Pakistan's Black Pearl

The hype about a Chinese-built port on the Arabian Sea says more about Islamabad's desperation than it does about Beijing's imperial ambitions.

BY URMILA VENUGOPALAN | JUNE 3, 2011

State visits between friendly countries seldom produce surprises or unscripted moments, but the recent trip to China by top Pakistani officials managed to do just that.

Upon returning to Islamabad, the defense minister, Ahmed Mukhtar, made two eyebrow-raising announcements: first, that Beijing had agreed to take over operation of Gwadar port in Baluchistan, and, second, that he had invited the Chinese to build a naval base there. China's leaders, seemingly caught unaware by these statements, promptly denied them


Photos of Beijing's Blue-Water Navy
Is China building an empire on the sea?

Nevertheless, Mukhtar's seemingly ad-libbed remarks revived the debate about China's ambitions in southwest Asia. For example, last week, a Wall Street Journal opinion piece provocatively titled "China Breeds Chaos" claimed that "China wants to get into the great-power maritime game by operating ports throughout the Indian Ocean." Is Gwadar an isolated case or an important platform for the projection of Chinese influence in the region?

For much of the past decade, a theory called the "string of pearls" has gained currency, with proponents suggesting that Beijing is seeking to expand its influence by developing a "string" of commercial ports and listening posts -- "pearls" -- along the rim of the Indian Ocean. The term seems to have been first coined by defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton in a 2005 report "Energy Futures in Asia" and elaborated upon by dozens of armchair strategists since. A 2006 study from the U.S. Army War College described this purported strategy as a "manifestation of China's ambition to attain great power status and secure a self-determined, peaceful, and prosperous future" and hailed the development of Gwadar's port -- then in its early stages -- as a "win-win prospect for both China and Pakistan."

But is it?

It is easy to understand why Beijing would be keen to build and operate a port in southwest Pakistan. Gwadar's strategic location at the crossroads of the global energy trade -- opposite the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf -- offers Beijing a handy transit terminal for Middle Eastern energy imports. With the Middle East likely to remain the largest source of China's crude oil imports, a significant portion of this supply will continue to transit the Indian Ocean. China therefore has an obvious interest in securing vital sea lanes. A commercial port facility offers a relatively uncontroversial means to achieve an important energy security objective.

Some have taken the "string of pearls" vision a step further, suggesting that military factors are also at play. In particular, some observers have claimed (so far without much evidence) that China is constructing naval bases at Gwadar, among other places. For example, Robert D. Kaplan writing in Foreign Affairs in 2009 claimed: "The Chinese government has already adopted a 'string of pearls' strategy for the Indian Ocean.… It is building a large naval base and listening post in Gwadar, Pakistan, … a fueling station on the southern coast of Sri Lanka … and a container facility with extensive naval and commercial access in Chittagong, Bangladesh." (Kaplan seems to have changed his assessment since then.)

Getty Images

 

Urmila Venugopalan is a former Asia editor at Jane's Intelligence Review and is currently based in Dubai. She can be reached at urmila.venugopalan@gmail.com or on Twitter @Urmila_V.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

CHARLEY S

6:43 AM ET

June 4, 2011

Hits all points well

This is a very well thought out article, and an eye opener for people who do not go beyond official Pakistani hype on such matters (the other being its nuclear assets, which is waiting for another such expose).

  REPLY
 

JAN Z. VOLENS

12:33 PM ET

June 4, 2011

Everybody is now going for submarines and where to "keep" them

Vietnam just bought 6 new submarines from the Russians - to stand up to China in the South China Sea where a half a dozen neighbouring nations dispute the extend of their own "exclusive economic zone" - for oil exploration. And Brazil is buying submarines from France to "dissuade" the U.S. from disrespecting Brazil's "Blue Amazon" - the 3.5 million sqkm which constitute Brazil's "exclusive economic zone" in the South Atlantic. Brazil also has declared that is opposes the U.S. "idea" of "cutting the Atlantic divide": The expansion of NATO into the South Atlantic - with "collateral protection" of the land-bound mineral and rare earth resources of Brazil and West Africa. Thus - for asymmetric defense - submarines are the new fashion. The U.S. Navy carriers have already found a match by China's new Dong-Feng missiles which can reach aircraft carriers far away out on the ocean, and a friendly spot to park a submarine somewhere near the port of a good friend - could contribute to look "dissuasive"!

  REPLY
 

CARDENAS697

2:37 PM ET

June 6, 2011

I don't think so

The Purchase of Military equipment from France has nothing to do with The United States or the Blue Amazon. Brazil has been upgrading its military equipment for several years now. In 2009 Brazil purchased 250 German tanks. Many countries in South America have been modernizing their military Colombia, Venezuela and Chile. Your statement on the china’s new Dong- Feng missiles is another joke it has have not even been proven to work in combat.

  REPLY
 

JAN Z. VOLENS

12:56 AM ET

June 7, 2011

Amigo Cardenas: Study what's up in "Arco de Fronteiras" !

Amigo Cardenas: Brazil is procuring submarines from France to defend its 3.5 million sqkm maritime economic zone, plus additional 1.2 million sqkm extended continental shelf. Brazil is concerned about: 1. The U.S. refused the sign the 1982 "Law of the Sea" ,which has been signed by practially all nations. 2. The presence of the newly re-actived U.S. 4th Fleet (in 2008) at the North Coast of South America. 3. NATO insistence of "cutting the Atlantic-devide" meaning expansion into the South Atlantic. 4. New U.S. bases in Colombia near Brazil's "Cabeza do Cachorro". 5. U.S. and NATO-EU based and financed NGOs infiltrated Brazil to destabelize the ethnic unity and paralyse the PAC national infrastructure programs. 6. suspicion about the cause of the 2007 explosion at Alcantara space center - in the context of U.S. efforts to hinder Brazil's technological development and pressure to abandon its nuclear program. You will find many more of those lines ot thought in "Arco de Fronteiras" which also are published in "Defesanet". You will also read about the need for a nuclear deterrent in "Portal Militar". Brazil looks at only one potential future adversary: The USA and NATO. Brazil's Defense Minister Jobim said to other South American military leaders at the LAAD, 4.12.2011: "South America will be under threat due to its resources during the coming 50 years, and we need a "DISSUASIVE CAPACITY".

  REPLY
 

CARDENAS697

12:26 PM ET

June 7, 2011

So whats the problem

Let’s start from the beginning.

You are correct they did not sign the Law of the Sea in 1982 also known as the UNCLOS. But from 1983 through 1990 the US accepted all part as international law except Part 11. I wish to add that the US and several other countries have ratified the law but not yet signed it. If your argument was logical that would mean that Brazil would have to fear more from Venezuela which has not ratified the law or signed it. I can provide a link for your review if you like ?

The reactivation of the US 4th fleet seams to upset Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador and Cuba. I can’t understand why to my knowledge the last country the US invaded in the Southern Hemisphere was Panama. It seems Colombia, Mexico, and Chile does not really care.

Bases in Colombia again are a non-issue to this date no US aggressive military action has been conducted from those bases to Venezuela, Ecuador or Brazil. Every country has the legal and sovereign right to establish and maintain military bases and to lease land to foreign nations. So get over it.

With regard to your statement 5 and 6. To my knowledge accusation and hypothesis does not translate to actual fact. Most countries in South America that are socialist in nature worry about Colombia and the United States. Let’s stick to the facts about this article the China and it’s needs.

  REPLY
 

UMALIK

3:40 PM ET

June 7, 2011

finally!

Thank you!

Glad someone said that!

  REPLY
 

MARTY MARTEL

4:23 PM ET

June 4, 2011

US is wasting billions in aid while Pakistan courts China

China has and will continue to promote Pakistan as a counterweight to India even if it leads to nuclear holocaust on the subcontinent.

Using the Chinese play, Pakistan decided to promote China as a counterweight to US.

While Beijing rebuffed Pakistan gently, it will never back away from protecting Pakistan as any cost.

Most amazing part is billions of dollars in US aid isn't buying US any leverage with Pakistan while China remains Pakistan's all-weather' friend despite very little aid compared to that of US.

  REPLY
 

ASAD KHAN

4:11 AM ET

June 6, 2011

us spending on pakistan

It is due to NAT supplies from karachi to kabul that US is spending its billions on pakistan.Idealism does'nt govern international relations .It is rather the national interest.

  REPLY
 

LINDA BLAIR

9:44 PM ET

June 4, 2011

You've gotta do what you've gotta do

Like every other country china has its own interests on hand.
finaidinfo.com

  REPLY
 

NOVUSVATES

4:58 PM ET

June 5, 2011

It is silly that this article

It is silly that this article is written by a person of apparently Indian descent. One would not expect her opinion to be unbiased. It is like asking Hugo Chavez to write an article about American Imperialism. (chukles)

Pakistan has many ailments, from a society lacking national identity, poverty, lack of grass roots democracy, corruption in every sphere, corrupt military always wanting to keep a state of war , so they say, in order to benifit (how is this any diff from the american MIC?).

Pakistan is doing what it needs to do for its long term interests. In a post Nato Afghanistan.

I must say, i am an optimist, but having been in India recently , i do not see the vitriol, and hate filled societies on both sides , getting any better.

  REPLY
 

SWIFTY C

3:14 AM ET

June 6, 2011

Novusvates' comment

Your suggestion that the writer's apparent national origin somehow disqualifies her from opining intelligently on a given subject says more about your own prejudices than hers.

No one's opinion is unbiased; if that were possible, they would be called 'facts'.

Disagree with the substance of the article if you feel strongly enough about it, but don't flaunt your narrow-mindedness by dismissing a point of view based solely on the ethnic, national or religious background of the person who articulated it.

  REPLY
 

UMALIK

3:45 PM ET

June 7, 2011

He has a very valid objection

He has a very valid objection here. For last 3-4 years there is a sudden wave in Western media where "Pakistan" is portrayed as a nation bred on hatred of India - while truth of the matter which anyone who has been to India can confirm that the hatred is mutual on both sides of the line. The state security apparatus on both sides operate with the mindset of destruction of other proven more so by the Siachin related release of Wikileaks showing that Indian Army was bogging down Indian Govt's effort to get out of the mess.

Back to the point - author's concerns sound more like Indian concerns of a powerful China not only on the head (North) but also in the feet (South) with a Naval port in Pakistan. This will look further bad since India has been flexing her Naval muscles with for example operation against Somali pirates.

  REPLY
 

MR W

8:24 AM ET

June 7, 2011

Imperial Ambitions

Why is it that China's military expansion is always considered in the context of "imperial ambitions?" Whilst an obvious buildup is taking place, China has no ambitions to do anything other than protect her interests. It makes sense that Pakistan would prefer China to be the dominant power in the region, because China will respect her borders. I think the Chinese zumba classes and ground troops will continue to grow in the region, and basically nudge out the US presence, but that does not correlate to instability or inevitable aggression.

  REPLY