Future PLAN Forecast Thread: Number, disposition, etc.

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
¦^ÂÃ: The PLAN's Future Areas of Operation

having a naval presence in Indian Ocean and at the mouth of the Persian Gulf is important, even France is setting up a land base in Abu Dhabi and for that Gwader provides the perfect location, situated exactly where China needs to be

I hope Pakistan can expand Gwader port and also make it a home for its naval fleet, then PLAN could make visits any time it needs to and also station its naval assets there including nuclear submarines, this would send a clear message to trouble makers in the area, and will also provide China much quicker deployment/access to trouble spots in the Western areas for example Gulf of Aden/Africa etc

Americans are buzzing that area and it can give China chance to "eavesdrop" on American activity

eventually setting up a joint naval task force between Sino-Pak which will enable them to conduct joint operations in and around the Indian Ocean
 

Spartan95

Junior Member
so china isnt building ports in Burma, Sri lanka and Gwader?

It is important to note that the "String of Pearls" is an term coined by western analysts. It is not part of PLAN's doctrine (unlike the 1st and 2nd Island Chain) that is known publicly.

While it is true that PRC is indeed financing construction of ports in several countries, there are not news about basing arrangements for PLAN warships at these ports. This is an important point to note that western analysts seem to have largely ignored.

Regarding the ports, my view is that it is largely to win friends, which is similar to PRC's investments in Africa and latin America (hey no "String of Pearls" to Brazil huh? I wonder why....). Of the ports mentioned, the one in Myanmar is probably of direct importance to PRC since it will allow goods to be transported directly over land to Yunnan/Kunming. This beats shipping stuff all the way to PRC's eastern seaboard and than transporting it west to these land-locked provinces. Hence, this will help to spur economic development of these provinces (spreading development westward in PRC).

Myanmar will also benefit from this, which is a good thing as it should ensure that Myanmar is more stable.
 

i.e.

Senior Member
It is important to note that the "String of Pearls" is an term coined by western analysts. It is not part of PLAN's doctrine (unlike the 1st and 2nd Island Chain) that is known publicly.

While it is true that PRC is indeed financing construction of ports in several countries, there are not news about basing arrangements for PLAN warships at these ports. This is an important point to note that western analysts seem to have largely ignored.

Regarding the ports, my view is that it is largely to win friends, which is similar to PRC's investments in Africa and latin America (hey no "String of Pearls" to Brazil huh? I wonder why....). Of the ports mentioned, the one in Myanmar is probably of direct importance to PRC since it will allow goods to be transported directly over land to Yunnan/Kunming. This beats shipping stuff all the way to PRC's eastern seaboard and than transporting it west to these land-locked provinces. Hence, this will help to spur economic development of these provinces (spreading development westward in PRC).

Myanmar will also benefit from this, which is a good thing as it should ensure that Myanmar is more stable.

Yeah,
The port in Sri Lanka, Pak, Burma are pretty much all commercial companies seeking expansion .

The much hyped up coco-island thing in Burma turns out to be false. and the only one who is doing expansion these days in indian ocean are Indian Military, citing a phantom chinese expansion/ string of pearls strategy.

by the same token, Hutchingson-Whompo operates ports all around the world.
and COSCO leases port facility in Greece's biggest port, biggest in eastern med.

So If one plots those ports and shipping facilities owned by HK/Chinese concerns on the map, I am not sure those are string of pearls any more, more like a coverage of entire globe.

very soon you are going into absurd territories.
 

Geographer

Junior Member
I bought into the "String of Pearls" thing until this spring when I read an article in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
debunking it.
Indeed, to date the controversial theory is based more on speculation than fact. According to the 2005 Washington Post article that galvanized the debate, the "String of Pearls" refers to China's supposed aim to leverage diplomatic and commercial ties to build strategic bases stretching from the Middle East to southern China in order to protect its energy interests as well as "broader security objectives".
Sri Lanka's Hambantota port, yet another alleged "pearl", was previously a small fishing harbor on the country's southern coast and is located on the primary sea route connecting Europe to Asia. Sri Lanka has proposed to build a modern port facility near the existing harbor and first pitched the idea in 2005 to India, which had already refurbished the World War II-vintage oil-tank farm at Trincomalee. New Delhi was not interested in the project and China later agreed to fill the financing gap.
Although China contributed an estimated 80% of Gwadar's construction costs, the port has actually been run by the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) since 2007 and contractually will be for the next 40 years. Business in Gwadar has been slow, partly due to the proximity of the competing Chabahar port in Iran that India helped construct.
In short, what appears to be normal Chinese investment in infrastructure for commercial purposes has been in South Asia interpreted as a military move. The investments may prove strategically important but their purpose of expanding China's military power into the Indian Ocean is largely a myth.
 

i.e.

Senior Member
This thread got this "tendency":

When there is a claim, as long as it is coming from OTHER SOURCES, even the claim is being politically accusing China, that post itself will not be considered hostlie to fourm rule.

But if some member fights back, that crys out "I am not aggressive, in fact, it is YOU being aggressive all the time!", that post is having tendency to be consider political flaming.

I don't want to add more fire to this issue, but I do suggest, if this professional fourm is going to maintein its political neutral, Mods need to constantly delete those political flaming "Citation of other sources" as well.

"Citing others" dose not give one the right to preaching flame (if not rubbish) around. Otherwise, EVERYBODY can do this: I write some rubbish at other fourm / blog, and I citing those rubbish as some kind of claim, at this fourm. - what's next?

Yeah it is not only this forum.
but it is pretty much all forums based outside of china/ has a predominate western audience.

The fact is the mainstream view in the west is that china is the bogieman.
it is the new brain washed norm.
this is what 60 years of anti-communist/anti-china propaganda do to you.
 

Red___Sword

Junior Member
Yeah it is not only this forum.
but it is pretty much all forums based outside of china/ has a predominate western audience.

The fact is the mainstream view in the west is that china is the bogieman.
it is the new brain washed norm.
this is what 60 years of anti-communist/anti-china propaganda do to you.

Buddy, you risk being granting a holyday, SALUTE!

As the NON-DISPUTABLE sovereignty territory Chinese South Sea, some call it, South China Sea, as they call the little spot SHARED by two Koreas, Japan, Russia and China - the name of "Sea of Japan" - shows a little ATTITUDE of the media.

As the "South China Sea" thread closed, without intention to change the topic into a too political one, I would like to add here, that China (with her PLAN and maritime law enforcements), used to have NO means to adequately administrate the area of Chinese South Sea, but now with adequately equipted "means of enforcement" - South Sea is going to be an "Area of Operation" for Chinese law enforcements, and backed up by PLAN, while not necessarily everytime PLAN go there (make a presence) to "raise tension" to the surrounding countries, it would be definitely "better administrated", by other enforcement bodys.

Chinese netizens got this saying, if you can not actually administrate your own backyard, forget going elsewhere for "future areas of operations".
 
Last edited:

Red___Sword

Junior Member
Pardon my ignorance, but how does China get into the Sea of Japan?

I assuming you are refering to my post?

hehe, it is an old political & historical BS. Simply put, there are arguable (and negotiable) claims for China to take some "way out" to sea of japan, although it is for some (dum) political reason for China to "give" those soil to Korea handsomely at first place. (not to mention the czar "got" this part of soil in a "better-no-to-mention" way, it is a too old topic to talk here)

The point is, of all the players surrounding "that spot", they name it "sea of japan", emotionally showing the favor. And if you read Chinese, 中国南海 and 南中国海 got "too different taste" to be mixed, that's why grammarly, I use the term "Chinese South Sea".
 

Geographer

Junior Member
used to have NO means to adequately administrate the area of Chinese South Sea, but now with adequately equipted "means of enforcement" - South Sea is going to be an "Area of Operation" for Chinese law enforcements, and backed up by PLAN, while not necessarily everytime PLAN go there (make a presence) to "raise tension" to the surrounding countries, it would be definitely "better administrated", by other enforcement bodys.
Good point. Many countries got a little too used to China's weakness and are startled now that China is finally enforcing territorial claims it has made for over sixty years.
 
Top