Ambiguity on what constitutes ‘terrorism’ can have serious
implications for the future of the Middle Kingdom, not only for its
restive Provinces, but also for Xi's ‘dream' project of a China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor.
China is gambling. In this dangerous pursuit, Beijing can lose its
stakes and more. It believes that Masood Azhar, the Jaish-e-Mohammed
chief and Pathankot terror attack mastermind, does not qualify to be
listed as a ‘terrorist’ by the UN; his case “does not meet the Security
Council’s requirements”, says Beijing. At the same time, when convenient
for the communist leadership, the peace-loving Dalai Lama is branded as
a ‘terrorist’.
When asked the reason for China’s decision in the UN Sanctions
Committee to place Azhar’s name on ‘technical hold’, Liu Jieyi, China’s
Permanent Representative to the UN explained: “Any listing would have to
meet the requirements for blacklisting. It is the responsibility of all
members of the council to make sure that these requirements are
followed.”
Beijing probably believes that it is its responsibility to block
Azhar’s name, and this, at a time when China, one of the five permanent
members of the 15-nation Council, assumed the rotating presidency of the
UN Security Council (for April).
Hong Lei, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ spokesman supported his
colleague in New York: Such issues should be based on facts and rules in
an “objective and just manner.”
Though the UN banned the JeM in 2001, Azhar who masterminded the 2008
Mumbai terror attack has always been ‘protected’ by China’s veto power.
In the long run however, it is doubtful if the gamble of defending
terrorism will pay for Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Moreover, ambiguity on what constitutes ‘terrorism’ could only bring
serious troubles to China, which has not hesitated to put the Dalai Lama
on the ‘terrorist’ list in the past.
In December 2015, Zhu Weiqun, the Chairman of the Chinese Ethnic and Religious Affairs Committee told The Global Times
that the Dalai Lama “exposed in his very bones, his sympathy or
endorsement for Islamic State.” In an interview, the Tibetan leader had
merely said that one should listen to the youth joining the IS to
understand their motivations.
Zhu went on to say that the Dalai Lama has “never given up violence in
his political way of life”. According to Zhu, he has been inciting
Buddhist Tibetans to self-immolate. Ironically the Tibetan monk had told
La Stampa, that Islam was a ‘religion of peace’. Today, for China, the
Dalai Lama is a terrorist and Masood Azhar is not. In what kind of world
are we living?
In March, after the Dalai Lama met some other Nobel Peace prize
laureates in Geneva, Zhu affirmed that after receiving the prize, the
Dalai Lama has been ‘increasingly rampant’ [sic] and has pursued
“Tibetan Independence and violent terrorism, leading to the deadly riot
in Lhasa on March 14, 2008.”
Reuters commented: “The attempt to identify the Dalai Lama as
an Islamic State sympathiser also follows weeks of taunting on the part
of IS, beginning in earnest with a full-page spread in thejihadi organisation’s
magazine, Dabiq, announcing the beheading of Chinese hostage Fan
Jinghui.” The IS had then released its first Mandarin-language jihadi ‘song’, urging Chinese nationals to join them in Syria and Iraq.
To club the Dalai Lama withjihad may not help Beijing to
combat true terrorism. But, if Beijing is blind enough to equate the
Dalai Lama and Masood Azhar, this could have serious implications for
the future of the Middle Kingdom, not only for its restive provinces of
Tibet and Xinjiang, but also for Xi’s mega ‘dream’ project of a
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
In April 2015, as President Xi arrived in Pakistan, The Washington Post
remarked: “Xi arrived in Islamabad bearing real gifts: An eye-popping
$46 billion worth of planned energy and infrastructure investment to
boost Pakistan’s flagging economy.” A Chinese dream for Islamabad?
Billboards in Chinese and English were euphoric in Islamabad, the
friendship between China and Pakistan was ‘higher than mountains, deeper
than oceans, sweeter than honey, and stronger than steel.’
The CPEC will eventually link up Xi’s two pet projects, the New Silk
Roads (one road one belt); the Chinese-sponsored port of Gwadar on the
Arabian Sea will be connected through the Karakoram Highway, to the
Xinjiang Province in China’s Far West and Central Asia… and later Middle
East, Africa and Europe. The ‘corridor’ will have railways, roads,
optical fiber cables, dams (to produce the necessary electricity),
pipelines, etc.
Observers are aware that Beijing’s kindness and generosity will
ultimately and primarily benefit Beijing. Pakistan, China’s ‘eternal
friend’, is the perfect ‘partner’ (or vassal?); it is geographically
ideally positioned with an access to the sea in the south and to Central
Asia in the north.
By buying Pakistan’s allegiance, Beijing believes that after linking
the belt and the road, it will be able to control and dominate Asia.
Before he arrived in Islamabad, Xi wrote that the bilateral
relationship ‘has flourished like a tree growing tall and strong’. It is
very touching, but China should realise that it may not get only ‘good
things’ from the project. For the terrorist groups, the doors to
Xinjiang, already prone to Islamic fundamentalism (fired by Han
chauvinism), will be wide open.
It is not only goods which will circulate faster on the dream corridor,
Azhar and his friends are bound to open new recruitment centres in the
‘fertile’ land of Xinjiang. In February, an excellent article on Gwadar
in The Guardian mentioned: “Ensuring security on long stretches
of road in a Province wracked by a persistent, low-level insurgency is
the biggest challenge to the CPEC. Fear of being outnumbered by
outsiders from the rest of Pakistan is fuelling a violent rebellion in
Balochistan.”
The populations around some of the CPEC’s nodes are already resentful
of the Chinese; this could rapidly fuel more terrorism. For Pakistan,
the value of the planned projects, if implemented, would be equivalent
to 17 per cent of Pakistan’s 2015 gross domestic product. But has
Islamabad (or Beijing) taken into account the gross domestic terrorism?
By refusing to list Massood Azhar, Beijing has already lost a battle.
And it is really foolish for China to think that it can ‘purchase’ some
of the terror leaders, like the CIA did with the Taliban decades ago.
Everyone knows what happened to the US schemes.
During his recent visit abroad, Prime Minister Narendra Modi
highlighted the dangers posed by terrorism to the world; if the UN is
unable to address such crucial challenges, “the global body could be
rendered irrelevant,” said Modi who rightly added: “The world was jolted
by 9/11. Till then the world powers did not understand what India was
going through.”
He further said that it was unfortunate that the UN was still unable to
define terrorism. If it wants to play a significant role on the world
scene, it is time for China to learn the definition of ‘terrorism’.
Perhaps, during his forthcoming visit to Beijing, Defence Minister
Manohar Parrikar could explain this to the Chinese leadership.
By Claude Arpi
Courtesy: The Pioneer
No comments:
Post a Comment