Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:01:02.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

China's Relations with Pakistan: Durability Amidst Discontinuity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

William J. Barnds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the more intriguing features of Chinese foreign policy has been the continuity of Peking's effort to maintain good relations with Pakistan despite the periodic upheavals in Chinese domestic politics and the alterations between moderation and militancy in China's policies towards the outside world. Although the goals of China's foreign policy – the recovery of Taiwan, the elimination (or the neutralization) of hostile military power from nearby areas, and the enhancement of China's status and influence in the world – have remained the same since 1950, changing international conditions and evolving Chinese perceptions have led to dramatic shifts in Peking's policies and in its relations with other powers. Former friends have become enemies and former enemies have become, if not friends, at least less dangerous antagonists. Yet China's relations with Pakistan, while not always smooth, have evidenced a high degree of stability.

Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 63 , September 1975 , pp. 463 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For some interesting thoughts on this point see Jackson, Robert, “The strategic outlook for the Indian sub-continent,” Asian Affairs, Vol. 59, Part III (10 1972), pp. 259–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Ali, Tariq, Pakistan: Military Rule or People's Power (New York: William Morrow, 1970), p. 140.Google Scholar

3. Collected Works of Liu Shao-ch'i: 1945–1957 (Hong Kong: Union Research Institute, 1969), pp. 175–82.Google Scholar

4. Peking's involvement with the Indian communist movement is discussed in Dutt, Gargi, “Peking, the Indian communist movement and international communism, 1962–1970,” Asian Survey, Vol. XI, No. 10 (10 1971), pp. 984–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Total Sino-Pakistan trade was $62·2 million in 1951 and $86 million in 1952, amounts over twice as high as a decade later. Direction of International Trade, Annual Data for the years 1938, 1948 and 1950–53 (New York: U.N., I.M.F. and I.B.R.D.), Vol. 5, No. 8, p. 195.Google Scholar

6. Cited in Kahin, George McA., The Asian-African Conference, Bandung, Indonesia, April 1955 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1956), p. 57.Google Scholar

7. The text of the joint communiqué issued at the conclusion of En-lai's, Chou visit is in Pakistan Horizon, 12 1956, pp. 220–22.Google Scholar

8. Survey of the China Mainland Press (SCMP), No. 1579 (29 07 1957), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

9. Peking Review, No. 31 (30 09 1958), p. 27.Google Scholar

10. SCMP, No. 2005 (4 05 1959), p. 34.Google Scholar

11. In Peking Review, No. 30 (28 07 1959), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

12. The causes of the growing Sino-Indian hostility are too complicated to be examined here. For different views see Gupta, Bhabani Sen, The Fulcrum of Asia (New York: Pegasus, 1970)Google Scholar; Van Eekelen, W. F., Indian Foreign Policy and the Border Dispute with China (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Barads, William J., India, Pakistan and the Great Powers (New York: Praeger for the Council on Foreign Relations, 1972).Google Scholar

13. Moscow's stand was set forth in Pravda, 10 09 1959Google Scholar, in The Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. XI, No. 36 (7 10 1959), p. 14.Google Scholar The depth and durability of China's resentment can be observed in “The truth about how the leaders of the C.P.S.U. have allied themselves with India against China,” Peking Review, No. 45 (8 11 1963), pp. 18–27.Google Scholar

14. In 1960 India and Pakistan reached an important agreement on the division of the waters of the Indus River system, leading many observers to believe – mistakenly, as it turned out – that the two countries were intent on forging a new relationship.

15. Ayub's account of his attitude towards China and his dealings with Peking are described in his autobiography Friends Not Masters (London: Oxford University Press. 1967), pp. 114–86Google Scholar (esp. pp. 159–68). However, Ayub plays down in this volume his earlier apprehensions about China and his joint defence proposal.

16. Peking Review, No. 1 (4 01, 1963), p. 31.Google Scholar

17. Ibid. Nos. 10 and 11 (15 March 1963), pp. 66–70.

18. Pakistan's contention that it had bargained well was supported by knowledgeable scholars; see Lamb, Alastair, The China-Indian Border (London: Oxford University Press for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1964), pp. 174–75.Google Scholar

19. Important Speeches and Press Conferences of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (Karachi: Government of Pakistan, 1966), p. 433.Google Scholar

20. The text of the Ayub-Chou communiqué is in Pakistan Horizon, First Quarter 1964, pp. 85–86.Google Scholar

21. Peking Review, No. 10 (12 03 1965), pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

22. China's assertion that the conflict was provoked by India is set forth in the Peking Review, No. 20 (14 05 1965), p. 4.Google Scholar

23. Ibid. No. 37 (10 September 1965), pp. 6–7.

24. Ibid. No. 38 (17 September 1965), pp. 11–12.

25. Ibid. No. 39 (24 September 1965), pp. 11–12.

26. Pravda, 24 08 1965Google Scholar, in the Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. XVII, No. 34 (15 09 1965), pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

27. Choudhury, G. W., The Major Powers and the Indian Subcontinent (New York: Free Press for the Foreign Policy Research Institute, 1975).Google Scholar Choudhury's treatment of Sino-Pakistani relations is in Chapter XI.

28. See Burke, S. M., Pakistan's Foreign Policy: An Historical Analysis (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 348.Google Scholar

29. Choudhury, , The Major Powers and the Indian Subcontinent.Google Scholar

30. Peking Review, No. 39 (24 09 1965), pp. 9–11.Google Scholar For an analysis of the Chinese moves see MacFarquhar, Roderick, “China and the cease-fire,” New Statesman, 24 09 1965.Google Scholar

31. The text of the Tashkent Declaration is in the New York Times, 11 01 1966.Google Scholar

32. Observer (London), 9 01 1966.Google Scholar

33. Peking Review, No. 3 (14 01 1966), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

34. New York Times, 9 01 1966.Google Scholar

35. Peking Review, No. 6 (4 02 1966), pp. 10–13Google Scholar

36. The United States was host to Mrs Gandhi while its ally Pakistan was host to Liu, which indicated the declining substance of old ties and the complexity of new ones.

37. The Times (London), 28 03 1966.Google Scholar

38. Direction of Trade Annual (New York: I.M.F. and I.B.R.D.), 1960–1964 and 1964–68.Google Scholar

39. New York Times, 6 03 1966.Google Scholar

40. Ibid. 30 March 1966.

41. Robinson, Thomas W., “Chou En-lai and the Cultural Revolution in China,” in Robinson, Thomas W. (ed.), The Cultural Revolution in China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), p. 260.Google Scholar

42. The extent to which trouble with certain countries was caused by extremists in Chinese embassies after the ambassadors had been recalled, or by local Chinese acting without guidance from Peking, is discussed in Gurtov, Melvin, “The Foreign Ministry and foreign affairs in the Chinese Cultural Revolution,”Google Scholar in Robinson, , The Cultural Revolution in China.Google Scholar

43. Peking Review, No. 23 (2 06 1967), pp. 45–46Google Scholar, and No. 32 (9 August 1968), pp. 27–28.

44. Ibid. No. 2 (10 January 1969), p. 26.

45. Choudhury, , The Major Powers and the Subcontinent.Google Scholar

46. Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. XX, No. 46 (4 12 1968), p. 4.Google Scholar

47. Pravda, 8 06 1969Google Scholar, cited in the Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. XXI, No. 23 (2 07 1969), p. 16.Google Scholar

48. Peking Review, No. 27 (4 07 1969), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

49. Ibid. No. 29 (18 July 1969), pp. 23–25.

50. Ibid. No. 30 (25 July 1969), pp. 8–9.

51. Choudhury, G. W., “The emergence of Bangla Desh and the South Asian triangle,” The Year Book of World Affairs (London: Institute of World Affairs, 1973), p. 66.Google Scholar

52. Peking Review, No. 47 (20 11 1970), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

53. Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. XXIII, No. 14 (4 05 1971), pp. 35–36.Google Scholar

54. Friedman, Edward, “China, Pakistan and Bangladesh,” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Winter 1972), pp. 99–100.Google Scholar

55. Peking Review, No. 15 (9 04 1971), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

56. Karachi Domestic Service, 12 04 1971Google Scholar, reported in Foreign Broadcast Information Service: Middle East and Africa, 12 04 1971.Google Scholar

57. Peking Review, No. 16 (16 04 1971), p. 8.Google Scholar

58. Ibid. No. 46 (12 November 1971), p. 5.

59. Far Eastern Economic Review, 5 02 1972, p. 8.Google Scholar

60. New York Times, 13 02 1972.Google Scholar

61. Peking Review, No. 5 (4 02 1972), p. 8.Google Scholar

62. The Military Balance (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1968–1969, 1971–72 and 1972–73).Google Scholar

63. For an examination of overlapping Chinese and American interests, see Barnds, William J., “China and America: limited partners in the Indian subcontinent,” in Hsiao, Gene (ed.), The Sino-American Detente (New York: Praeger, 1974), pp. 226–48.Google Scholar

64. Peking Review, No. 50 (10 12 1971), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

65. Ibid.

66. NCNA (Peking), 23 12 1971Google Scholar, reported in Foreign Broadcast Information Service: People's Republic of China, 23 12 1971.Google Scholar

67. Peking Review, No. 49 (10 10 1971), p. 8.Google Scholar

68. Ibid. No. 50 (17 December 1971). The TASS statement is in the Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. XXIII, No. 49 (4 01 1972), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

69. Information on the amount of Chinese arms sent to Pakistan is sparse. The U.S. Government has stated that such shipments amounted to $133 million between 1965 and 1972. See U.S. Foreign Policy for the 1970s: The Emerging Structure of Peace, A Report to the Congress by Nixon, Richard, 9 02 1972 (Washington, D.C.), p. 147.Google Scholar

70. Peking Review, No. 5 (4 02 1972), p. 8.Google Scholar

71. Ibid. No. 49 (8 December 1972), p. 11.

72. Pakistan's usefulness to Peking is also illustrated by such episodes as the former's recognition of North Korea. In their discussions with the North Koreans the Chinese leaders can claim this resulted from their influence with Pakistan, a useful point when dealing with a country which stands between Moscow and Peking. Pakistan's withdrawal from SEATO in 1972 was also made partly to please Peking.

73. SCMP, Nos. 5452–55 (10–14 09 1973), p. 90.Google Scholar

74. Peking Review, No. 20 (17 05 1974), p. 7.Google Scholar

75. Ibid. No. 25 (21 June 1974), p. 4.

76. See Mukerjee, Dilip, “Sino-Indian relations: 1968–70,” Pacific Community. Vol. 2, No. 3 (04 1971), pp. 589–600.Google Scholar

77. Gupta, Bhabani Sen, “A Maoist line for India,” The China Quarterly, No. 33 (1968), pp. 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

78. Peking Review, No. 27 (5 07 1974), p. 14.Google Scholar

79. Ibid. No. 30 (26 July 1974), p. 18; No. 37 (13 September 1974), p. 16; and No. 47 (22 November 1974), pp. 16–19.

80. Ibid. No. 38 (20 September 1974), p. 14.

81. For a different view of Chinese perceptions about Indo-Soviet relations – and a statement that suggests that India's growing nuclear capabilities may, in time, cause China to see India as an independent actor – see Kapur, Ashok, “India and China: adversaries or potential partners?” The World Today, 03 1974, pp. 129–34Google Scholar; and Kapur, Ashok, “India's nuclear presence,” The World Today, 11 1974, pp. 459–65.Google Scholar