Critics argue that China’s failure to contribute troops to Iraq and Afghanistan mean it’s reaping the economic rewards without the security pain. It’s not so simple.
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.
Photo Credit: The US Army
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Benjamin C.Padilla
What will become no matter what all may say USA will not fall to its kness let no one be more supiror than them regaurdless of any implications or dilemmas USA will stay in existin even IF it means to do the unthinkable now thats reality. call it what you may, welcome to reality.
Matt
The PRC and Russia are more than welcome in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact we promote it and the US military has promoted investment in Iraq. It helps prevent sectarian war as Pakistan and Iran in the case of Iraq are limited in creating sectarian warfare. See the thing about sectarian warfare it is unpredictable and uncontrollable. If the Russians and PRC lose their investment they will be less supportive at the UN to show their displeasure.
Octavian
Investment in the aforementioned regions should have been based on military contribution. No boots, no precious metals & fossil fuel. Plain and simple.
Leonard R.
I like how Octavian thinks.
Leonard R.
The leaders of the CCP are not entirely stupid. That is what separates them from American political leaders.
The idea of Chinese & American troops cooperating in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else is one of the most idiotic suggestions I’ve heard in a long time.
After NATO leaves, the PLA will have its fun in Afghanistan.
And it will lose just like every other invader has lost in that place.
There is nothing to win there. Success in Afghanistan is measured by how badly you are defeated.
The only people who managed to manage Afghanistan were Mongols. And Hu Jintao & the other ‘little emperors’ don’t add up to one Genghis Khan, neither does Barack Obama.
The Chinese will have one leg up there. At least they’ll be up-front about their motives. They’ll go into Afghanistan to take valuable stuff. I wish the US would start thinking like that again.
Jeff
The complaint that China is somehow “free-riding” is utterly retarded, for the Chinese have paid for these wars with their continued purchase of U.S. treasuries.
Oliver
So what you’re saying is if a bank gives you a mortgage loan to buy a house, then the bank is buying the house, not you?
Buying U.S. Treasuries is the same as lending money to the government of the United States. China is lending us money, not giving it to us. We will have to pay every single penny of it back to China, with interest.
China didn’t pay for Iraq. We did. Was it a wise investment?
Sam
For which they get interest and capital appreciation especially in this low/zero interest environment and repayment of principal if the US stays solvent that long which it probably will. The treasury buys also help the Chinese keep their currency artificially low and thus help their exporters. So they are more than well paid for their investtment as the US pays in lives and treasure
ozivan
@Richard Weitz : ‘We do the heavy lifting…And they pick the fruit.’
The Chinese have an equivalent saying :’ Some one dug the well…and we get to drink from it ‘
It’s in the Chinese psyche any where in the world , that they always keep away from any project that spend money without gain.
Oliver
And the United States during both WWI and WWII did exactly that… so much for your “Chinese psyche”
ozivan
@Oliver. Care to elaborate what you wrote ? … And the United States during both WWI and WWII did exactly that….
What did the US gained and in what form ? I ask you not to read my request as sinister, just want to know more.
Regards.
yang zi
the author has the right way of looking at this. China’s involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa is positive. yet some say it is new colonialism in Africa. it is not, it contributes to the prosperity of these places and world peace.
However, I do think China can either send troops to Afghanistan or allow supplies to go through its border.I guess it doesn’t want to infuriate radical Muslims.
Girish
China is avoid military contribution till the time it can avoid and till the time West can ignore China eating the fruits without taking any pain.
It is not difficult for West to make a damage to Chinese investments in these countries as they virtually control the security there. Few loses, will make China understand the importance of contribution and they will surely do it in coming time. If not by providing forces, but surely it will provide the funds and non military items.
And this is going to happen now in coming time as US/EU without money, they cannot continue these wars and let China eat the fruits without spending anything for the security of its investment.
Yang zi
You are looking at this wrong. China is not picking fruits, it is helping, it does not need to go there, but went anyway. China is the best choice for these countries because it is best experienced with lowest cost. It got the contract through a fair bidding process. Your complaint tastes like sour grapes
Girish
I am NOT questioning China neither I am questioning what it is doing in other countries. Also, I am the one who is anti China or any other country.
What China or others are doing is pure Business [and not charity, double quotes]
It is the self interest which governs the world polities and economy.
What I am saying is that the West is now looking for more contribution from China in so called maintaining the environment in these country under which business can flourish. So far China is doing business under the security umbrella provided by West. So far the way China is doing is a good strategic move and every intelligent country will do it [if it can].
Now the only question is for how long China can continue this way and West do not oppose it. Think from Strategic point of view. West cannot digest this fact that they are spending money for security and China is doing pure business.
And that is the reason why we are reading this article as well.
Girish
Typo : “I am NOT the one who is anti China or any other country”
Sam
China does need to go everywhere in the world where it can find raw materials to feed its hungry billions. If it truly wanted to help the African countries where it gets its imports it would increase the locally manufactured content of its products as much as possible, improve the education of the populace there so that they can produce the entire value chain locally and export directly to the end user or consumer from the same local country. What China does is mercantilist, it takes everything to China as close to raw material state as possible to add value in China and exports the finished goods at many times the price of the raw material back in many instances to the country of origin depriving the local economy of the full range of benefits – education, skill development, employment and its attendant social benefits that is due them. In addition, unlike the British and other colonialists, it employs Chinese labor in these countries so even the mining of the raw materials do not benefit the local populace who are treated like vagrants in their own land and are left with polluted natural resources, rivers, open mine pits etc. after the raw materials are removed and purified for shipment to China! How one can do that with a clear conscience is beyond me. China is absolutely picking fruits and leaving the rotting cores behind after eating the fruits in somebody else’s country.
ozivan
Hi..Girish. I posted a comment on Indian politics in the article : Krishna Strikes Again.
Would you like to participate ?
Girish
Is that your way of telling other to read about your post?
Aren’t you waiting the space?
ozivan
@Girish. Yes and No. Firstly…Nope, by asking you to participate in Krishna Strikes Again , it was my subtle way of telling you to look into your own backyard first before you comment on others, when you recommended :
” It is not difficult for West to make a damage to Chinese investments in these countries as they virtually control the security there ”
There’s bad intent on your part about China.
Then Secondly…Yes, I want other bloggers to know India have as much problems as China have , but if you read my comments, I have no ill intent for India , just baffled !? but hope and wish well for India.
The difference ? It’s either one wants good for another or wish misfortune on another.
Some anti-China bloggers through their comments frequently wish misfortunes fall on the Chinese nation.
Girish
@ozivan
Which country are you from which has no backyard issues? and that you can comment on others countires related matters and I cannot?
I am curious to know? Please tell me?
ozivan
@Girish. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
John Chan
@Sam:
Your comment is a repeat of anti-China clique’s standard talk lines to smear China’s achievement in Africa in order to white wash the West’s ugly colonial past in Africa. For the last few hundred years the westerns dig holes in Africa for minerals disregard the destruction of local environment, sold Africans as slaves without consciences, divided Africa with arbitrary borderlines so that they can profit from the wars caused by those lines, etc.
China build Africa with business, education, transportation, etc. that have never crossed westerners’ mind in the last few hundred years while they were colonizing Africa with brutal suppression. How can the westerners do that with a clear conscience is beyond everyone’s mind?
Now that the westerners is jealous and resentful what China has been helping Africa, they are smearing China with fabricated facts to no end. The West’s scorn for the China’s achievement in Africa is pure sour grapes.
Inmyforces
I have a friend who live in Africa who deals with the Chinese first hand, and it isn’t pretty. Instead of hiring locals to do the work, the bring in Chinese nationals to complete the work, and once the work is done they strip the area bare of the resources they came for, and leave the populace with infrastructure the Africans cannot operate or maintain. The politicians at the top reap all the monetary benefits and the rest of the populace continues to live in grinding poverty. This is not to “whitewash” Europe’s colonial past, just calling it like it is, and the Chinese really are no better.