What's new

China's String of Pearls?

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
32,563
Reaction score
98
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
China's String of Pearls?

February 13, 2013

Stratfor
By Robert D. Kaplan
Chief Geopolitical Analyst


The New York Times recently reported that China apparently has agreed to take over the operations of a $200 million port it built for Pakistan in Gwadar, on the Indian Ocean close to the Iranian border and close to the entrance to the Persian Gulf. We'll see if this actually happens. If it does, it will be geopolitically significant. To a greater degree than other Indian Ocean ports that China has either built, helped finance or upgraded, Gwadar is plagued by considerable security problems, as I found out during a visit there in 2008. It is in a remote region of Pakistan affected by Baloch separatism. And Baloch leaders I interviewed specifically threatened the building of a Chinese pipeline from Gwadar. Some years ago, China sat back and let a Singaporean firm run the new Gwadar port. At roughly the same time, Beijing shelved plans to build a nearby refinery. In 2011, when Pakistan publicly asked China to take over the port from the Singaporeans, China said no. China already has the Pakistani port of Karachi effectively for use, notes Indian analyst C. Raja Mohan. China has clearly been hedging its bets on Gwadar.

China's ostensible willingness to suddenly take the next step in Gwadar comes while the United States is in the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Were Afghanistan to even partially stabilize following the withdrawal of U.S. troops, it would conceivably open up supply routes connecting Gwadar to Central Asia, and ultimately to China. This would ease China's so-called "Malacca dilemma," in which China is too dependent on the Strait of Malacca (and the nearby Lombok and Makassar straits) for the importation of hydrocarbons from the Middle East. China is already building roads and railways into Central Asia and has demonstrated, in its construction of parts of the Karakoram highway in southwestern China and northern Pakistan, its ability to surmount logistical obstacles. A spur road and pipeline from Gwadar would allow for the transfer of energy and other goods from the Middle East without having to rely on the Strait of Malacca. China would also be able to establish a listening post near the Persian Gulf were it to actually operate Gwadar.

China's Malacca dilemma will be further alleviated this summer when Beijing expects another port and pipeline complex it has built to be operational: one taking oil and natural gas from the Indian Ocean off the Myanmar coast and transporting it from Kyaukpyu in Rakhine state across north-central Myanmar into southern China's Yunnan province. Myanmar's ethnic unrest poses a security challenge to the Chinese pipeline, perhaps a reason that China is active in mediating disputes between the Myanmar regime and one of its disaffected ethnic armies.

Given all of these projects, it is a great age in history to be a Chinese civil engineer. I observed firsthand in 2009 the building of the massive Hambantota port complex by the Chinese in southern Sri Lanka, in the north-central Indian Ocean, which officially opened the following year. China, according to reports, is also involved in the building of a mooring container terminal and a nearby bridge in the Bangladeshi port city of Chittagong, while also reportedly aiding in the construction of a deep-water port on Bangladesh's Sonadia Island in the northeastern Indian Ocean.

Furthermore, the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, among other sources, reports that China is a potential lead investor in a port and pipeline project to transport oil from southern Sudan to Lamu, on Kenya's northern coast, in the western Indian Ocean.

This array of Indian Ocean ports has been dubbed China's "string of pearls." Those skeptical of the concept have said that China has little desire or capacity to build naval bases in these places. But the string of pearls was never properly meant to imply naval bases per se. It is a far subtler concept, as I fully elaborated upon in my 2010 book, Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power. In my reporting trips to Gwadar, Hambantota and other Indian Ocean ports where the Chinese have been active, I described a possible commercial, political, strategic and lastly military venture, the constituent elements of which cannot be disaggregated. To be sure, we live in a post-modern world of eroding distinctions: a world where coast guards sometimes act more aggressively than navies, where sea power is civilian as well as military, where access denial can be as relevant as the ability to engage in fleet-on-fleet battle and where the placement of warships is vital less for sea battles than for diplomatic ones.

China, moreover, has historic roots in the Indian Ocean going back to the Song and early Ming dynasties. In particular, the Chinese regime recently spent a considerable amount of money in a public relations campaign to resurrect the legacy of Ming Dynasty Adm. Zheng He, who plied the seas between China, the East Indies, Sri Lanka, the Persian Gulf and the Horn of Africa in the 15th century. Zheng He's route took him to all the places where China is now involved in port projects: It is the same route that ships must take to bring Middle Eastern hydrocarbons to China.

In addition to an increasing energy reliance on the Middle East, China is also more and more heavily involved in trade, development and natural resource extraction with the Middle East and the African continent. The Indian Ocean lies in between: The Indian Ocean is the maritime organizing principle for a 21st century Eurasian world in which East Asia and the Middle East increasingly interact. In this vein, places like Gwadar, Hambantota and Kyaukpyu can become commercial throughput and warehousing facilities for products transiting between the Middle East and East Asia, of which China is the dominant nation. Strategically, it provides the equivalent of 19th century coaling stations for China's emerging commercial empire. Of course, empires are never declared: rather, as in the case of Great Britain and Venice, they gradually evolve over decades and centuries as a result of domestic dynamism, commercial opportunism and foreign necessity.

China realizes the use of these ports will always be dependent upon good political and economic relations with the host country, which is why China has been active on all economic and political fronts in helping Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and so on. Indeed, China may be Pakistan's most reliable political ally. Beijing also helped the Sri Lankan regime win a civil war against ethnic Tamil rebels. And China competes with India over aid to Bangladesh.

As for the use of these deep-water, state-of-the-art ports by Chinese warships, given China's close political and economic ties with these littoral states, as well as the political benefit that comes from helping to build and finance the ports themselves, it is only natural to expect that over the coming years and decades Chinese warships -- along with Chinese commercial vessels -- will pay port visits and use the bunkering facilities offered. China certainly does not need to dominate the Western Pacific in order to have a naval presence in the Indian Ocean. There are already Chinese destroyers and supply vessels journeying to the Horn of Africa to fight piracy, and as China's power grows even more in waters closer by -- in the South and East China seas -- escalating operations into the Indian Ocean would only be natural.

China is expanding its fleet of nuclear as well as diesel-electric submarines. Nuclear warships -- because they don't have to be refueled and are limited only by the amount of food they can carry for their crews -- are exactly what a nation with blue-water, oceanic ambitions like China desires. Nobody I know in Washington expects the Chinese to dominate two oceans or even one, but quite a few foresee China as a significant naval power in both the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean as the decades advance, checked by the U.S. Navy and others in a complex, multipolar military environment.

China's commercial and strategic expansion into the Indian Ocean faces several hurdles -- sheer distance, local security problems, etc. But the most important hurdle is the internal stability of China itself. China's economy, already in trouble, could dramatically deteriorate to the point where China's one-party state, and the domestic cohesion it offers, might become undone. Were China to face serious and sustained unrest, its activities abroad would be compromised.

In the meantime, the port projects continue to progress. In Beijing, I was told that the whole concept of the string of pearls is only a matter of individual Chinese construction companies responding on their own to local opportunities offered in littoral countries. That is true, up to a point. But I was also told by Communist Party officials that China has a right to be in the Indian Ocean. As I said, the concept of the so-called string of pearls is true provided it is nuanced. The Chinese themselves may not have a fleshed-out game plan or grand strategy for the Indian Ocean. They are feeling their way forward, pushing up against constraints in the only way they know how. Thus, all one can do is point out trends as they emerge..

Read more: China's String of Pearls? | Stratfor
 
.
We were just trying to secure our resource and trade routes...

... then suddenly ONE American defence report comes out mentioning something they referred to as a "String of Pearls"...

Now everyone in the region is buying it! Talk about American soft power. :lol:

For the record, China's official policy is NO MILITARY BASES OVERSEAS. As has been stated countless numbers of times.
 
.
China has absolutely no military base in Hambantota in Sri Lanka. And the Sri Lankan Premier has expressly cleared GoI's doubts by categorically stating that Hambantota port is a commercial port and will not host any Chinese military now or in the future. No action would be taken by Sri Lanka that would undermine India's security.


I dont know about Gwadar. Pakistani Govt is always eager to please China. Maybe they would allow military facilities as well. For now, it appears to be a commercial operation
 
.
I don't buy 'String of Pearls' theory, i think this is a deliberate attempt by Western powers to raise the fear factor of regional powers vis-a-vis China, esp. that of India. What China is doing is very much in alignment to what any other regional power with increasing Global ambitions would have done - THINKING ABOUT IT'S OWN NATIONAL INTERESTS.

US for last 5-6 decades is doing the same with it's military bases all over the world, so do India is in the process of same with it's policies like Look East where it has formed Strategic alliances with Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Myanmar, etc.

Just b'coz all western media is reporting 'String of Pearls' of late, doesn't mean that other countries are not forming such Strings which cater to there own NATIONAL INTERESTS, it's just which side of the story one believes in.
 
.
China has absolutely no military base in Hambantota in Sri Lanka. And the Sri Lankan Premier has expressly cleared GoI's doubts by categorically stating that Hambantota port is a commercial port and will not host any Chinese military now or in the future. No action would be taken by Sri Lanka that would undermine India's security.


I dont know about Gwadar. Pakistani Govt is always eager to please China. Maybe they would allow military facilities as well. For now, it appears to be a commercial operation

Maybe Pakistan is willing to allow military facilities at Gwadar, but i m really skeptic if China will make it a military base in the near future. Currently, China is seriously occupied with the new US Asia Pivot, Taiwan, SCS issue, etc (i.e in the East). Opening a military base in Gwadar will bring it in direct confrontation with India in case there is an Indo-Pak war (a sort of second front in the west), though India is no match to Chinese military power, China still can't ignore the fourth most capable concentration of military power (acc. to CIA) in the world.

Opening of such base will force India to seriously consider the Vietnamese offer to open an Indian Naval base in Vietnam, thus bringing a new powerful player to entire SCS dispute, which China will never like.
 
. .
I agree, I donot think China will open a military base even if Pakistan offers it.

All this already happened in 2011.

Financial Times - Pakistan turns to China for naval base

May 22, 2011

Pakistan has asked China to build a naval base at its south-western port of Gwadar and expects the Chinese navy to maintain a regular presence there, a plan likely to alarm both India and the US.

“We have asked our Chinese brothers to please build a naval base at Gwadar,” Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar, Pakistan’s defence minister, told the Financial Times, confirming that the request was conveyed to China during a visit last week by Yusuf Raza Gilani, Pakistan’s prime minister.

In May 2011, Pakistan asked us to build a Naval Base at Gwadar. But we didn't.

Our policy is "no overseas military bases". That's it.
 
. . .

Contrarian, don't you think that China rejecting the Pakistani proposal of turning Gwadar into a Naval Base entirely contradicts the premise of the String of Pearls theory?

I mean, if we want to set up Naval Bases in the IOR then why on Earth are we turning these proposals down?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
China is an intelligent nation. To become a developed and superpower nation, China will try improving its relations with India especially trade. India also wants China as trusted neighbor for its own growth and for regional stability.

After all its matter of lives of 2.5 billion people out of total 7 billion people in the world.

Both nations HAVE to be good neighbors otherwise it will be a disaster. For sake of world peace, both nations have to take the charge because those who had the Peace flag gave us WW 1, WW 2, Afghan War, Terrorism, Iraq war, Vietnam War and countless many conflicts still going on today.

Both have world's oldest civilizations with cultural ties for centuries. If we can't work it now like our forefathers did prior to 1962 and back centuries, we should be ashamed for this hostility.
 
.
Contrarian, don't you think that China rejecting the Pakistani proposal of turning Gwadar into a Naval Base entirely contradicts the premise of the String of Pearls theory?

I mean, if we want to set up Naval Bases in the IOR then why on Earth are we turning these proposals down?
@Chinese-Dragon i understand that China has a no foreign military bases policy, but believe me, it will not last for long. Currently China is giving more importance to it's economic growth than to it's political, military or Diplomatic growth. Once it sees that it has grown sufficiently & is on the verge to challenge the US supremacy on this world, it will seriously think to open bases wherever possible, this is how all Big Boys do or did, this is what UK, USA, USSR did. Infact, this is what even India is currently doing with a base in Tajikistan, listening post in madagascar, etc.

Being a Superpower literally translates into influence all over the world & to the extent that the country can take military actions all around the world to safeguard what it thinks are it's national interests, How will China become one when its reach will be limited since it doesn't have any oversees military bases??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@Chinese-Dragon i understand that China has a no foreign military bases policy, but believe me, it will not last for long. Currently China is giving more importance to it's economic growth than to it's political, military or Diplomatic growth.

Once it sees that it has grown sufficiently & is on the verge to challenge the US supremacy on this world, it will seriously think to open bases wherever possible, this is how all Big Boys do or did, this is what UK, USA, USSR did. Infact, this is what even India is currently doing with a base in Tajikistan, listening post in madagascar, etc.

Being a Superpower literally translates into influence all over the world & to the extent that the country can take military actions all around the world, How will China become one when its reach will be limited since it doesn't have any oversees military bases??

And how many more years of economic growth are "sufficient" for us to reach an acceptable level of power and development (enough to challenge the USA)? Several more decades at least.

Until then, this policy of "no overseas military bases" isn't going to change.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Contrarian, don't you think that China rejecting the Pakistani proposal of turning Gwadar into a Naval Base entirely contradicts the premise of the String of Pearls theory?

I mean, if we want to set up Naval Bases in the IOR then why on Earth are we turning these proposals down?

No. Turning down the Gwadar scenario is quite sensible for China. Pakistan has more baggage's than advantage in setting up a military base.

Pakistan as such is an instable country, a Balochistan in particular is a very volatile region where the local population dislikes foreigners. There is an active insurgency in Balochistan. And there have been examples of Chinese citizens being killed by them.
Pakistan, unlike China cannot kill off these insurgencies with a heavy hand in today's information age.

And it is obvious that Pakistan is trying to get China to set up a base to get security cover in that region, particularly piss off the Americans and Indians. Get international recognition that Pakistan is a stable country, while getting Chinese to be even more committed to Pakistan's security!

Whereas all that China wants is a pipeline from Gwadar to China and a trade route. Both of which cannot be defended by PLAN even while sitting at Gwadar port.

Secondly, were PLAN to maintain a base at Gwadar, they would need to be supplied massively and any connection inevitably goes from Malacca Straits, which is very very vulnerable by both Indian and US Navy.

Thirdly, while Pakistan wants China to be involved in security of Pakistan, Pakistan's actions on international stage - like supporting terrorism, Taliban, occupying Kargil, its military fostering islamic insurgents from all over the globe would inevitably put China in a tough spot were the international community to get riled by Pakistan's actions.

And China has a lot more trade with these countries than the main benefit that Pakistan provides - a shorter route for oil and a way to keep India occupied.

So from a cost-benefit perspective, it does not make any sense for China to have a military base in Pakistan.

However as for a military base in other countries - I would not have an idea. Sri Lanka has expressly denied that their port would ever be given for military purposes, it is solely a commercial port.
 
.
And how many more years of economic growth are "sufficient" for us to reach an acceptable level of power and development (enough to challenge the USA)? Several more decades at least.

Until then, this policy of "no overseas military bases" isn't going to change.

The thing is that Chinese economy is roughly half of US economy as of, there are speculations that by 2020 or so, China will cross the entire US GDP, but we should not forget that China will still have to cover a backlog of some past 50-60 years when it's GDP was simply no match for the US, same is the equation with military power.

Agreed with you, atleast some decades will pass before China can claim complete economic & military superiority which can't even be challenged by the US, before that this is the way to go.....
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom