China to US: Hands off Pakistan

posted at 12:00 pm on May 24, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama says that if the US has another chance to get a high-value terrorist target like Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, he’ll make the same call as he did earlier this month.  Not so fast, says China.  According to a report from India a few days ago, China has warned that an “attack” on Pakistan will be taken as an attack on China (via Pundit Press):

In the wake of the US raid in Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China”, a media report claimed today.

The warning was formally conveyed by the Chinese foreign minister at last week’s China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, The News daily quoted diplomatic sources as saying. China also advised the USa to “respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and solidarity”, the report said.

Chinese Premier Mr Wen Jiabao informed his Pakistani counterpart Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani about the matters taken up with the US during their formal talks at the Great Hall of the People yesterday. The report said China “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China”. The two premiers held a 45-minute one-on-one meeting before beginning talks with their delegations.

The Chinese leadership was “extremely forthcoming in assuring its unprecedented support to Pakistan for its national cause and security” and discussed all subjects of mutual interest with Mr Gilani, the report said. Mr Gilani described Pakistan-China relations and friendship as “unique”. Talking to Pakistani journalists accompanying him, he said that China had acknowledged his country’s contribution and sacrifices in the war against terrorism and supported its cause at the international level. “China supported Pakistan’s cause on its own accord,” Mr Gilani said with reference to the Sino-US strategic dialogue where the Chinese told the US that Pakistan should be helped and its national honour respected. Mr Gilani said China had asked the US to improve its relations with Pakistan, keeping in view the present scenario.

Pakistan’s diplomatic pilgrimage to Beijing succeeded better than previously thought.  This came about the same time as the “gift” of 50 new jet fighters to Pakistan’s military.   While the US flexes its muscles in the wake of the OBL mission, Pakistan’s shopping for a less troublesome ally.  Not that China needed much prompting here, anyway, since both Afghanistan and Pakistan border China, and American operations in the region have to make Beijing nervous anyway.

This new doctrine from China will pose some difficulties for the US.  For instance, what about the Predator attacks on terrorists in the border regions?  Pakistan has officially protested these attacks while unofficially tolerating them.  If China is serious about its message, will they insist on an end to all operations within Pakistan from now on?  And how will China respond to an attack on Pakistan under a doctrine that’s not dissimilar from NATO’s charter?  Will they attack the US and start a war, or will they react only diplomatically?

This may have one salutary effect.  If Pakistan draws closer to China, then the US will have to draw closer to India, which George Bush started to do and which Obama, to his credit, has continued.  India is more of a natural ally to the US anyway.  However, China’s interference in the Af-Pak region will have serious implications for our ability to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Preach it brother. The Founders were no dummies. They understand that leaving things up to man would ultimately lead to disaster. But we have moved so far from the original meaning of the Constitution that we have allowed man to rule over us with the predictable results.

NotCoach on May 24, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Whether it’s from incompetence or a lack of accountability or too much complexity or — dare I even write it — something perhaps more sinister, the layers of a large bureaucracy conveniently provide too many available smokescreens for mistakes and abuses. I doubt very much that we’ve seen the last of these types of big-government engendered injustices coming out of the Obama administration, and none of it makes a very compelling case for growing the government still further.

Better watch who you call or text or email now, Erika. And, stay off those adult websites, by all means. Big Brother’s awatchin’. ;-)

TXUS on May 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Whether he was involved in these scandals from the beginning or not, one thing that is certain: his subsequent behavior in protecting, lying, stalling, etc makes Barack Obama the direct owner of them.

Rich H on May 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM

I doubt very much that we’ve seen the last of these types of big-government engendered injustices coming out of the Obama administration, and none of it makes a very compelling case for growing the government still further.

Your problem, Erika, is that you are a reasonable person looking at the issue in a reasonable way. Unfortunately, there is a critical mass of people who are not reasonable and believe that the problem is that the government is not big enough and is not spending enough money.

catsandbooks on May 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

I always wondered how Germany fell for Nazism in the 30s. How could they be so stupid?

Ouch.

faraway on May 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Each of these events is the direct byproduct of two central philosophies of the Obama administration — the massive expansion of the size and power of the federal government and a lack of trust in the American people. …

Bobby, I love ya man! I voted for you when you first ran for Congress. But you’re wrong here. It isn’t a lack of trust in the American people it is contempt for the American people. An attitude that the American public isn’t intelligent enough to know what is good for them.

Happy Nomad on May 24, 2013 at 7:01 PM

The Big Crime Syndicate of Obama should be the biggest loser.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Good stuff Bobby. Keep honing that message. Hoping for big things from him in 2016.

can_con on May 24, 2013 at 7:11 PM

The Obama presidency, and liberalism in general, are based on not trusting the American people — a belief that big government is better for people. The latest scandals show why liberalism and big government don’t work. …

Bobby must have been listening to Rush this week, because he said much the same thing: trying to pin it on Obama is not working; instead, it all shows the failure of liberalism and big government writ large.

It isn’t a lack of trust in the American people it is contempt for the American people.
Happy Nomad on May 24, 2013 at 7:01 PM

This is it exactly. Contempt. These government types are those who wouldn’t bat an eye to hustle us all off to “reeducation camps.”

PatriotGal2257 on May 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Even small government would be bad if run by criminals. Jindal seems to have tunnel vision.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Jindal seems to be implicitly saying that government is so big it got out of Obama’s control. Bull.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Even small government would be bad if run by criminals. Jindal seems to have tunnel vision.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM

I’ll take a small government run by criminals any day over the bloated and corrupt mess we have now.

NotCoach on May 24, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Bobby must have been listening to Rush this week, because he said much the same thing: trying to pin it on Obama is not working; instead, it all shows the failure of liberalism and big government writ large.

PatriotGal2257 on May 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Then they are both simply Obama apologists.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:20 PM

I’ll take a small government run by criminals any day over the bloated and corrupt mess we have now.

NotCoach on May 24, 2013 at 7:18 PM

And take being shot with a .22 over being shot with a 30.06. I prefer neither.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Obama is a much bigger target than big government. Only fools can not see this.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM

I thought Jindal was just saying we needed to stop arguing about big government because it was a loser? Pfft.

echosyst on May 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

We will always have big government. Even under Reagan we had big government. He didn’t/couldn’t even get rid of the Dept of “Education”. Now is not the time to turn all batteries at big government. At least 5 of 6 guns should be aimed and firing at Obama. If Limbaugh and Jindal are not up to the task, they should get the hell out of the way.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:29 PM

I always wondered how Germany fell for Nazism in the 30s. How could they be so stupid?

Ouch.

faraway on May 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

…you’re not faraway at all!…you’re right on!

KOOLAID2 on May 24, 2013 at 7:30 PM

VorDaj, saying that Rush n Jindal should “step aside” simply becuase they dont go far enough, INHO, isn’t reason enough. Besides who else out there do you think has the platform or the common sense governance to at least get ‘our’ side of the conversation out there, esepcially to those that we’d like to convince? If you got a candidate in mind, im sure we could find a few holes in *thier* Geopolitical theory also.

BlaxPac on May 24, 2013 at 7:46 PM

I won’t go into details about my 44 years Military and Civilian experience with Viet Nam and Vietnamese and Vietnamese-American Society. I do agree that the Democrats, who were responsible for getting into that war and after killing a few million S E Asians and including non combat deaths over 100,000 Americans, betrayed our Vietnamese and Cambodian allies and sabotaged the South Vietnamese War effort insuring the defeat of South Viet Nam in 1974 and 1975. Yes, I was there at that time.

That said, over the last 30 years the current Vietnamese has been struggling to dismantle what was a very authoritarian Communist Government. From my first post War visit in 1995 till now(I’ve retired here), Viet Nam has made astonishing progress in dismantling the old regime. Except for Reagan, we Americans have mostly gone the other way.

Think about it.

Linh_My on May 24, 2013 at 7:53 PM

And take being shot with a .22 over being shot with a 30.06. I prefer neither.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

False equivalency. A better one is a million .22s vs. 1 30.06. I’ll take my chances with the single 30.06. Not only that we can better respond to and destroy the single 30.06.

NotCoach on May 24, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Even under Reagan we had big government. He didn’t/couldn’t even get rid of the Dept of “Education”.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:29 PM

and that was before it really got entrenched—5-6 years into it.

arnold ziffel on May 24, 2013 at 7:55 PM

test

RickB on May 24, 2013 at 8:43 PM

F. Hayak wrote in his book “The Road To Serfdom” that Hitler was voted into power by large numbers of “docile and gullible” people who believed the lies (propaganda)told by Hitler and his elites.

Sound familiar? History repeats.

nofreelunch on May 24, 2013 at 11:02 PM

F. Hayak wrote in his book “The Road To Serfdom” that Hitler was voted into power by large numbers of “docile and gullible” people who believed the lies (propaganda)told by Hitler and his elites.

Sound familiar? History repeats.

nofreelunch on May 24, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Lord have mercy, here I am defending or explaining Germans.

Adolph Hitler never got a clear majority in an election. He sorta grabbed power by exploiting deals, tricks, vacuums and technicalities. That aspect may now in replay before us.

Howover, I never heard of any elite behind him.

He was a thug, soldier and street fighter.

Unless OFA takes to the streets and Obama starts looking to build a vengeful, word dominating America, the two have little in common except a love of government power.

IlikedAUH2O on May 25, 2013 at 12:03 AM

the two have little in common except a love of government power.

IlikedAUH2O on May 25, 2013 at 12:03 AM

Well that in itself, and there are other things, is an awful lot.

VorDaj on May 25, 2013 at 1:33 AM

You know. My maid understands this may be one of the most dangerous, egregious, undermining of The Constitution since the Japanese internment. But neither Congress, The Senate, nor Obama seem to get it. This can destroy the nation.

pat on May 25, 2013 at 2:16 AM

An attitude that the American public isn’t intelligent enough to know what is good for them.

Happy Nomad on May 24, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Well, they did vote for Øbama – twice. Maybe there’s something to that. :)

At least 5 of 6 guns should be aimed and firing at Obama. If Limbaugh and Jindal are not up to the task, they should get the hell out of the way.

VorDaj on May 24, 2013 at 7:29 PM

The last I checked, Øbama is not up for reelection. We certainly need to pound him but also those who think like him (you know, big govt types).

Odysseus on May 25, 2013 at 7:46 AM

Lots of blah, blah, blah…because in the back of the Republican’s mind is that some day they will be back in the White House and they will do everything Obama is doing. Any criticism will be met with “Obama did the same thing and no one cared, so we can do it, too.”

albill on May 25, 2013 at 8:58 AM

The last I checked, Øbama is not up for reelection. We certainly need to pound him but also those who think like him (you know, big govt types).

Odysseus on May 25, 2013 at 7:46 AM

Beyond that, Obama has benefited from a lot of unethical behavior by liberals in general (and in government specifically). He is more post turtle than mastermind. His culpability is probably mostly in implicitly endorsing this kind of behavior in his speeches. He has a history of turning a blind eye to what others do to win his elections for him.

Count to 10 on May 25, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Bobby “BJ” Jindal: blah, blah, blah, big government is bad, blah, blah, blah, American flag, blah, blah, blah, Obama sucks, blah, blah, blah, the people, blah, blah, blah. This guy NEVER says anything new. Suck it, BJ.

HiJack on May 25, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Lots of blah, blah, blah…because in the back of the Republican’s mind is that some day they will be back in the White House and they will do everything Obama is doing. Any criticism will be met with “Obama did the same thing and no one cared, so we can do it, too.”

albill on May 25, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Absolutely, positively. We can bank on it.

HiJack on May 25, 2013 at 9:45 AM

“…none of it makes a very compelling case for growing the government still further.”

You’re missing the point Erika Johnsen: Takers gotta take. They don’t need no ‘compelling reason’as long as they’re on the receiving end. It’s why they vote democrat.

locomotivebreath1901 on May 25, 2013 at 9:51 AM

People are so afraid of calling Obama Cheat, liar, crook or whatever name that’s appropriate. If people had been this kind to Richard Nixon his face would be on Mt. Rushmore by now.

Herb on May 25, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Calling this government paternalistic is cowardly. This government is authoritarian and moving toward tyrannical.

The media are not in bed with the left; they are the left. They are the same people.

InterestedObserver on May 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I always wondered how Germany fell for Nazism in the 30s. How could they be so stupid?

Ouch.

faraway on May 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

We’ve killed 55,000,000 of our children.

We’re not much better than the Nazis.

itsnotaboutme on May 25, 2013 at 3:59 PM