain valleys.

Looking at the UN map it shows three patches/fingers of low security  red.  The northern one is in southern Daikundi and Northern Uruzgan where the Aussies had their discussions with the Taliban.
The middle one runs through NW Zabul, Northern Kandahar and Northern Helmand. These are the areas where the Canadians, Brits and Dutch, as well as the Americans, have been engaged.  The SE one is in Southern Ghazni and Southern Paktika.  With the exception of the SE one none of the areas are contiguous with Pakistan and all of them are North of Quetta.

The one thing they all do seem to share is a common geographic origin, following up the valleys, in the high security green area of Ghazni.

I went to school in Guelph, Ontario many years ago.  One of the rumours of the day was that Guelph had a very low crime rate because it was supposedly a retirement home for the Mafia - nice country setting close to Toronto and Hamilton.  Whether the rumour was true or not.... who knows.

It has also been speculated that one of the reasons Canada has not been hit by the Islamists is less to do with the efficacy of our security services than it is due to the fact that Canada as a hotel/aircraft carrier with proximity to the US is more valuable placid than aroused. Again whether true or not.....who knows.

However both these examples contain this germ of logic - you don't s**t on your own front doorstep.

Looking at that UN map with the geography involved: is it reasonable to suggest that the Green area of Ghazni might actually harbour the FUP for operations in the South, and perhaps more broadly?
It is accessible to Kabul on the ring road as well as the South via both the road and the mountain valleys. Eastern Ghazni is also closer to the Waziristans in Pakistan's tribal areas and there seems to be a low security red corridor to there that reaches from Ghazni to Waziristan.  The corridor follows valleys and passes and straddles the ring road at a low security zone.

I am not suggesting that Quetta and the southern desert border aren't important but Ghazni and the northern mountain valleys look to be and interesting avenue as well.

Ghazni is also notable as according to Tomahawk6's map at the beginning of this thread it is in the heartland of the Pashtun area while the southern deserts are Baluchi country.  Quetta, nominally the capital of Baluchistan is actually on the border of Baluchi and Pashtun areas.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Oct 2006)

It's a good question, and you are right people don't normally cause a stir in their own backyard. Just like the best spies are the ones you never suspect.


----------



## Bigmac (1 Nov 2006)

> Tens of thousands protest Pakistani military attack on religious school


  

   Well Pakistan is now in the fight whether they like it or not. Unfortunately the recent events have sparked huge protests and will likely cause further problems with radicals for them and NATO. Perhaps NATO will be expanding into Pakistan in the not too distant future. See link below.

http://www.recorder.ca/cp/World/061031/w103155A.html


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2006)

So long as the TB an AQ are kept occupied in Pakistan, it will make the life of the average Afghan citzen a lot easier (not to say the life of the NATO soldier)


----------



## Bigmac (1 Nov 2006)

The link below gives a little more detail as to why the religious school was targeted.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=149204


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Nov 2006)

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-11-08T061818Z_01_ISL182298_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-PAKISTAN-BLAST-COL.XML

Suicide bomber kills 35 soldiers in Pakistan
Wed Nov 8, 2006 1:18 AM EST 

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber killed 35 Pakistani soldiers at an army training ground in a northwestern town on Wednesday, the Pakistani military said.

"It was a suicide attack. The bomber wrapped a chadar (cloak) around his body and came running into the training area and exploded himself where recruits had gathered for training," a military official said.

The military earlier said up to 15 soldiers had been killed.


----------

