Blocking chinese access to persian gulf energy
The “String of Pearls” doctrine encapsulated in a 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report, aims at co-opting, destabilizing and otherwise neutralizing nation states cooperating with China and enabling it to project power and influence along its long and vulnerable oil link to the Middle East. Starting in Africa, throughout the Middle East, into Central Asia and terminating in Southeast Asia, the United States has been conducting a widespread campaign of doing just this.
US agencies confirm presence of Chinese troops along LoC in PoK Despite the strong Chinese denial, Indian authorities have now acquired “independent” confirmation about the increasing presence of Chinese troops along the line of control (LoC) in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir from none other than US security agencies. Highly placed sources in the government told
TOI on Saturday that US intelligence agencies have confirmed to Indian authorities about the increasing presence of Chinese troops all along the LoC.While Pakistan too has described these reports as baseless, it is now well documented that Chinese troops have been around in PoK since late 2009 when they arrived in the Gilgit-Baltistan area supposedly to rebuild the Karakoram highway. According to Indian agencies though, these troops are no longer restricted to this area and that they are now also present in what Pakistan describes as “Azad Kashmir”.
Pakistan in particular has jointly built a new port with China in the coastal city of Gwadar in the southern province of Balochistan. This port serves as a potential terminal for a north-south transit corridor to transport oil and goods directly into Chinese territory via the northern Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan. It also serves the potential to host a Chinese naval presence. The US bid to interfere internally to disrupt this is hardly a conspiracy theory. Globalist scribe Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy has published two pieces regarding the overarching importance of Pakistan in a broader geopolitical context and “suggestions” on how it can be solved.
Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” in name alone indicates yet another “freedom movement” contrived and fueled to give a favorable outcome to his corporate-financier patrons. He explicitly calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, “Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”
Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece unimaginatively titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ” He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”
Considering that Baluchi rebels are already being funded and armed to wage war inside of Iran, it is more than likely similar aid is being rendered to them to confront the ISI and Pakistan’s government. This three-pronged attack on Iranian, Pakistani, and Chinese sovereignty in a region where 3 nuclear armed nations converge and billions call home is beyond reckless, providing us further insight into the deranged, degenerate minds behind “global governance.”
Hamid Karzai’s statement that he may switch sides and back the Taliban in the war in Afghanistan has rattled the nerves of the U.S. foreign policy makes from Washington D.C. to Kabul. And while the cost of war has been high thus far, some consider the U.S. position in Afghanistan vital to America’s China strategy.
In order to fence in China’s influence, Afghanistan could be seen as a vital bulwark between a China-Iranian pipeline alliance.The U.S. would have lost a major bulwark in the presumed containment strategy on China. Simultaneously, faith in the U.S. government’s ability to back up its word in war would be undermined, which may suggest to other Asian states, like India and Pakistan, that they seek security backing elsewhere.