You are mistaken here as well sir. AND it is not even about the cost yet. The logistics involved, the volumes transported, the infrastructure required all are and have always been in favor of sea routes.
You can't discuss that way without any numbers.
Take this as an example.
http://rbth.com/business/2015/06/16/china_launches_the_worlds_longest_freight_train_route_46921.html
Nops, this is not the case. In fact, they have taken a lot of pain in making those rivers feasible for barges. It is purely cost and logistics related. Also please note that the rail route would have surely created much much more jobs. A ship carrying 20000 container will need 400 trains carrying 50 container each to transport the same volume. You can easily figure out what will create more jobs if you want to.
That's a wrong way to compare. One ship may carry more when it comes to long distances. But 20,000 trucks can also carry the same as a large container ship. Ultimately, what matters more is the time it takes to reach a destination when you use a faster means of transport for particular goods. For example, an electronics company would prefer a faster means of transport even if it is more expensive, like air cargo, if it means it can get its products to consumers sooner because when they release products their biggest sales happen in a few weeks after release. They can't wait 50 days for it to travel all across the world.
That link above shows the type of companies that plan to use rail transport. Their products are expensive, so the transportation costs are not as important as time. 15 days on land is better than 60 days in the sea for such companies.
But a coal company would prefer to use a ship because his per Kg profit is much lower than a car company.
That's why I said some companies would prefer using the Gwadar port versus the Chabahar port. Chabahar port provides massive road and rail advantages along with possible customs advantages versus Gwadar which will have capacity limits within Pakistan. Iran has an overall better rail and road connectivity than Pakistan. Iran transported more goods per kilometers even though their population is 2.5 times smaller than Pakistan's.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.RRS.GOOD.MT.K6
I meant to point out the fact that there is no free lunch in international relations. Isn't this what we are told time and time again in case of US-Pak and CHina Pak relations? The truth is that i agree with this in all these cases as well.
Yes, there are no free lunches, but in your case the Chinese are buying you lunch and eating yours. I already told you, what the Chinese are doing is giving you loans, what India is doing is making investments. Investments are always better than loans, they come in as FDI.
I have pointed you in the right direction a number of times, i told you about the geographic location, i mentioned the different roles both these ports are set to play. I mentioned the comparison of China vs India influence as well as Pakistan vs Afghanistan or Iran influence. I also pointed out that this is not a port-road network for us and there is a lot more to it then this. I mentioned the sea route vs rail/road link advantages/disadvantages. Sir i think i have given you all the points that you can study about to get the facts straight. However if you insist on drawing up the conclusion you were looking for from first post then it wont matter what i have said or tried to explain. I can just hope that you can study these points and see if it helps. Else, as said, we will just keep going round and round in circles.
And in exchange I gave you numbers.
China's or India's or even America's influence is pointless. What matters more is the way Iran or Pakistan attracts business from other countries by giving competitive rates and ease of bureaucracy. China can't influence another country to use the Silk Road because the people who use these trade routes are companies and individuals, not countries. They cannot be influenced with diplomacy, only money. So your only selling points are lower rates, ease of bureaucracy and in Pakistan's specific case, security.
Geographic location is not Pakistan's advantage either. What matters is connectivity. There's no point in being closer to China if all your trains are booked for months and the harsh terrain doesn't allow major expansion. China plans to connect itself to Europe through Tehran, not Islamabad.
If NSTC reduces the cost of goods travel by as much as 30% and time of travel by 40% compared to the Suez, then that's an incredible advantage to have. So I'm afraid your points don't stand against the numbers that I've presented.
I'm afraid that you think I have come to a conclusion based on some vague points, but that's not true. The advantage of Chabahar and NSTC rest on two simple facts. NSTC is cheaper than the Suez and Iran has better connectivity compared to Pakistan. That's about it. Everything else depends on how the trader goes about it.
For example, let's say an African company uses Gwadar to transport goods to China and Europe and he needs a ship with 10000 containers capacity. He would then need to get the goods cleared by Pak customs and then have them transported to China. But for the goods meant for Europe, he would have to get it cleared in Iran again. And this time, Iran may create conditions, like, higher transit fees from Pakistan and negligible transit fees from Chabahar. The goods have to travel through Iran anyway, so the African company may end up paying more if he goes through Gwadar. You can also say that he can split his goods into two, one to Europe via Iran and the other to China via Pakistan. But that would mean he would have to charter two different ships of lesser capacity which is more expensive than one ship. And he would have to pay port fees at two different ports.
It won't work the other way either, like a company uses Chabahar to then transport goods across Pakistan into China because Pak will reciprocate Iran's higher transit fees with higher fees of their own.
You see where I am going with this. If the African company uses Chabahar, he can split his goods in Iran and they can head to Europe or China using the Silk Road or NSTC, his choice. And Silk Road goods will have much lower transit fees and easier regulations than if the company had to move goods to Europe through the Pak-Iran route.
Unless a company is shipping goods only to China or Pakistan, I don't see any company being advantaged by Gwadar in any way.
