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).

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.

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

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.

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.

Mao said that the capitalists will sell us the tools to destroy them. What changed? Well what changed is that modern american capitalists think of themselves as having allegiance to money first, and to american values second. In other words the people who have sold America to China are traitors. There may come a day of reckoning when Americans, waking up to the fact that we are actually owned by China, will rebel and seek out the conspirators and deal swift justice to them. I forsee a russian type revolution in this country, where enough Americans will be so weak and disenfranchised, that they will rise up. Of course elite american economists and statisticians are trying to build enough millionaires to hold off the tide of extreme poverty sweeping the country. And we are trying to surpress the poor by blaming them for our financial woes, and it is so far working. But there will be an explosion. But by that time the rich will have a robot army to destroy those who desire freedom, but cannot pay for it. And so we will have to wait for Robots them selves to become sentient beings, who themselves will be held in check by evil overlords who desire to control them. And war will sweep the galaxy. It will be the Beings against the Havings. It will be the neutrons against the protons. It will be terrifying to finally know, that what we see in each galaxy, is a war of matter against itself. Nothing will live on except the struggle. And we will shrivel and pale against the harsh light of the Lord.

China has to its credit accumulated enormous amount of goodwill and respect just by the way it behaves in the international arena.

USA by contrast only makes people angry. US is a bully by contrast.

There is nothing new in this article. The writer could have at least given references from where she plagiarised these ideas.

It is old news. We have been reading about it for the past 3+ years.

Its important for the prosperity of Pakistan the Baluchis and therefore the region.

1. ITS GOOD FOR PAKISTAN. Karachi Port - Port Qasim - Gawader Port together will help Pakistan out of economic crises.

2. ITS GOOD FOR THE REGION. Gawader Port can handle peak season overflow of sea cargo and to cater to the transit traffic flowing from Central Asian states, Afghanistan, Middle Eastern and Gulf countries, the Xinjiang province of China, Iran in the west and Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in the south and east.

3. GREATER COMMERCIAL BENEFITS when a reliable network of road and rail links is established, it could benefit both Pakistan and China commercially as well as strategically.

4. STRATEGIC DEPTH: Gwadar port would provide strategic depth to Pakistan's commercial and military vessels.

Therefore our Indian neighbours don't like it. USA does not like it because boost Chinas economic growth which USA cannot match.

Ms Urmila relies on the most out-dated sources of all.. Most of the articles & so-called reports she relies on are at the very least, a year old.. A 'lot' has changed since then. She makes all the right noises about Baluchistan (as any Indian or a person of Indian descent would) but forgets to mention the extra-ordinary efforts that Pakistan's democratically elected government has been taking since 2009 to address the grievances of the Baluchi people.

Ofcourse, if she only looked closer to home (India), she would begin to understand the policy of not holding any negotiations with armed thugs (which the Indians so happily like to call the separatist armies in their North-East).. Same applies to Baluchistan. Pakistan's government has left the door open for all those who wish to have a dialogue to come to the table; BUT violence would have to be given up. And those who stick to guns & caves, will get what is coming to them.

Urmila's article also becomes outdated when she claims that China's only focus is South China Sea & Taiwan Straits. That may have been the case 5yrs ago but no more. Just yesterday it was 'officially' confirmed that China's first Aircraft Carrier is ready for sea-trials by the end of this year. Mr Urmila, China doesn't need an Aircraft Carrier for South China Sea & Taiwan Straits. That would be like saying Indian Navy's Aircraft Carrier is aimed at Arabian Sea.. a bad joke to say the least.

Ms Urmila also fails to make ANY mention of the United States & NATO's losing war in Afghanistan that has created negative security situation across much of Pakistan, not just Baluchistan. Perhaps China is waiting for the Yanks to pack up & go home before they make a move? That possibility never appears in Urmila's writing. Instead she keeps re-hashing the same jingoistic Indian point-of-view of how Pakistan is desperate for Chinese help but Chinese are not interested. Really? Think again!

Wouldn't you agree that this is pretty mich the same old story since the beginning of time? It's a country, in china, trying to gain power. And people may not like that for whatever reason - but in some way their own country wants or is tryng to do the same thing.

Every country would like power, as much as it as they could get. That's just the worldwide brands that our world is built on - every country would like to control as much of the world as possible. Every country wants power, wealth, relations to powerful countries or relations to wealthy affiliates and other wealthy countries - it's just the way of people and the way of the world.

Someone mentioned that the USA is a bully, but they just have a lot of power that's all. Many countries want their power and hate on them for the power they have.

All countries are striving to be more powerful, whether it be up front like some countries, or whether it's sneakiness like china is tryng to do supposedly with the "string of pearls theory".

I have a friend who lifts weights and he says he is extremely muscular because he goes by a no nonsense muscle building routine, and he says he's successful and taken seriously because he approaches life the same way - he goes by a no nonsense life style and he takes no nonsense.

I think he's right and I think powerful countries build their power on a "no nonsense" type of approach, cough, the USA.

And a lot of other countries may not like it - but it gets them to where they need to be. So I think china needs to stop being so sneaky and try this no nonsense approach that has produced success elsewhere so many times - even with something as little as in a single persons life, as compared To a whole countries power.

Just my take on the situation...

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. 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 heirloom 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 poi.

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. Search for finance career sydney 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.

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. mining jobs. 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"

Pointing out China's Muslim majority province Xinjiang was enough to push Pakistan-China in a staggering mode. The notions that Pak government will be captured by militias and they may ask for liberation of Xinjiang were highly hypothetical, I guess. Secondly, outsourcing the security of one country to another was a bad idea. It is like surrendering for bitcoin so one country's sovereignty to other's hand voluntarily. This may end up with negative results in future.