China's Westward One Belt One Road Strategy

AndrewS said:

What is being done in Pakistan is pretty much what has just been done in China.

It's a struggle to see how the current CPEC projects won't pay off big time in the long-run

Pakistan has a huge electricity shortage. How can the CPEC power plants not help resolve this?

Modern roads and railways are also being built, and remember that Pakistan is a county with almost 200million people, which is almost two-thirds of a USA.

As for military involvement in CPEC, the military is the most competent institution in Pakistan, and way more organised than the civilian government.

And having the military making money from business is good at this stage, as business thrives better when there is peace and stability

Click to expand...

Very good comparison.

Agree to the view Pakistan military. Personally I don't care and I think Chinese leaders won't care if it is a general or a prime minister in charge in Pakistan, whoever is capable to lead the country should be in charge. Remember that the first link between China and Pakistan (pre-CPEC) the Karakorum highway was built by militaries from both China and Pakistan.

solarz said:

Technology is always changing, what is true today may not be true tomorrow. China is currently betting on railyway technology to match, if not surpass, the efficiency of sea shipping.

Land shipping has the advantage of being able to go directly to the destination instead of being forced to dock at specific ports. Furthermore, with sea shipping being so developed today, the inland nations are a source of new, virtually untapped markets. A highly developed rail network can distribute coastal wealth to inland regions.

Click to expand...

and most importantly, people live on land not in sea, people's need is the driving force for prosperity, so long that need is there whatever means that serves that purpose make profit. In this case, land route serves that purpose well.

Another point to make is that, China dropped land route (the decline of silk road) after the collapse of Yuan dynasty which lead to the fragmentation of central Asia and relying more on sea route. The change was not based on sea fairing cost, but rather because of the blockage of central Asia's turmoil.

taxiya said:

You have made many insightful points.

But it seems that you are implying that land based trading is less effective and less prevalence than sea based.

To this I disagree. You forget to count the long history before the European marine time expansion.
Central Asia has been very prosperous with big cities and civilizations relying on land based trade "the silk road" for more than 1000 years.
Few counter examples here:

1. The Persian empire.
2. The land empire built by Alexander the great in central Asia.
3. The Han and Tang dynasties' far penetrations into this area.
4. Pax Mongolica which made trade safe all the way from east coast of China to eastern Europe.

Click to expand...

Land based trading is much less effective and less prevalent than sea based trade.

There is a reason why ships carried the majority of Silk Road trade in the past, and why even inland cities were always founded next to a river.

And I wouldn't actually count the cities in Central Asia as big either now or in the past. Just look at the population densities even today.

To support large cities, you need:

1. a fertile local agricultural base which depends on rainfall or rivers
2. or to import food with a river port or seaport.

solarz said:

Technology is always changing, what is true today may not be true tomorrow. China is currently betting on railyway technology to match, if not surpass, the efficiency of sea shipping.

Land shipping has the advantage of being able to go directly to the destination instead of being forced to dock at specific ports. Furthermore, with sea shipping being so developed today, the inland nations are a source of new, virtually untapped markets. A highly developed rail network can distribute coastal wealth to inland regions.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, railway technology is unlikely to ever match the efficiency of sea shipping because.

1. Ships on the ocean are a lot simpler (and therefore cheaper) than trains on railway tracks
2. Container freight trains generally max out at 5000tonnes, whereas the latest container ships can carry 360,000 tonnes worth of containers.

China is not betting on railway technology to match sea shipping, but when you do have an inland area with at least some population, it does usually make sense to build a railway because it is cheaper than road transport.

On technological change, the next big thing is driverless trucks which should drastically lower land transport costs. That will apply particularly for cities which are currently more than a 10hour round trip drive from a port. They currently require either 2 drivers and/or an overnight stay, which is expensive.

Also, inland nations don't actually have much population (and therefore market potential) when compared to the coastal areas.

And what China has done recently is work on the Yangtse river.

"In 2016, freight traffic on the mainstream of the Yangtze River was 2.31 billion metric tons, while railways across the country carried 3.33 billion tons. The river handled 15.2 million containers last year."

Read More

AndrewS said:

Land based trading is much less effective and less prevalent than sea based trade.

There is a reason why ships carried the majority of Silk Road trade in the past, and why even inland cities were always founded next to a river.

And I wouldn't actually count the cities in Central Asia as big either now or in the past. Just look at the population densities even today.

To support large cities, you need:

1. a fertile local agricultural base which depends on rainfall or rivers
2. or to import food with a river port or seaport.

Click to expand...

But how would you explain the flourishing civilizations along the silk road in the past thousand years if you consider land based trading as less prevalent?

Marine time trading only flourished within Mediterranean sea before 1600s while land based routes has been the main way of Chinese trade until it was cut off after Yuan collapsed. How could this be evidence supporting your statements? China was the nr. 1 trader for most of the time, if her means of trade is not regarded as prevalent, whose can be.

As counting cities in Central Asia, they are only not big now, but they were big in the past. It is exactly the past that I used to support my post. By the time when cities in central Asia and Persian's were major inhabitant centers, Europe did not even have anything that qualify as city after the fall of Rome.

Yes, any cities need to be near water bodies, but they don't necessarily need rivers or seas to trade. Xi'an was the trading center without ships (they can go no where further than 50km in the Wei river). Persepolis did not rely on ships to keep it one of the biggest cities at her high time.

We have to look beyond the recent European marine time success in trading. That success was more due to the fact that Europe was blocking each other to conduct trade through land. You remember why the Portuguese decided to sail to India only mistakenly reached Americas? They would have choosen to go via land if Spain and France etc. did not block them to walk eastwards.

Your assertion is factually incorrect.

"More silk and Silk Road goods reached the West by way of sea routes rather than overland routes"



Remember that the historical Silk Road was essentially about small volumes of luxury imported goods of the time (silks, porcelain, etc).

Most trade then, and now, is for much larger volumes of lower value items, which favours seaborne commerce.

AndrewS said:

Your assertion is factually incorrect.

"More silk and Silk Road goods reached the West by way of sea routes rather than overland routes"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Remember that the historical Silk Road was essentially about small volumes of luxury imported goods of the time (silks, porcelain, etc).

Most trade then, and now, is for much larger volumes of lower value items, which favours seaborne commerce.

Click to expand...

China isn't ditching the sea route, she's consolidating it as well aa opening up an alternative on land. If what you say is accurate, and products over land were primarily small, expensive, non-bulk items, then that coincides well with China's move up the value chain. Small, expensive, non-bulk products are exactly the sort China will be increasingly exporting, while the low-cost, bulk products will be gradually taken up by SEA, SA, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. All this entails an increasing suitability of a land route to China's portfolio of exports.

AndrewS said:

Your assertion is factually incorrect.

"More silk and Silk Road goods reached the West by way of sea routes rather than overland routes"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Remember that the historical Silk Road was essentially about small volumes of luxury imported goods of the time (silks, porcelain, etc).

Most trade then, and now, is for much larger volumes of lower value items, which favours seaborne commerce.

Click to expand...

Yes but sea routes becomes land routes as goods are than transported onto 18 wheeler trucks, trains, barges for rivers and airplanes as well. One don't expect large container ships to strait up deliver those goods to land lock cities and towns.

Sea routes are meaningless if you live nowhere near the sea.

The OBOR initiative is as much about creating new markets to help develop China's western hinterland as it is about creating alternative trade lines to provide added strategic security.

OBOR is far more than just roads or rail, but connected and related infrastructure projects designed to transform the regions it passes through for the better. In doing so, China is helping to create goodwill and new customers and supply chains.

AndrewS said: ↑
What is being done in Pakistan is pretty much what has just been done in China.

It's a struggle to see how the current CPEC projects won't pay off big time in the long-run

Pakistan has a huge electricity shortage. How can the CPEC power plants not help resolve this?

Modern roads and railways are also being built, and remember that Pakistan is a county with almost 200million people, which is almost two-thirds of a USA.

As for military involvement in CPEC, the military is the most competent institution in Pakistan, and way more organised than the civilian government.

And having the military making money from business is good at this stage, as business thrives better when there is peace and stability

Click to expand...

In reference to above, below is what I posted on Silk Road thread...

Yes...

There is > 10000 MW projects currently under construction, actually near to completion. Some are in this year & some next year.

Current demand is 20000 & production is ~ 15000 & with these projects 10000 MW will be added in system (total 25000) which will be quite sufficient for next 6-7 years. Plus there is extensive rebuilding work is going on distribution lines as there was huge power loss earlier due to old lines.

Further, majority of current projects are based on Coal/Gas/Nuclear/Wind however, there are > 35000 MW Hydro Power projects are in different level of construction/planning/financing & feasibility stage & will be expected to be online in next 7-8 years.Below is what, I mentioned above earlier.....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to invest $50 Billion to develop Indus River Dames generate 40,000MW hydro electricity
Chinese side conducted survey and studies on the North Indus Cascade including the sites of , , , and in February 2017.

The Chinese government-owned CTG expressed an interest in financing projects in Pakistan The CTG owns and operates the Three Gorges Dam, the world’s largest hydroelectric power plant with a capacity of 22,500MW,

taxiya said:

Very good comparison.

Agree to the view Pakistan military. Personally I don't care and I think Chinese leaders won't care if it is a general or a prime minister in charge in Pakistan, whoever is capable to lead the country should be in charge. Remember that the first link between China and Pakistan (pre-CPEC) the Karakorum highway was built by militaries from both China and Pakistan.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier, political elite is the most corruptest & Pakistani don't trust them..... while Military is a professional & competent institution along with judiciary & have public trust as well.