iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Is China Freeloading Off The U.S. Military's Work In Afghanistan And Iraq?

Us Troops Afghanistan

First Posted: 08/15/11 02:58 PM ET Updated: 10/15/11 06:12 AM ET


By Richard Weitz, The Diplomat

China’s limited support for the US-led counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the growing Chinese economic stake in these countries, has provoked some irritation among US observers over China’s ‘free riding’ on the back of dead European, American, and Afghan or Iraqi soldiers. S. Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, caught the mood well when he said some might see it as, ‘We do the heavy lifting…And they pick the fruit.’

The Chinese government for its part has continued to reject suggestions that it contribute combat forces to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) seeking to pacify Afghanistan. China has also dismissed inquiries about whether NATO could send supplies, even only non-lethal ones such as food and clothing, through Chinese territory to Afghanistan to support the coalition militaries there.

China’s security ties with Afghanistan resemble Beijing’s policies in Iraq, which have focused on investing in the Iraqi energy sector while shunning any major security role. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Chinese policy makers are ambiguous about the US military role. They certainly don’t want Islamist extremists to triumph there, since they could then use these territories to attempt to spread extremism throughout China. Chinese officials have also traditionally avoided challenging the United States on core security issues—and the Obama administration has clearly identified the Afghan and Iraqi wars as two of them.

Having the Americans take the lead in fighting Islamists insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq also relieves China of having to fight them directly. Chinese policy makers prefer that the United States and its allies bear the burden of countering radical Islamist movements outside of China, especially as alarm grows at how Islamist extremists are depicting their policies in Xinjiang as anti-Muslim.

Yet, while Chinese leaders don’t challenge the legitimacy of the US military operations in Afghanistan or Iraq, and indeed want the United States to continue to fight Islamist terrorism and promote Afghanistan’s and Iraq’s economic and political reconstruction, they don’t support maintaining a long-term Western military presence in these countries. Given these conflicting pressures, the Chinese government has publicly supported the Afghan and Iraqi governments, but sought to distance itself from the US-led counterinsurgency campaigns in both countries, as well as refraining from endorsing any lengthy Western military presence in these regions.

But although Chinese policy makers have excluded a Chinese military role in Afghanistan or Iraq, they’ve encouraged Chinese companies to invest in developing these countries’ natural resources. Recent Chinese investment activity has concentrated on gaining access to raw materials and developing the infrastructure required to transport these goods to China.

To focus on Afghanistan, after its government opened its energy, mineral, and raw material sectors to foreign investment in 2007, China rapidly became Afghanistan’s largest foreign investor with the surprise purchase by the Metallurgical Corporation of China (MCC) of a controlling stake in the Aynak copper field. According to the Afghanistan and British Geological Surveys, the Aynak copper deposit, located 35 kilometres south of Kabul at the northern end of Logar Province, contains 240 million tons of material with a grade of 2.3 percent copper in the central portion of the deposit. The November 2007 bid of more than $3 billion made that transaction the single largest foreign direct investment in Afghanistan. The state-owned MCC could offer a package of benefits that its private sector competitors couldn’t match, and in July 2009, MCC and Jiangxi Copper Co. started development work at the mine.

Subsequent revelations of vast untapped mineral resources in Afghanistan have undoubtedly peaked Chinese interest in developing rail connections and related commercial infrastructure in Afghanistan. According to recent reports, US geologists have rediscovered around $1 trillion of iron, copper, cobalt, and lithium reserves scattered around Afghanistan, including the Taliban-strong southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan. Pentagon officials believe the mineral resources will help transform conflict- ridden Afghanistan into a modern industrial state. According to the Chinese government, Chinese firms were engaged in 33 infrastructure projects (such as road construction) in Afghanistan in 2008, valued at almost half a billion dollars, in addition to the Aynak copper investment. However, a difficult political situation, bad roads and the lack of railroads prevent exploitation and shipment of these resources to markets.

China provides modest development aid to Afghanistan, supporting construction of hospitals and schools as well as other reconstruction projects. Since 2002, when the new post-Taliban government was formed, China has converted all Afghanistan’s existing debts to China and provided more than 900 million yuan (about $130 million) in additional reconstruction assistance to the country. In addition, the Chinese government has already pledged an additional $75 million over the next five years. For example, millions of dollars have supported an irrigation complex at Parwan, Jamhuriat Hospital in Kabul, and a conference hall in Karzai’s presidential palace. Since July 2006, moreover, China has allowed hundreds of Afghan products to enter China without tariffs. In addition, China has trained more than 500 Afghan officials in a range of areas, ranging from diplomacy to counternarcotics to agriculture and health care.

Despite their modest amounts of development aid, such China-supported projects gain considerable popular attention since they often employ Chinese workers rather than a collection of typically Asian third-country contractors seen on the US-supported construction sites. But the Chinese approach suffers from the same problem afflicting many other foreign projects in Afghanistan: funds are offered to build a facility but not maintain it. For example, although Chinese workers constructed a new 350-bed 10-story building for Jamhuriat hospital in 2004, it has remained unused since the Afghan government doesn’t have the funds or trained staff to operate it.

Unsurprisingly, energy security considerations also influence Chinese policy toward Afghanistan. The country is thought to have substantial natural energy resources, and the Afghan government is seeking foreign investment to exploit these assets. For example, the Ministry of Mines is looking for international partners to develop 11 natural-gas sites in the northwestern Afghan provinces of Jowzjan and Maimana.

In addition, China has been expanding its access to energy assets in the surrounding countries of Central Asia. The security of these resources, and the land-based transportation routes linking them to China, depends in part on the situation in Afghanistan. In December 2009, China opened a major energy pipeline that transports natural gas from Turkmenistan through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan through areas sufficiently close to Afghanistan that the pipeline could be attacked by guerrillas operating from Afghan territory. While in Beijing as part of Hamid Karzai’s March 2010 state visit, Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul echoed Karzai’s message by telling China Daily that Afghanistan would welcome additional Chinese investments in its natural gas and iron ore sectors, and would take steps to ensure better protection of Chinese nationals and firms in his country.

In this regard, the success of the Chinese venture at Aynak could serve as a catalyst for additional foreign investment, including in the former state-owned companies that are now being privatized by the Afghan government. Afghanistan is thought to have unexplored or underdeveloped reserves of oil, natural gas, iron, gold, copper, and other raw materials that China imports in abundance.

By acquiring these goods from Afghanistan, China could further diversify its source of imports away from more distant world regions, whose products are transported to China along lengthy ocean shipping routes vulnerable to pirates, foreign navies, and other interruptions. Importing materials from Afghanistan also allows Beijing to pursue a more geographically balanced process of internal economic development. China’s western provinces need readily available natural resources to develop. Trade with Afghanistan would accelerate the economic growth of the sensitive Xinjiang region, which borders Afghanistan as well as Pakistan and the Central Asian republics, two other regions that have received considerable Chinese direct investment in recent years.

Afghan officials see foreign trade and investment as perhaps their best means for reducing their dependence on international assistance, which currently covers 90 percent of the Afghan government’s budgetary expenditures. The government is rapidly expanding the size of the national army and police as well as trying to expand public services, but the government already runs a massive deficit that requires large foreign subsidies to cover. Expectations are that these subventions will be needed for decades even after the foreign troops leave the country, but doubts persist about how long this will continue.

Still, many Afghans suspect that not all the hoped for economic benefits from the Aynak project will materialize, and they also worry about the fate of the investment and locality after the lease expires. Chinese and Afghan officials are discussing constructing a railroad directly connecting their countries, which could increase the flow of goods even further. Despite these Afghan concerns and Chinese security worries, Chinese and other foreign investors aim to acquire additional natural resources in Afghanistan if the security situation permits.

So far, China’s development of the Aynak mine and associated infrastructure has proceeded at a slow pace following the April 2008 contract signing, presumably due to concerns about the security of the investment and safety of the Chinese nationals due to the surrounding Taliban violence.

American troops don’t protect the Aynak copper mine project directly, but US forces provide general security in Logar Province. The Afghan National Police has positioned 1,500 special recruits to guard the mine, while some 2,000 US soldiers provide general area security in Logar Province, where the mine is located, as well as security for the projected routes for the road and railway, as part of their mission of defending Afghanistan’s critical economic infrastructure. Like other foreign investors, neither Chinese companies nor China’s government will reimburse the United States for attempting to maintain a secure investment climate in Afghanistan. After the deal was signed, Taliban insurgents increased their operations in the area, prompting more than 2,000 troops from the US Army 10th Mountain Division to enter Logar in response.

All this means that while US and NATO forces protect other foreign investments and critical infrastructure from insurgent attack, China’s prominent and growing economic presence remains unaccompanied by a commitment from Beijing to send Chinese soldiers to Afghanistan to assist in the country’s defence. You’d think that this would place a considerable strain on the Sino-American relationship. So far, though, it hasn’t.

Like Afghan officials, US and NATO officials welcome any legal foreign investment in Afghanistan that generates employment for Afghans outside the narcotics or terrorism industries and that increases the resources available to its beleaguered government. ‘It can be a good thing. As a matter of fact, we encourage all of the international community to take an interest in the economic development of Afghanistan,’ says US State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid. ‘Working with our coalition partners and other interested partners, we are trying to establish a viable market economy in Afghanistan. This is one way to wean people from illicit activities and also to fight the ideology of the terrorists.’

Right now, China’s preferred outcome is a negotiated peace settlement among the Afghan government, the Afghan Taliban, and the other Afghan combatants, supported by Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries and the great powers. These international partners would agree to preserve Afghanistan’s neutrality and collectively contribute to the country’s political development and economic reconstruction. This scenario would establish a more favourable environment for Chinese investment in Afghanistan, reduce some sources of regional terrorism and narcotics trafficking, and facilitate use of Afghanistan’s territory as part of the Afghan-Pakistan-Central Asian ‘silk road’ connecting China’s trade and investment with the rest of Eurasia and Europe beyond.

Until then, China is most likely to assist the counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan by investing in the country’s raw material sector and helping develop the economic infrastructure (especially transportation) to better exploit these natural resources. Since these investments will help divert Afghans away from illicit commercial activities such as opium production provide additional revenues for an Afghan government struggling to sustain its enormous security establishment, whose upkeep costs are more than the size of the annual gross domestic product, this limited Chinese contribution should still be welcomed.

All rights reserved ©The Diplomat

Read the original story here

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

By Richard Weitz, The Diplomat China’s limited support for the US-led counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the growing Chinese economic stake in these countries, h...
By Richard Weitz, The Diplomat China’s limited support for the US-led counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the growing Chinese economic stake in these countries, h...
Filed by Curtis M. Wong  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 23
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
ewldest
I don't care "whose" war it is - end it now
09:32 AM on 08/17/2011
This harping about China is so amusing. We decide to bankrupt ourselves to maintain neocolonial holdings where we don't belong, and then complain because the Chinese are smart enough to avoid that while using economics and diplomacy to further their interests there? What a joke!
11:51 AM on 08/16/2011
"We do the heavy lifting…And they pick the fruit."
Yeah, like the US has never exploited a conflict to further national interests.
"they don’t support maintaining a long-term Western military presence in these countries."
When they invest in their military we feel threatened. When they refuse to rush into war we complain.
11:00 AM on 08/16/2011
Counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afganistan? What a shameless comment on the US invasion to Iraq and Afganistan!!

Those were not counterinsurgency campaigns; instead, those were pure invasions in the name of counter-terrorsim.
09:38 AM on 08/16/2011
China is smart businessman, while the Communist Government of China, wants the U.S. to weaken military, questioning the U.S. defence budget and they want the U.S. military presence out from their back yard, ASIA. This new RED BULLY DRAGON, don't want uncle Sam around so they can bullies their neighbors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WorkhelpWorkhelp
Control your money locally. Charter banks now.
01:26 AM on 08/16/2011
Chine hasn't a military care in the world. If they wanted to go to Irag, they'd flatten the place in a week. A billion soldiers ready to go. The real elephant in the world.
01:44 AM on 08/16/2011
Their military stands at 2.1 million, with 300 million possible reserves, and possible is the key adjective in that sentence.

Historically the Chinese haven't gone beyond their borders and engaged in military adventurism. When you have to manage a nation of 1.4 billion people it is a bit difficult to engage in said military adventurism.

Next, the Chinese don't have the military capability to move large amounts of soldiers from within the borders of China, to another nation which doesn't share a board (i.e Iraq).

And as far as flattening, that is what the US should have done to both nations. Why on earth we sent a small contingent of soldiers to do the job is beyond me. Send 500k, use total war, take their natural resources and leave. No nation building, no aid programs, and definitely no open bid contracts from nations who haven't committed soldiers to the campaign.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marknez21
04:11 AM on 08/16/2011
They are smart, why they have to invade thosed countries. They invaded every where with their commerce and their exports. We owe $900 to every chineese.
01:44 AM on 08/16/2011
BORDER*
photo
guardstar360
free speech is a double edged sword !
01:17 AM on 08/16/2011
Is China Freeloading Off The U.S. Military's Work In Afghanistan And Iraq?
this question can easily be applied to the elephant in the room, that no one wants to point out !

Is Israel Freeloading Off The U.S. Military's Work In Afghanistan And Iraq? Yes they are and have been for some time now !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marknez21
04:13 AM on 08/16/2011
Israel freeloading off the US, we help Israel over $3 billion each year.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
patman77
07:39 PM on 08/15/2011
W and cheniburton ok'ed it ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TAIsabel
Suffer no fools.
06:38 PM on 08/15/2011
Why should they, they are financing it. It's like asking the bank that holds your mortgage to mow the lawn for you.

The Chinese have been conquering the world through trade for thousands of years. They know far more that we wiol ever learn.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
khanti
Cultivator
06:25 PM on 08/15/2011
I think Chna has a non interference policy. They only support UN sanctioned peace keeping forces.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:23 PM on 08/15/2011
Spoils of War for the Real Winner.
04:44 PM on 08/15/2011
I fail to see what is wrong with China's approach. The US should do the same with Libya and ride off France's military efforts. Instead it's the other way around.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gcymru5491
04:07 PM on 08/15/2011
India has been right about Pak. all along.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DAE
03:57 PM on 08/15/2011
So? Seems like the Chinese are being perfectly rational, pragmatic and reasonable in their diplomatic approach to the region.
02:54 PM on 08/15/2011
i'm not understanding the complaint here ---did china force the u.s. to attack anyone ???
03:15 PM on 08/15/2011
Bingo. Let's set aside the highly dubious notion that the U.S. military has any capacity for preventing "Islamist extremists to triumph" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. decided to invade these countries regardless of China's opinion on the matter.

Even if China now perceives the U.S. occupation to make those countries safer places to do business, we shouldn't expect it to now pony up and help support our military operations there. If we were to withdraw our forces, and if China then perceived a correlated increase in risk to its business enterprises, I would expect China simply to withdraw them, rather than start contributing to our occupation.

This is the kind of pragmatism that now seems to characterize the post-Mao, "new" China. Military adventurism and political imperialism no longer appear to be their priorities. They've been replaced by the drive to prosper financially.