China opposes US move to blacklist JEM chief

China opposed a proposal by the US in the United Nations to ban Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar, Times of India reported on Tuesday.

The US, supported by the UK and France, moved a proposal to designate Masood Azhar as a global terrorist at the Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council.


The proposal, which was finalised after consultations between Washington and New Delhi was opposed by Beijing.

India has accused the JeM and its leader of masterminding several attacks, including the assault on the Pathankot air base in January 2016. Security officials interrogated Azhar and his associates after the attack, and said they found no evidence linking him to it.

Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been blacklisted by the 15-nation Security Council, but not Azhar.


China opposed the US move by putting a hold on the proposal. The hold remains for six months and can be further extended by three months. During this period, it can be anytime converted into a block, thereby, ending the life of the proposal.

Reacting to China’s move to block the ban proposal, India’s foreign ministry said, “We’ve been informed of this development and the matter has been taken up with the Chinese government.”

Beijing had earlier blocked India’s request in December to add Azhar to UN Security Council blacklist of groups linked to al Qaeda.

Source: The Express Tribune:

Think tank explains why India loathes CPEC

ISLAMABAD: India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) stems from its fear of internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute and the growing influence of China in the Indian Ocean, says a new report by one of the most influential global think tanks.

“There is considerable concern within India that China, which has been neutral on Kashmir since 1963, can no longer be so now that its economic and security interests in these territories are growing in stake,” says a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) — a Sweden-based think tank.

The report — titled “Silk Road Economic Belt – considering security implications and the EU-China cooperation prospects” — argues that India does not want a mediating role for China in these disputes.

It is the first report by any global think tank that has discussed in detail the Indian concerns on CPEC. The report has also shed light on implications of the ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative on security dynamics and its compatibility with the EU interests.

The Sipri report says CPEC has raised political temperatures between India and Pakistan. “India strictly opposes CPEC, and while the Economic Belt is not a harbinger of a new conflict, it has so far intensified historic competition over influence in South Asia,” note authors of the report.

The report argues that there is a factual and conceptual objection to CPEC in India. The factual objection is that India does not want to internationalise the Kashmir dispute it has with Pakistan. Chinese activity in the disputed areas automatically makes it a stakeholder in these disputes.

At the conceptual level, CPEC allows China to gain a toehold in the Indian Ocean through direct access to the Arabian Sea. There remain concerns that this might develop a military dimension at some stage, according to the report.

Since territorial compromise from either India or Pakistan is a political suicide for any of the ruling parties, it remains to be seen whether CPEC will contribute to a resolution of this dispute or further fan the flames. There is also a concern in India that China will use Gwadar port to observe Indian naval activity and possibly even exploit it for an expansion of China’s own naval presence.

There is also concern in India that while CPEC in the short and medium term could be an opportunity to generate jobs and growth in Pakistan, over the longer term its strategic consequences could reshape the regional balance of power in favour of China and limit India’s geopolitical reach.

The assertiveness and swiftness of Chinese actions in the South China Sea have implanted a preoccupation among China’s critics in India that if China gains a foothold in the Arabian Sea and, as an extension, in the Indian Ocean through Gwadar, it might make national interest claims in India’s maritime sphere too. “After all, if Gwadar grows to be the immense port China envisions it to become, China will need to take on a bigger direct or indirect security role,” it says.

The Sipri report noted that unlike in India, CPEC has not raised concerns in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is open to all regional initiatives that could reactivate its ailing formal economy, whether that is by way of CPEC or India-led efforts to connect with the Afghan economy through the Chabahar Port in Iran. Iran has not opposed CPEC and has expressed strong interest in the Belt and Road Initiative.

However, the report argues that Afghanistan is unlikely to benefit from CPEC unless Kabul-Islamabad relations improve. For this to happen, Pakistan’s security concerns with regard to Afghanistan need to be assuaged. The authors note that CPEC has the potential to exacerbate three fault lines in South Asian security.

The first is between China and India themselves. The second is between China-Pakistan on the one side and India on the other. The third is between China and India and its partners – the US, Japan and, to a lesser degree, Vietnam. The region of Balochistan is being geopolitically instrumentalised by these various players, they added.

It says that this is an evidence that CPEC has contributed to political and security bloc formation, but the bloc rivalry between the US-India and China-Pakistan exists regardless of CPEC. CPEC has merely strengthened the strategic Chinese-Pakistani alliance.

China’s reliance on CPEC means that it needs a stable and amicable Pakistan, underlines the report. “The Silk Road Economic Belt initiative may become one of the cornerstones of Asian economic growth and integration, and eventually of closer political and security cooperation among states, but the pathway to this scenario is long and fraught with obstacles,” it says.

Source: The Express Tribune

Why is PML-N being so secretive about CPEC’s investment plan?

If the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) wasn’t already an enigma, the recent debates regarding its pros and cons have muddled this into an even bigger mess. On one hand, there are the knockers who didn’t shy away from labelling it as the future East India Company (EIC), and on the other, we have the blind patriots – the ones that hold CPEC at the highest level of sanctity, that merely questioning the transparency regarding CPEC’s projects amounts to treason for them.

Undoubtedly, these directionless debates have a lot to do with the suspicion and political sensitivity created by the government around the CPEC framework. However, to me, both prevalent views are far-fetched and perilous to national interests.

At first, to equate China’s role, within the context of the CPEC project, with that of EIC is simply an embellishment. Such an over-statement has been countered by various writers in recent days, rather successfully. And quiet evidently, a strict comparison of both is fallacious and misplaced for the simple reason that the days of claiming ‘EIC is like colonialism’ are long gone. Since Pakistan was in a weak state, China’s investment should have been welcomed. China already has deep pockets, thus one should not expect the country to take anything away from us, the way the EIC robbed the subcontinent of its resources.


However, the EIC analogy cannot be completely disregarded. The days of colonialism might be past us, yet, states no longer employ the weapons of the colonial era to subjugate other states, as capitalism now does it for them. In the words of Kwame Nkrumah,


“Capitalism is but the gentlemen’s way of slavery.”

For a state to thrive in this era of capitalism, its financial independence is integral. When a state is financially dependent on another, the way our country was on Saudi Arabia and the United States, that is when a phenomena like that of the EIC in the subcontinent occurs.

Nevertheless, it is the second view that seems more precarious. Nonsensical patriots, who are trying to make CPEC a sacred cow, are forgetting that it is not China’s gift via the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government to the people of Pakistan. If that were the case, then there would be nothing to ponder over. But to our dismay, most of the projects under CPEC are loans which we, the public exchequer, will have to pay back. Unfortunately, the mysterious CPEC framework agreement has not been revealed yet, thereby, we do not know about the terms and conditions encircling the proposed $51 billion investment. In the words of the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan,


“I don’t know out of $46 billion [in CPEC deals] how much is debt, how much is in equity, and how much is in kind.”

Thus, turning a blind eye to the whole thing is not patriotism, but on a very conservative scale, it is imprudence.

Both the views advanced in the CPEC debate have been poles apart. Ignoring the fact that we as a nation are currently facing a paradox – where on one hand, there is the necessity for such an extravagant investment in our country and on the other, the fear of subjugation at the expense of such an investment.

The antidote for this problem lies with the government, who is primarily responsible for the smooth and uncontroversial functioning of the corridor projects. Unfortunately, the PML-N government has made this matter more ambiguous by building a smokescreen around the CPEC framework agreement. Secondly, and more recently, the ignorance towards Public Procurement Rules in CPEC projects means that the impetus for speculations has been renewed. There is an inherent need for the government to step up and put an end to all the speculations by implying transparency in the CPEC projects.

It is unfortunate that the Sino-Pak friendship is being questioned at a time where a collaboration between the two friendly states is at an unprecedented high – the reason being the lack of transparency around this collaboration. Thus, an onus also lies on the Chinese counterparts as well; they must realise that giving loans through backdoor channels won’t help their cause. For the success of their ‘One Belt One Road’ plan, of which CPEC is an integral part, they need to make sure that the people of Pakistan are engaged and given a sense of ownership in the corridor. The US-Pakistan relationship must serve as a lesson to be learnt – despite the fact that the US injected billions of dollars into Pakistan over the last decade, they were still disliked as a country.

For now, as a nation, we have to redeem ourselves from this state of disunity and realise that by labelling CPEC as a form of colonialism, or making it contentious, might dissuade our foreign investors. Similarly, turning a blind eye to accountability would mean renting Pakistan out on the terms and conditions of investors. Therefore, positive criticism and calculated pressure must be exerted on the authorities to ensure that we are provided with the chance to utilise our strategic location. Firstly, to warrant a profit out of the loans we are availing, and secondly, to result in economic prosperity rather than a burden of unpayable debts.

Source: The Express Tribune

Trends: Leather’s legacy

Leather never really ‘trends’ — for it is always around. Moulded into myriad variations, draped, layered or patched, it is a veritable fashion staple; never really ‘in’ or ‘out’, nor ‘on-trend’ or ‘off’. It is, simply, timeless, classic, a wardrobe favourite that can be worn year after year without getting dated.

There are well-cut leather trench coats that enamour aficionados whenever the weather gets blustery, the pure leather handbag that perpetually epitomises luxury, the edgy ‘cool’ of the black leather jacket and well-tailored leather shoes that symbolise comfort and elegance.

“I think leather is edgy and stands out without being over the top. That’s why it has been a predominant element in my designs for the longest time,” observes designer Shehla Chatoor who has a penchant for unconventionally incorporating leather onto bridal-wear and formals. In Shehla’s collections, leather skirts are worked with hand embellishments, masquerading as modern-day lehengas; a dupatta may be lined with leather and leather lattice may be worked upon sleeves.
Why this versatile and long-lasting material will always be in fashion

Beyond the high-end realms of couture, one sees leather products dotted about the local market: belts, shoes, wallets and an extensive variety of jackets and coats. According to the Pakistan Tanners Association, leather production contributes to five percent of Pakistan’s GDP and 5.4 percent to the overall export earnings of the country.

“Right now, Pakistan is supplying leather uppers for brands like Bali and Massimo Dutti,” says Feri Rawanian, who sources materials and garments for export as GM at Linmark International.

“We also supply finished products like shoes to the mass market in France. Trade could be so much better should the country’s infrastructure be more conducive. Right now, many more orders are sent out to China, Vietnam and Bangladesh because these countries are able to offer more competitive prices.”

Nevertheless, product lines created for export in Pakistan invariably filter out to the local customer at competitive rates. Quality runs the gamut from the mediocre to the well-honed; the leather used may be of the exemplary full-grain or top-grain calibre, which means that its adulteration has been minimal. Or else, it may be genuine leather or corrected grain leather which has been worked upon considerably.

Similarly, the accessories used and finish of the products vary. Amongst a milieu of substandard leather products, the Pakistani market features a small smattering of retailers who specialise in painstakingly created, exemplary leather products.

Standing out particularly in leather’s luxe market is Jafferjees, a brand that has helmed a legacy in leather for more than 130 years now. Starting with a single store in Karachi’s Saddar area back in 1935, the brand has now expanded to 10 stores across the country as well as one in the UAE.

According to Murtaza Ali, who used to be Director at Jafferjees and is now set to launch his own label titled Murtaza Jafferjees, the process of selecting leather for the brand has always been painstaking.

“The leather is ordered from different tanneries, depending on the quality and quantity required,” he describes. “Large tanneries usually only accept large orders while smaller ones are generally flexible. Our goal is to select skins that are relatively unblemished and as natural as possible. Usually, we opt for full-grain leather.”

Stock at Jafferjees tends to be dominated by more austere shades: a wide range of satchels, totes, clutches, bucket bags and boxy shoulder bags in solid leather hues which textures that vary from smooth to grainy. Strewn amidst the classic designs are the more avant-garde innovations; bags that are cross-pleated or decorated with polka dots, multi-coloured tassels or contrasting seams. “The bags that are relatively unconventional tend to be retailed in smaller numbers while most of our stock is dominated by the classic designs and subtle shades that are always in demand,” explains Murtaza.

Similar retail aspirations are shared by HUB Leather, a brand whose leather lineage took root from trading skins and hides, progressing today to become a luxury leather brand with 12 stores countrywide.

“Leather products are expensive which is why focus is placed in retailing products that are in demand,” explains Asfandyar Farrukh, HUB’s Managing Director.

“The men’s briefcase, for instance, has now predominantly been replaced by a baggy leather laptop bag or messenger bag. Women’s bags also generally follow sophisticated lines. There will always be a demand for leather because discerning customers will associate it with durability and elegance.”

The HUB director further adds: “At the same time, I feel that a large segment of the market is now inclined towards fast fashion. Catering to this demand is our high-street brand Hobo where products are not always constructed from pure leather which allows costs to be lower. The designs can, thereby, be trendier because customers find it easier to buy on-trend bags and shoes that are more economical while in the case of the more expensive leather counterparts, they prefer designs that will last longer.”

The comfort provided by supple pure leather is another factor that particularly draws customers. TSM & Co., a shoe brand that was launched in 2011 and currently retails in Karachi’s Zamzama market, specialises in high-quality leather shoes.

According to CEO Hammad Ahmed, customers’ main concern is comfort. “Most of our clients are from the corporate sector and they have to wear their shoes all day long. The shoes have to look good and simultaneously be comfortable,” he says.

“It all comes at a price, of course, but on the other hand, leather lasts longer. Where other fabrics and textures wear and tear, leather develops a patina over time, which is a weathered soft sheen that clients particularly appreciate.”

Thereby, leather remains the material du jour perpetually. The world of fashion may spiral at breakneck speed as it endeavours to harness the worldwide phenomenon of ‘see now, buy now’ and a perpetual sea of trends may go viral and proceed to get hackneyed a few weeks later.

Far from this madding crowd, though, leather’s demand remains, catering to a discerning clientele that prefers quality, above else.

Source: The News

CPEC: lessons from history

HOW does one get a grip on the proposed China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and its associated investments without any hard information except for the hype? In the absence of any mechanism for credible evaluation I suggest we hold it up against a historical parallel and see what emerges by way of tentative conclusions. Some discussion grounded in real experience may be better than taking sides in the dark.

Around the turn of the 20th century, the British invested vast sums of money in the part of the subcontinent that now comprises Pakistan. Amongst these investments were the network of canals and barrages, the post and telegraph, and roads and railways. All included it would have likely added up in real terms to be bigger than the $56 billion associated with CPEC.

What came of all that investment and what economic transformations did it sustain? At the macro level, Pakistan remains a desperately poor country with around a third of its population struggling to survive below the poverty line. Almost half the population is functionally illiterate without access to safe water and sanitation or adequate healthcare. Stunting, malnutrition and infant and maternal mortality are at levels considered unacceptable in the rest of the world.

The sobering conclusion would be that even if the investments had huge economic payoffs, extremely venal governance ensured that while some people became phenomenally rich very few of the benefits trickled down to the majority in any meaningful sense.
What came of all the colonial-era investment and what economic transformations did it sustain?

Notwithstanding the issues of governance and distribution, which remain as critical now as then, the question remains: did the investments have huge economic payoffs? Even to speculate intelligently on the question one would need to disaggregate the investments and consider them separately.

Take the canal colonies and the barrages. I believe most people would accept that the outcomes were positive and significant. One can assess the outcomes in terms of crop outputs, crop yields, employment created, or incomes generated for farming households.

Next, consider the railways where the comparisons become more interesting. The link between Karachi and Peshawar via Hyderabad, Sukkur, Multan, Lahore, and Rawalpindi can be considered the central artery of the Pakistani economy capable of transporting people and products efficiently and economically. Once again, I believe there would be agreement that the outcomes were positive and the payoffs significant.

Now consider some other investments in the railways that turned out differently. Among these were the links between Peshawar and Landikotal on the Afghanistan border, the link between Quetta and Chaman that was intended to have been extended to Kandahar in Afghanistan, and the Trans-Balochistan railroad from Quetta to Zahedan, inside Iran.

All these could be considered as economic corridors of their time. Even if they were not intended as such, they could have become so after the independence of Pakistan. The Trans-Balochistan railroad extended 455 miles (732 kilometres) with 38 stops linking very friendly countries between which much trade was possible. Indeed, under the Regional Cooperation for Development there was the possibility of extending the link to Turkey and thereby into Europe, an opening with immense economic potential. Today, the Peshawar-Landikotal link is inoperative, and the Quetta-Zahedan link operates on a nominal frequency of twice a month. None of these corridors had any transformative impact on the local or national economies.

Take roads as another example. The British upgraded and extended the Grand Trunk Road, an ancient trade route linking populated habitations, to great and sustained benefit. Contrast the limited economic impact of the more recent Lahore-Peshawar motorway. The equally recent Karakoram and Thar-Karachi highways have had virtually no significant transformative impacts on the local economies except to make it easier for local labour to migrate to more prosperous areas for employment.

Some tentative conclusions can be adduced. For investments to yield economic benefits, it seems a necessary, if not a sufficient, condition for them to either generate employment or to connect populated locations at relatively comparable levels of economic development. The historical evidence suggests that routing corridors through sparsely populated territory even with associated investments that create very few jobs is unlikely to be transformative. And linking disproportionately developed areas without prior complementary investments may just accelerate a drain of people and resources from the less developed regions.

It is indeed possible that investments in roads in some sparsely populated areas, eg, in the northern areas or along the Makran coast, would pay off economically if as a result a significant inflow of people is facilitated as would be the case with a major boost to tourism. But such prospects are scarce given Pakistan’s security conditions and increasing social conservatism.

It will no doubt be argued that the unsuccessful rail corridors mentioned here were not made by the British for economic but for strategic military purposes and therefore comparisons with CPEC are invalid. However, as mentioned before, there was nothing to prevent the conversion of the readymade investments to economic purposes after 1947. There was significant trade potential both with Afghanistan and Iran and the latter was a very friendly country at the time. The shrivelling of the corridors should prompt serious questions inquiring what went wrong after all the investments were made.

At the same time it could be argued that CPEC is an equally strategic initiative of the Chinese presented as one with transformative economic payoff for Pakistan. The latter remains to be demonstrated independently and objectively. The historical evidence cautions that mere hand-waving is not enough.

One should also consider what might be the fate of CPEC if relations with China turn sour in the future. This may seem a far-fetched concern at this time but the evolution of the relationship with Iran should provide a reality check. Pakistan’s abysmal relations with all its primary neighbours do not leave much room for complacency and demand a credible fall-back alternative.

If the national objective is to further the development of the lagging provinces of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, it might be better to think in terms of employment-generating investments in the regional economies much as the canal colonies created jobs in the Punjab in the 20th century. It might make more sense for economic corridors to follow and not precede such investments.

Shifting geopolitics in Asia

Higher than the mountains, deeper than the oceans, stronger than steel, dearer than eyesight and sweeter than honey”.

These are the words that have been spoken time and again commemorating the prestigious alliance between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Peoples Republic of China.

As unusual as it sounds, today, it is a reality that is set to shape the future of Asia, if not the global order.

Pakistan- China relations have now come of age.

All the doubts and reluctance stand cleared.

On November 30, 2016, a consignment worth 500 tonnes of goods left Kunming in China for Karachi as part of the direct rail and sea freight service and a 100 containers have already left from Gwadar to Europe.

This is part of the $46 Billion investment plan between Pakistan and China as part of CPEC.

If China succeeds in its initiative, Pakistan and its influence in region will undergo a complete transformation.


The long and mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries can be aptly described as the phrase, “opposites attract”.

Pakistan and its socio-political systems began with a British legacy alongside being an Islamic Republic whereas China was and still remains a Red revolution-inspired communist state.

Pakistan from the start was a door to the world for China.

The Sino-Indian war of 1962 added a military outlook to the relationship.

In the following years, Pakistan actively became the voice of support for China in the International community on diplomatic fronts like Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang.

Pakistan formally played a role in the 1972 Nixon visit to China.

On the other hand, Pakistan received diplomatic, economic and military assistance against Indian aggression.

The highest leadership of the two countries frequently arranged visits and warm diplomatic relations were always kept as a vital agenda of the foreign policy.

So much so, the last visitor to meet Mao Zedong before his death, aged 83, was none other than Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan.

With the Soviet invasion and alignment of Pakistan with US interests, there was a period of reluctance.

Soon after, the American favours upon India and its “war on terror” campaign made it crystal clear that Pakistan’s best interests were with Beijing.

China lived up to its expectations with its assistance in the nuclear programs and supplies that made Pakistan a strong military power in the region.

The most recent example of this counter-measure strategy is the provision of Chinese Chengdu J-10B fighter aircrafts which have been developed to counter the most advanced American fighter jet Lockheed Martin F-16C.

As stated by the Chinese Premier Le Keqiang to the people of China, “If you love China, love Pakistan too”.

The development of Al-Khalid Tank, F22 Frigate, Nuclear Power plants and armaments are but a few examples of co-operation between Islamabad and Beijing.

According to Pew Research Center, Pakistanis have the most favourable view of China after China itself.


Security is now the single most imperative concern of Asian states.

With the spread of terrorism, extremism and insurgency on the rise, China and Pakistan have realised that security lies in development.

Pakistan has been a direct victim of terrorism and extremism while the threat of a similar conflict looms over China, with the Uighar militant group operating within.

The intelligence of both countries agrees that East Turkestan Islamic Movement and the Uighar groups have joined hands with the Taliban.

It is only a matter of time before militancy will raise its ugly head in not one but many cities in China.

CPEC and OBOR is an effort to ensure security through development and economic progress along the lines where terrorism is likely to flourish.


CPEC will be a win-win position for both countries.

Gwadar is to become the jewel of world trade and Pakistan will be able to assert itself as a powerful economy independent of Western influence.

The power and capability that will arise from CPEC and OBOR will make way for a new geopolitical environment in Asia.

Pakistan is China’s only real friend; Beijing has realised that a country cannot become a superpower without having a strong ally in its backyard.

Rightly so, a high ranking official on the Chinese army, while defending China’s stance on Pakistan said, “Pakistan is China’s Israel”.

A strong Pakistan will not only keep terrorist groups from Afghanistan in check but also check any untoward hostility from India.

The geopolitics of Asia is now witnessing the constellation of stars aligning themselves to give rise to a China-Pakistan nexus that has the potential to massively change regional politics.

China is taking its only ally seriously and intends to take the trophy of being a world superpower in Asia and the Middle East.

It is in the best interest of both states, and if done right, will change the face of Asia in a way never perceived before.




Source:The Nation

Moonis Elahi Says CPEC Completed Due to Gen Raheel Sharif's Efforts

Gawadar received its first Chinese convoy on 12 Nov 2016. Moonis Elahi congratulated the people of Balochistan as the army led CPEC will surely bring prosperity in the province that has long suffered ignorance. Opening an international trade route always benefits the people of the region economically and socially. 

India tried to sabotage the project through various antics but has failed in its evil plans.

Pakistan on the whole will reap its rewards and Gen Raheel Shareef will be remembered as the cwho has helped Pakistan establish an international trade route with its closest ally China. Moonis Elahi says even the incumbent government acknowledges it was not capable to have completed the project had the army not helped.