Balochistan - The
Troubled Heart of the CPEC
By Usman Shahid August 23, 2016
China’s push to materialize its “One Belt, One Road” dream in South Asia
demands empirical study of the political role Beijing envisages in the region,
especially in Pakistan. China’s western neighbor, Pakistan, was one of
the the first countries where China began its OBOR project,
under the framework of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a
series of projects that stands to connect the Asian giant to Central Asia and
Europe in the long run. CPEC will connect China’s largest province, Xinjiang,
with Pakistan’s Gwadar port in Balochistan, the largest and most impoverished
province of Pakistan. Balochistan has been under attack by separatists,
insurgents, and Islamic militants – now including the Islamic State (ISIS) –
for over a decade.
Insurgency and armed conflicts in Balochistan are not a new
phenomenon. The violence dates back to late 19th century when
Balochistan came under the administration of the British empire. During the
early 20th century, Balochistan strove to become a “British free” region;
later on, it was forcibly annexed by newly founded Pakistan in
1948. The inhabitants of the mineral rich area, constituting one-third of
Pakistan’s total area of 800,000 square kilometers, are still striving for
provincial autonomy as promised by the father of the nation and the
constitution of Pakistan. However, continuous suppression by the federal
government through military might has turned this quest into a separatist
movement. (For a quick understanding of the recent conflict, readers may want
to read “The Balochistan Conflict: 10 key points” published by
the Times of India.)
Today, the main questions that arise from the continue violence are
twofold. Who is causing the unrest? And who will benefit?
Violence in Balochistan: A Conspiracy Against CPEC?
In February 2013, Pakistan awarded operational contract of Gwadar port
to China amid American pressure to look for alternatives. This port is a
linchpin for China’s dream of OBOR, providing the Maritime Silk Road with
a link to the Arabian Sea. The port at the mouth of the Persian Gulf
provides China with the shortest route to the oil rich Middle East, Africa, and
most of the Western hemisphere. Gwadar will have the estimated capability to
handle to 19 million tons of crude oil per year, which will be sent to
China after being refined at the port.
The attraction of Gwadar port is the main reason for China to build
a 2,000 km of road and rail infrastructure worth $10.63 billion in
Pakistan, stretching from Gwadar to eventually connect with Kasghar.
Moreover, a network of gas pipelines will be set up to finally
connect Pakistan with Iran. Tehran has already completed its
part, as per a 2013 deal, and is waiting for Pakistan to finish its section.
This was originally envisioned as a so-called peace pipeline among
Iran, Pakistan, and India but it now seems China will replace India and
feed its energy hungry industry with Iranian gas.
India greatly opposes the proposed CPEC route and development at Gwadar
port mainly for two reasons. First, the planned route passes through the
controversial territories of Gilgit-Baltistan and Kashmir between India-China
and India-Pakistan respectively. Second, India fears that Gwadar will
double as a Chinese naval base. Despite clarifications from China and
Pakistan that the port will be used only for economic purposes, India is still
wary of developments in Gwadar, fearing that it will give the Chinese navy
access to Indian Ocean.
Mirroring previous statements, India’s foreign minister in a recent
meeting with her Chinese counterpart stressed that India would “resolutely oppose” CPEC because it
passes through Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which India claims to be its
territory. Last year, India’s prime minister termed the corridor “unacceptable”
for the same reason.
As a substitute to Gwadar, India has invested in Iran’s Chabahar port,
just 72 km from its rival port. In May 2016, India, Iran,
and Afghanistan signed a trade corridor deal giving India land access to
Central Asia from Chabahar, bypassing Pakistan. The closest land route for
India to access Central Asia is to the west, through Pakistan; however despite
many bilateral efforts the two countries have yet to reach an
agreement that would allow Indian trucks on Pakistani soil. Therefore, as an
alternate though longer route, India will access Iran’s Chabahar from the sea,
and from there its goods will enter Afghanistan and eventually Central Asia and
Russia. Moreover, Afghanistan will now have access to Indian Ocean, which was
not possible without passing through Pakistan earlier.
What do these grand geopolitical plans have to do with Balochistan’s
militant and separatist movements? According to Pakistani officials, everything. Andrew
Small, in his book The China-Pakistan Axis, maintains that the biggest concern for the Chinese is growing terrorism in the region,
especially in its most trusted ally Pakistan, where Beijing
has agreed to invest $46 billion for CPEC. That means a rise in violence
may be the most effective way to scare Beijing off the ambitious plan. And
Islamabad has repeatedly accused India and other foes of CPEC of fomenting
attacks with just that goal in mind.
On August 8, a blast in Balochistan’s capital, Quetta, killed at least
95 people. The same day Pakistan’s prime minister and army chief visited the
injured and labeled the attack an attempt to sabotage CPEC in an official
statement. Balochistan’s chief minister accused India’s intelligence agency RAW of
being behind the attack whereas national media linked the bombing to
“India backed Afghanistan.”
However, Islamabad offered no statement regarding an official document
issued in July, which stated that1,000 bullet ridden corpses were found in Balochistan during last six
years. This discrepancy gives a clear indications of what
concerns government the most in the province.
The Pakistani government claims that Baloch separatists receive training
in camps in Afghanistan established by India. Balochistan also borders
the tribal area of Pakistan, where forces are combating Islamic
terrorists with their own links to Afghanistan.
Historically, the separatist and anti-state elements in Balochistan have
also been linked to Afghanistan and India. In 1970s, Afghan President
Daoud Khan established militant camps in his country to train Baloch
separatists. This continued to be the case until President Hamid Karzai’s
government, when he assured Islamabad that Afghan soil would not be
used against their neighbor. However, Pakistan continuously accused the Indian
embassy in Afghanistan of funding militants against Pakistan. The recent wave
of terrorism in Balochistan has brought this blame game back.
The Pakistani leadership has publicly accused India and Afghanistan
of involvement in insurgency and terrorism in Balochistan for decades.
Interestingly, now it has also linked such activities to Iran, whose
Sistan province borders Balochistan. The only land route that connects both
countries travels through these regions. Pakistan is not happy with
growing bilateral ties between its old rival India and old friend Iran,
especially given the potential impact on CPEC.
On March 25, while Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani was on his maiden
foreign visit to Pakistan, law enforcement agencies disclosed the arrest of an
alleged RAW spy, Kulbhushan Yadav. Pakistani authorities claimed Yadav had
entered Pakistan from Iran and was actually arrested on March 3. The Indian
government admitted that Yadav was a former naval officer, but denied any
involvement with him. Pakistan’s government claimed that he was an “Indian spy”
assigned to sabotage CPEC, especially Gwadar port. However, both Iran and
Pakistan clarified that the incident would not derail friendly ties
between the two, saying the case would be probed and both sides
would cooperate. Despite all the optimistic statements from the foreign
offices of both countries, the Iranian president’s visit ended in vain.
Pakistan asserts that India is bent on sabotaging CPEC by funding and
training anti-state elements in Balochistan. The claim is supported
by India’s official concern over CPEC and a potential Chinese naval base
in Gwadar to ensure Chinese maritime hegemony in Indian Ocean.
On India’s 70th independence day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi
added fuel to the fire. In his address to the nation, Modi said that Kashmiris
and Balochs alike have thanked him for raising concerns regarding human rights
violations by the Pakistani state in these territories. Pakistan termed the
remarks as a proof of Indian meddling in its territory.
The U.S. and Balochistan
The U.S. Congress has also expressed concerns regarding human
rights violations in Balochistan, making Pakistan wary of an
intrusion into the Islamic Republic’s internal matters. Further, on the
geopolitical stage, the United States is more supportive of India’s “Look East”
policy than China’s OBOR and in past, Washington had proposed its own “New
Silk Road” connecting South and Central Asia.
The U.S. House of Representative Committee on Foreign Affairs convened a
congressional hearing on Balochistan on February 8, 2012. At the hearing,
it was argued that Balochistan is under siege by the federal government and
rights of the Balochs are restricted. Pakistan’s military was also accused of
using “American arms” against their own people in Balochistan. The event’s
chair, Dana Rohrabacher, has advocated for self-determination in Balochistan, even up
to independence. As a result, Pakistan decried the Congressional hearing
as direct interference in its internal affairs.
Given the U.S. track record of meddling in the internal affairs of
many countries under the guise of human rights, Islamabad assumes that the
U.S. agenda in Balochistan is far greater that just human rights violations.
The United States, as a stabilizer of the balance of power in Asia, has
backed India as a potential competitor with China. The rivalry visibly
surfaced when U.S.-backed India failed in its bid to be included in Nuclear Suppliers
Group over Chinese opposition. India held China solely responsible for its
failure.
Decades ago, the looming threat of Soviet expansion in the warm
waters of the Indian Ocean convinced Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali
Bhutto to offer
President Richard Nixon the chance to establish a U.S. naval base at Gwadar. The
idea was also supported by China. But apparently Washington could not
understand the importance of the port — until China took it over. The
port will open gateways for China to destinations where the United States is
already present or intends to maintain its hegemony, including Central Asia and
the Gulf States.
What Needs to Be Done?
Among all the speculations, apprehensions, assumptions, and accusations,
Balochistan remains at the center. For a successful CPEC and a peaceful
South Asian region, Balochistan’s importance has grown beyond all estimates. It
is in the best interest of all stakeholders, especially the host country, to sensibly
deal with the prevailing circumstances in Balochistan.
In the words of China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi: “If ‘One Belt, One
Road’ is like a symphony involving and benefiting every country, then
construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is the sweet melody of the
symphony’s first movement.”
If this “sweet melody” is to entertain all, all stakeholders must
make peace in Balochistan their mutual responsibility.
Usman Shahid is a Lahore based academic and regional policy analyst. He
is co-author of the book Indo Pak People to People Contact: A
Victim of National Insecurities.
No comments:
Post a Comment