China on Monday clarified that it had not “donated” two warships to Pakistan, but the transfer of vessels, apparently for the defence of Gwadar port, was part of legitimate “military trade” between the two countries.
“I have learnt that some reports said China has donated these vessels.
This is not correct. The report mentioned to surveillance ships. It is normal military trade cooperation with the two countries and complies with the international commitments of the two countries,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying at her regular press briefing.
Pakistani media reports on Monday said that China has handed over two ships to Pakistan Navy on Saturday to safeguard the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Ms. Hua added: “So I want clarify that it is not donation, it is military trade cooperation; Pakistani side bought these two ships from China.”
The Pakistani daily Dawn is reporting that the two ships would be deployed for “joint security” along the CPEC sea route.
However, the newspaper also carried a clarification by the Pakistan Maritime Security Agency (PMSA) that the two ships have not been provided exclusively for protecting Gwadar port. “The ships will be
employed in all maritime zones of Pakistan to undertake search and rescue operations,” the PMSA said.
Besides, the vessels were handed over to the agency in Guangzhou, China, and not at Gwadar, it observed.
The daily reported that China is building two more ships, named Dasht and Zhob, which will be delivered to the Pakistani navy soon.
In response to another question on whether China would reappraise its position this year on India’s demand for a ban on Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) chief Masood Azhar in the 1267 committee of the UN Security Council, Ms. Hua said that Beijing will continue remain engaged with “relevant parties on this”. India has sought a UN ban on the head of the JeM chief following last year’s attack on the Pathankot air base.
“China raised the technical hold to give more space for deliberation and consultation. It is a regret that no consensus has been reached so far. We need time for deliberation and consultation,” Ms. Hua said.
She pointed out that, “It is a regret that no consensus has been reached so far. We need more time for deliberations so as to reach consensus and the committee will follow relevant procedure and rules
of procedure. We will remain touch with relevant parties on this.”
The spokesperson also highlighted that China had not blocked India’s move to impose a ban on the JeM chief. “On Azhar issue I don't like the word block. As we have explained our position before, [on] this
question, the 1267 committee needs to base its decision on solid evidence and follow relevant resolutions and rules of procedure and make a decision based on consensus. The technical hold China proposed is to allow more time for consultation and deliberation.”
Analysts say that China’s resistance on the imposition of a ban on the JeM chief, has triggered an internal debate. In a recent blog posting on his WeChat account, Mao Siwei, China’s former Consul General in Kolkata argued that Masood Azhar is “a major issue that impacts China-India relations, and also constitutes the major element of the decline in the China and India relations in 2016”.
The spokesperson’s remarks follow observations by visiting French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayraultin in New Delhi that there are "very strong arguments in favour" of Azhar’s designation as an international terrorist.
In response to another query on remarks by outgoing US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Nisha Desai Biswal, that China was an “outlier” in blocking India’s membership to the
48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Ms. Hua said, that membership to the grouping cannot be compared to a “farewell gift” that countries give to each other.
“Regarding India’s application to the NSG, regarding non-NPT countries’ admission to the NSG, we have made our position clear before so I will not repeat it.” In a veiled reference to Ms. Biswal’s remarks, Ms. Hua added: “I just want to point out that NSG membership shall not [be] some kind of farewell gift for countries to give to each other.”
