CHINA STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 11
Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016:
Trends and Implications
by Kenneth Allen, Phillip C. Saunders, and John Chen

Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
Institute for National Strategic Studies
National Defense University

This paper was originally presented at the Chinese Council for
Advanced Policy Studies–RAND Corporation–National Defense
University 26th Annual Conference on the People’s Liberation Armyon November 21–22, 2014, at the RAND Corporation office in
Arlington, Virginia. The conference series is co-sponsored by the
Chinese Council for Advanced Policy Studies in Taiwan, the RAND
Corporation, and the Center for the Study of Chinese Military
Affairs, Institute for National Strategic Studies, at the National
Defense University (NDU).
Because of the length of the analysis, the conference organizers
agreed to publish this paper as part of the China Strategic
Perspectives series from NDU Press in order to make all data
available. Other papers from the conference are currently in revision
for future publication in an edited volume.

Cover photo: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen
visits Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy submarine Yuan at Zhoushan
Naval Base in China, July 13, 2011 (DOD/Chad J. McNeeley)

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016:
Trends and Implications

By Kenneth Allen, Phillip C. Saunders, and John Chen

Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
Institute for National Strategic Studies
China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11
Series Editor: Phillip C. Saunders

National Defense University Press
Washington, D.C.
July 2017

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely thoseof the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any
other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited.
Portions of this work may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided that astandard source credit line is included. NDU Press would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints
or reviews.
First printing, July 2017

For current publications of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, please visit inss.ndu.edu/Publications.aspx.

Contents
List of Illustrations............................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................vii
Executive Summary............................................................................................ 1
Introduction......................................................................................................... 6
PRC Military Diplomacy: Objectives and Means........................................... 7
PLA Military Diplomatic Activities................................................................ 15
PLA Military Diplomatic Partners.................................................................. 44
Conclusion and Implications........................................................................... 57
Appendix. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions, 2003–2016 .................. 62
Notes................................................................................................................... 67
About the Authors............................................................................................. 81

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Illustrations
Figures
1. Total Military Diplomatic Interactions by Activity, 2003–2016
2. Total Number of Senior-Level Meetings, 2003–2016
3. Total Senior-Level Meetings and Visits Abroad, 2003–2016
4. Number of Meetings Held per Senior-Level Visit Abroad
5. Total Senior-Level Meetings Abroad and Meetings Hosted by Month, 2003–2016
6. Total PLA International Military Exercises, 2002–2016
7. Total PLA International Military Exercises by Type, 2002–2016
8. Total PLA International Military Exercises by Function, 2002–2016
9. Total PLA International Military Exercises by Function, 2002–2016
10. Total PLA International Military Exercises by Service, 2002–2016
11. Total PLA International Military Exercises by Service over Time, 2002–2016
12. Total Outbound Naval Port Calls, 1985–2016
13. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions, 2003–2016
14. PLA Diplomatic Interactions with U.S. Allies in Asia, 2003–2016
15. Aggregate PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions in Asia, 2003–2016
16. Senior-Level Visits Abroad by Geographic Region, 2003–2016
17. Senior-Level Meetings Abroad and Hosted in China by Region, 2003–2016
18. Number of PLA Visits Abroad, 2003–2016
19. Largest Differentials Between Meetings Hosted in China and Abroad

Tables1. Chinese Military Diplomatic Activities and Objectives
2. PLA International Military Exercises by Service and Function
3. The PLA’s Top 10 Most Frequent Military Diplomatic Partners, 2003–2016
4. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions by Geographic Region, 2003–2016
5. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions in Asia, 2003–2016
6. Top PLA Partners for Military Exercises, 2003–2016
7. Most Frequent PLAN Port Call Destinations, 2003–2016
8. Regression Analysis on Key Terms Used in PRC Strategic Partnerships and RelationshipsviChinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Alexis Dale-Huang (now with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) for research assistance on an earlier draft of the paper. Dr. Joel Wuthnow (National
Defense University) and Dr. Michael Glosny (Naval Postgraduate School) provided valuablecomments in their peer reviews of the manuscript. An early version of the paper was presented
by Ken Allen at the 2014 Council of Advanced Policy Studies–RAND–National Defense University) conference on the People’s Liberation Army. Mr. Mark Cozad (RAND), Dr. Bernard
Cole (then with the National War College), and Commander Leah Bray, USN (then with the
Office of the Secretary of Defense), provided helpful comments on the draft.
Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs Research Interns Alex Jeffers, Jordan Link,
and Melissa Ladner proofread the manuscript. NDU Press Intern Aidan Low converted thecharts and figures for publication.

vii

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Executive Summary
China is placing increasing emphasis on military diplomacy to advance its foreign policy
objectives and shape its security environment.
■■

Military diplomacy is part of broader Chinese foreign policy efforts to create a favorable

international image, develop soft power, and shape international discourse. Other objectives include shaping China’s security environment, collecting intelligence, and learningfrom advanced militaries.
■■

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) seeks to forward strategic and operational goals

through a variety of interactions with foreign military partners, including senior-level visits, security dialogues, nontraditional security cooperation, military exercises, functional
exchanges, and port calls.
■■

Chinese security cooperation also includes arms sales (conducted by state-owned arms

manufacturers), internal security assistance (provided by the Ministry of State Security
and Ministry of Public Security), and advice on Internet censorship and control.

Military diplomacy is subordinate to and intended to serve national foreign policy objectives, which determine the relative priority the PLA places on regions and individual countries.
■■

Military diplomacy is managed in a top-down manner, with the Chinese Communist

Party (CCP) Central Committee dictating broad foreign policy goals and the Central
Military Commission (CMC) determining specific activities for various parts of the PLA.
■■

The goal of building stronger bilateral relations with key partners means that the PLA

must adapt its planned program of bilateral military activities to accommodate the preferences and constraints of its foreign partners.
■■

Efforts to shape the security environment can include concealing or downplaying spe-cific military capabilities, highlighting the contributions a stronger PLA can make toregional and global security, and displaying capabilities to deter or intimidate potential

1China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

adversaries. Since 2010, shaping efforts have placed greater emphasis on displaying capabilities rather than concealing them.
Most PLA diplomatic activity consists of senior-level meetings carried out by the Defense
Minister, the Chief of General Staff (now Chief of the Joint Staff), and the Deputy Chief ofGeneral Staff (now Deputy Chief of the Joint Staff) who handles foreign affairs and intelligence.
■■

Senior-level meetings accounted for 83 percent of Chinese military diplomatic activity

from 2003 to 2016. China views these meetings as useful for building bilateral relations
and providing high-level buy-in for a broader program of military-to-military activities.
■■

The number of meetings fluctuates in conjunction with the Chinese 5-year political

cycle, with visits lowest in years when the CCP changes political and military leaders at a
National Party Congress (2002, 2007, 2012).
■■

Since mid-2010, there has been a significant decline in overseas visits by top PLA lead-ers. This has been partially offset by the willingness of other countries to ignore protocol
and visit China without reciprocal visits from their PLA counterparts.
■■

Most Chinese military diplomacy is bilateral, but the PLA now participates in a rangeof multilateral meetings, conferences, exercises, and competitions.
The PLA engages in nontraditional security cooperation with a range of partners to demonstrate that a stronger PLA can play a positive regional security role.
■■

Most PLA bilateral and multilateral exercises, functional exchanges, and port calls arefocused on humanitarian assistance/disaster relief and other nontraditional security activities. Some PLA assets, such as the Peace Ark hospital ship, are specifically devoted tothese activities.
■■

Since late 2008, the PLA Navy (PLAN) has maintained a constant presence in the Gulfof Aden to conduct counterpiracy operations. The vessels have also conducted port calls,
supported the evacuation of Chinese citizens from Libya and Yemen, and assisted in thedisposal of Syrian chemical weapons.

2Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016■■

The PLA has participated in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations since 1990

and contributes more troops than any other permanent member of the UN Security
Council. PLA participation has expanded from medical and engineering units to include
an infantry battalion deployed to South Sudan in 2014.
■■

China has created a Peacekeeping Training Center near Beijing and has pledged to pro-vide 8,000 troops to participate in a standing UN peacekeeping force.
The PLA has begun to participate in more combat-related exercises and competitions with
Russia and Central Asian countries.
■■

Since 2005, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Peace Mission exercises, nomi-

nally focused on counterterrorism, have included combat-related activities such as air
defense, bombing, and aerial refueling. These are the only exercises where two or more
PLA services conduct combined training with foreign partners.
■■

China’s bilateral exercises with Russia focus heavily on combat and combat-support

activities. Since 2012, the two navies have conducted a series of exercises in the East China
Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and South China Sea that signal their willingness to cooperate instrategically sensitive areas.
■■

The PLA Army and PLA Air Force have participated in multilateral military competi-tions hosted by Russia since 2014. This participation reflects growing confidence that the
PLA can match international standards.
■■

The PLA has pushed to engage in “traditional” security cooperation with the U.S. mili-tary, but the United States has been reluctant to conduct exercises that might improve
PLA combat capabilities.
PLA military diplomacy is focused primarily on major powers such as Russia and theUnited States and on Asian countries on China’s periphery.
■■

China’s most frequent partners are Russia (4.8 percent of all interactions), the UnitedStates (4.4 percent), Pakistan (3.9 percent), Thailand (3 percent), and Australia (2.9 percent), all of whom participate in a full range of military diplomatic activities with the PLA.

3

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11■■

PLA military diplomacy places a strong emphasis on Asia, which accounts for 41 per-cent of all interactions. Southeast Asia (22 percent) and South Asia (9 percent) are higher
priority subregions than Northeast Asia (4.8 percent) and Central Asia (5 percent).
■■

PLA interactions with U.S. treaty allies in Asia have increased since the 2011 U.S. rebal-

ance to Asia and the ascent of Xi Jinping to power in 2012. The PLA has frequent militarycontacts and a strategic partnership with South Korea but rarely engages the Japanesemilitary.
■■

The PLA conducts different activities with different partners, sending the most senior-level visits to Asia and Europe, conducting the most military exercises with Russia and
SCO nations, and carrying out most of its port calls in the Middle East and Asia.
■■

The volume of Chinese military diplomatic activity with a particular country generally

conforms to the hierarchical priority that the Chinese foreign policy apparatus has assigned to that country.
■■

China’s military interactions with countries under UN sanctions (such as North Korea

and Iran before 2016) are limited and not highly publicized.
Military diplomatic activity does not necessarily translate into influence, and many routine
activities may not be significant. Activity may reflect the quality of bilateral relations rather thanbe a means of developing them.
■■

PLA military diplomacy typically emphasizes form over substance, top-down manage-

ment, tight control of political messages, protection of information about PLA capabilities, and an aversion to binding security commitments.
■■

Much of China’s military diplomatic activity consists of formal exchanges of scripted

talking points in meetings, occasional port calls, and simple scripted exercises focused on
nontraditional security issues.
■■

Most PLA interlocutors are not empowered to negotiate or share their real views, whichmakes it difficult to build strong personal or institutional ties with foreign counterparts.

4Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016■■

Chinese military relations are also constrained by what activities their foreign counter-parts are willing or able to conduct with the PLA.
Military diplomacy can help establish communications and crisis management mechanisms with China and may also encourage Chinese adherence to international rules and norms.
■■

China’s participation in the Western Pacific Naval Symposium contributed to the

PLAN’s eventual acceptance of the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea.
■■

China uses military diplomacy to build international support for its own preferredrules of behavior, including working with Russia to shape international rules for the spaceand cyber domains.

5China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Introduction
The international profile of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has grown significantly
over the last half decade, with a notable increase in the frequency and complexity of its activities with partners abroad. As the Chinese military participates in multilateral meetings andengages foreign militaries around the world, it is strengthening diplomatic relations, building
the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) soft power, and learning how to deploy and support
military forces for longer periods.
Several aspects of the PLA’s military diplomacy remain relatively understudied. What are
the PLA’s objectives in conducting military diplomacy? Which partners does the PLA interact
with most? What trends are evident in the pace and type of activities the PLA carries out?
Which aspects of PLA military diplomacy should concern U.S. policymakers, and which present opportunities?
This paper employs a variety of sources to analyze overall trends in the PLA’s military
diplomacy from approximately 2003 to the end of 2016, and it compares trends during the Hu
Jintao era to trends since Xi Jinping became chairman of the Central Military Commission(CMC) in November 2012.1 It uses data collected from a range of primary sources, including
Chinese and English articles from PLA Daily (解放军报),2 PLA Pictorial (解放军画报), China
Armed Forces (中国军队),3 China Air Force (中国空军), PRC Chinese and English news services, newspapers, and Web sites (Xinhua, People’s Daily, China Daily, China Military Online, andthe Ministry of National Defense Web site),4 and China’s biennial defense white papers.5 Western sources include the China Vitae Web site, previous writings by the authors, and Andrew
Erickson and Austin Strange’s book No Substitute for Experience: Chinese Antipiracy Operationsin the Gulf of Aden.6
Our analytic emphasis is on activities where sufficient open source information is available to discern trends and assess PRC motivations. We believe the data we have collected onhigh-level visits, military exercises, and port calls are fairly complete. However, available dataon functional exchanges, dialogues, and military education are much spottier and therefore notincorporated in our quantitative analyses.
This study focuses on PLA military diplomacy and does not address security cooperation
carried out by other parts of the Chinese government. These activities include arms sales (conducted by state-owned arms manufacturers), internal security assistance (provided by the Ministry of State Security and Ministry of Public Security), and advice on Internet censorship and6

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

control. The study does not attempt a comprehensive assessment of how successful the PLA’s
military diplomatic efforts have been in achieving the intended objectives.
The study proceeds in four parts. The first section describes the stated and hypothesized
objectives underlying the PLA military diplomacy program, outlining a number of military diplomatic activities and how they might correspond to the overall goals of the PLA foreign military
relations program. The second section examines trends in PLA military diplomatic activities,
examining both the quantitative increase in activity and the increasing diversity of activities the
PLA is carrying out. The third section evaluates trends in the PLA's military diplomatic partners,
noting which countries interact with the PLA most and in what activities, and compares thesefindings with China’s overall foreign policy orientation. The study concludes by summarizing
overall trends in PLA foreign military relations from 2003 to 2016 and considering the broader
implications of PLA military diplomacy. (Data on PLA military diplomatic interactions by country are included in the appendix, and the complete dataset is available online at http://ndupress.
ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/china/PLA-diplomacy-database.xlsx.)
A reorganization in early 2016 instituted major changes to the PLA’s structure, including
the creation of 15 organizations under the CMC. Specifically, the former General Staff Department is now the CMC Joint Staff Department, the former General Political Department is the
CMC Political Work Department, the former General Logistics Department is the CMC Logistic Support Department,7 and the former General Armament Department is the Equipment
Development Department. The PLA also created a separate PLA Army (PLAA) Headquarters,
renamed the PLA Second Artillery Force as the PLA Rocket Force and upgraded it from an independent branch to a full service, and created five Theater Commands from the previous seven
Military Regions.8 The 2016 reorganization also placed the office with primary responsibility for
coordinating PLA foreign relations (the Ministry of National Defense–Foreign Affairs Office)under the direct supervision of the CMC and renamed it the CMC Office of International Military Cooperation, possibly reflecting Xi Jinping’s heightened emphasis on military diplomacy.9
This paper covers events that occurred before and after the reorganization. The old terms areused for pre-reorganization events; new monikers are used for post-reform events.

PRC Military Diplomacy: Objectives and Means
This section discusses the objectives of Chinese military diplomacy. In addition to objectives explicitly discussed by official and quasi-official Chinese sources, we include additional
hypothesized goals in our analysis.

7China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Chinese Objectives
Chinese definitions of military diplomacy (军事外交) are broad and encompass a wide variety of activities. A 2007 book by the PLA National Defense University (NDU) Strategy Teaching and Research Department defines military diplomacy simply as “diplomatic activities thatare carried out by countries in the realm of military affairs, in service of national defense or
military strategy.”10 A more recent definition in the 2011 edition of PLA Military Terminology
characterizes military diplomacy as theexternal relationships pertaining to military and related affairs between countries
and groups of countries, including military personnel exchange, militarynegotiations, arms control negotiations, military aid, military intelligence
cooperation, military technology cooperation, international peacekeeping,military alliance activities, etc. Military diplomacy is an important component ofa country’s foreign relations.11
PLA scholars consider a coherent military diplomacy strategy a “necessary part of thenational interest,” arguing that military relations can “serve as a planning construct for national
strategy . . . contain actual or perceived enemies . . . and spur national and military construction.”12 The spectrum of military diplomatic activities is broad, including “military alliances,
strategic dialogues, trust-building measures, military negotiations, military intelligence exchanges, military technical cooperation, international military work, border cooperation, international military personnel training, military support activities, military trade, and military
academic exchanges.”13
PLA academicians have ascribed a variety of functions to military diplomacy, drawing
distinctions between peacetime, wartime, and crisis functions. During peacetime, military diplomacy “maintains and develops bilateral military security relations . . . provides a platform
for handling international security issues . . . molds the country’s strategic environment . . .
provides a platform to enhance the international influence of the country and the country’s
military . . . and promotes national defense and military construction.”14 In time of war, military
diplomacy serves to “strengthen our alliances and weaken those of the enemy . . . win military
aid and material support for combat . . . win international moral and legal support . . . provide
a channel to end the war . . . and resolve post-war problems.”15 Crisis applications of military8

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

diplomacy include preventing and reducing crises, along with creating, facing, and intensifying
crises when necessary or beneficial.16
Chinese military diplomatic activities largely conform to the PLA’s peacetime conceptionsof military diplomacy. Stated objectives are derived from broader PLA missions and include
supporting overall national foreign policy, protecting national sovereignty, advancing national
interests, and shaping the international security environment. Xi Jinping cited several goals for
Chinese military diplomacy in a January 2015 speech to the All-Military Diplomatic Work Conference (全军外事工作会议), including supporting overall national foreign policy, protecting
national security, and promoting military construction (for example, military force-building).
Xi also highlighted the goals of protecting China’s sovereignty, security, and development interests.17 Academics and scholars reiterate these goals; a lecturer at the PLA Nanjing Political
College notes that a major role of Chinese military diplomacy is to “support overall national
foreign policy and the new era military strategic direction,” and other scholars highlight “shaping the international security environment and promoting military modernization” as additional objectives.18 Other academics have elaborated further, with one PLA scholar listing the
primary goals of military diplomacy as “ensuring national sovereignty and territorial integrity,
promoting Chinese military reform, building advantageous international military relations, andsafeguarding world peace and stability.”19
Our analysis also examines unstated goals to provide additional insight into Chinese military diplomacy. Potential goals such as intelligence-gathering, learning new skills and benchmarking PLA capabilities against those of other nations, building partner capacity, and promoting sales of Chinese weapons are typically omitted or only mentioned briefly in Chinese sourceson military diplomacy.
Much of the PLA’s current military diplomatic activity is focused on protecting and advancing specific Chinese strategic interests.20 Chinese foreign policy emphasizes managing strategic relations with great powers such as the United States and Russia and engaging countries on
China’s periphery; Chinese military diplomacy emphasizes interactions with the United States,
Russia, and countries in the Asia-Pacific region.21 China is increasingly dependent on oil andnatural gas imported from the Middle East and Africa; the PLA Navy’s (PLAN’s) counterpiracy presence in the Gulf of Aden facilitates strategic ties in the Middle East and Africa, helps
guarantee China’s energy security, and provides operational experience in protecting China’s
sea lines of communication. Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy contribution is the Belt andRoad initiative; PLA interactions with militaries in Europe, Africa, Central Asia, and South Asia
reinforce this effort.22

9

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Chinese military diplomacy objectives can be divided into strategic and operational categories. Strategic objectives employ the PLA as a tool to engage foreign militaries to advancebroader Chinese national goals. Strategic objectives include supporting overall PRC diplomacy
by engaging key countries and providing public goods, and shaping the security environment
by displaying or deploying PLA capabilities. Operational goals are intended to improve the
PLA’s ability to fight and win wars; these include collecting intelligence on foreign military capabilities and intentions and on potential operating areas, and learning new skills and tactics,
techniques, and procedures from other militaries.
Supporting PRC Diplomacy. Military diplomacy supports broader Chinese diplomaticefforts by engaging key countries and providing public goods to enhance China’s image. Chinese writings strongly emphasize the PLA’s obedience to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)and by extension view military diplomacy as a tool used to advance larger CCP foreign policy
goals.23 Top-down implementation of Chinese military diplomacy and the broad parameters of
this objective mean that nearly all military diplomatic activities are intended to advance wider
Chinese diplomatic goals. Senior-level meetings, strategic dialogues, and functional exchanges
are often used to deliver diplomatic talking points, nontraditional security operations provide
public goods that enhance China’s international reputation, and military exercises are often
presented as examples of international cooperation.24
Shaping the Security Environment. Military diplomacy can also deploy or display PLA
capabilities to shape the security environment. The 2015 Defense White Paper calls on the PLA
to “develop military-to-military relations . . . and create a security environment favorable to
China’s peaceful development.”25 Chinese scholars state that shaping a favorable security environment is a crucial mission of military diplomacy, and Chinese media often trumpet thedisplay of PLA capabilities in the defense of national interests.26 Recent Sino-Russian military
exercises in the Mediterranean Sea and South China Sea are intended to show that the strategic
partnership between the two countries should be taken seriously by the United States and countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Collecting Intelligence. Military diplomacy offers opportunities to collect intelligence on
foreign capabilities and intentions and on potential operating areas. Chinese sources do not
openly mention intelligence-gathering as an objective, but Chinese scholars explicitly warn
against revealing secret information during military diplomatic exchanges, a tacit acknowledgment of the intelligence potential of military diplomacy.27 Nearly all military diplomatic activities can be employed to gather some kind of intelligence because military diplomacy by definition provides some degree of access to foreign militaries. Senior-level meetings and dialogues

10Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016provide opportunities to collect political intelligence about policy preferences and personnel
intelligence about foreign military leaders, functional exchanges and military exercises offer
technical intelligence about foreign military capabilities, and naval port calls and nontraditional
security operations can be used to collect intelligence about potential operating areas.
Learning New Skills, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures. Military diplomacy allows the
PLA to learn new skills from other countries and benchmark PLA capabilities against those ofother nations. Chinese defense white papers consistently emphasize learning from other militaries as a goal of military diplomacy, and quasi-official Chinese sources stress the importanceof learning new skills and benchmarking PLA capabilities against those of foreign nations.28
Chinese scholars emphasize the value of exercises for practicing military skills, and military
exercises with foreign partners allow the PLA to compare its capabilities and learn from foreign militaries. Examples include PLA Air Force (PLAAF) participation in Russia’s multilateral
Aviadarts (航空飞镖) 2014 competition, while Chinese participation in the 2005 Peace Mission(和平使命) exercise helped the PLA learn new skills, with PLAAF fighters refueling from Russian aerial tankers for the first time.29
The United States emphasizes the importance of military diplomacy and arms sales inbuilding the capacity of allies and partners and in improving the U.S. military’s ability to operatewith them in combined and coalition operations.30 Authoritative Chinese sources do not citebuilding partner capacity as a goal, but PLA writings identify military aid as an important function of military diplomacy that encompasses the transfers of “weapons, military supplies, technology, and expertise” that can “strengthen political, military, and economic relations between
countries.”31 The PLA appears to view building partner capacity as a means of strengthening
bilateral relations rather than as an end in itself. Today’s more capable PLA has more to teachless advanced militaries. Prominent examples of Chinese military diplomacy that were meant tobuild partner capacity include the Sino-Pakistani Shaheen (雄鹰) exercises and Chinese military aid to Afghanistan.32 Chinese writings do not stress building interoperability with partners
as an explicit goal of military diplomacy, but this theme is evident in recent combined exerciseswith Russia.

Categories of Military Diplomatic Activities
These four objectives can potentially be advanced by a range of military diplomatic activities. This section reviews PLA military activities and discusses which goals they support; theresults are summarized in table 1.

11

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Table 1. Chinese Military Diplomatic Activities and Objectives
Strategic Goals

Operational Goals

Support PRC Shape Security Collect
Learn New Skills
Diplomacy
Environment Intelligence and Benchmarking

Senior-Level Meetings
HostedAbroad

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

Escort Task Force
Non–Escort Task
Force

x
x

x
x

x
x

x

Functional Exchanges
Nontraditional
Security Operations

x

x

x

Dialogues
Bilateral
Multilateral

Military Exercises
Bilateral
Multilateral

Naval Port Calls

HA/DR

x

x

x

x

PKO

x

x

x

x

MOOTW

x

x

x

x

Senior-Level Meetings. Senior-level meetings involve contact with high-level foreign military or civilian defense leaders, either hosted by the PLA in China or conducted abroad. Thesemeetings support broader Chinese diplomatic efforts to build positive relations with othercountries. Chinese writings also credit senior-level meetings with constructing a favorable security environment, protecting regional and global stability, and promoting common development.33 China’s senior military leadership consists of officers at the CMC Vice Chairmen and
CMC member-grade levels, supplemented by the Deputy Chief of the CMC Joint Staff Department with responsibility for intelligence and foreign affairs.34 Since few countries have direct
counterparts to the two senior CMC vice chairmen positions, meetings with the CMC Vice
Chairmen rather than lower level PLA officers may indicate which countries Beijing prioritizes

12Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

in military diplomacy. Examining which countries PLA leaders visit and which countries they
host can further illuminate priorities. The opportunity costs of overseas travel by senior PLA
officers are relatively high, since traveling officers are less able to complete other work, and officers are typically limited to one international trip per year by PLA regulations. Conversely,
hosting meetings has a lower opportunity cost, since senior PLA officers can conduct otherbusiness while hosting foreign military and defense officials. China has established secure video
teleconference links with some countries, such as the United States, that allow senior-level engagements without the need for travel.
Dialogues. The formal nature of high-level dialogues gives these activities an institutional
character with different costs and benefits than senior-level meetings. According to the 2015
Chinese Defense White Paper, dialogues are carried out “to promote mutual understanding,mutual trust, and mutual learning.”35 Establishing a bilateral dialogue can signal the importance
China places on security relations with another country. Examples include the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue and annual PLA bilateral defense strategic dialogues with Australia, France, and Germany.36 Because bilateral dialogues are typically established on a regularschedule via formal agreements, canceling or not attending a scheduled strategic dialogue may
have greater reputational costs than postponing or canceling a bilateral senior-level meeting.
Multilateral dialogues allow China to send its desired messages to several countries at once. For
instance, hosting the annual Xiangshan Forum and participating in the Shangri-La Dialogue
provide China opportunities to shape the regional security agenda and boost its international
status.37
Military Exercises. Exercises with foreign militaries provide opportunities to learn new
skills, benchmark PLA capabilities, gather intelligence on foreign capabilities and intentions,shape the security environment by displaying PLA capabilities, and, in some cases, build partner capacity. A PLA spokesman highlighted these goals in a review of 2014 military diplomacy, stating that the “Chinese armed forces and their foreign counterparts trained together
and learned from each other, which boosted mutual trust, deepened cooperation and improved
skills. At the same time, the Chinese military gained the opportunity to demonstrate our fineimage on the international stage.”38 Bilateral and multilateral exercises can also be used to build
partner capacity and a degree of interoperability. Bilateral exercises include the Sino-Pakistani
Shaheen (雄鹰) exercise series, and multilateral exercises include the roughly biennial Peace
Mission (和平使命) exercises held with Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) nations
and intended to build partner counterterrorism capabilities.39

13China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Naval Port Calls. These can involve PLAN ships visiting foreign ports or foreign naval vessels hosted by the PLA in China. Chinese sources suggest that port calls provide opportunities
for “combined training, mutual understanding, and constructing friendly relations.”40 In the past,
the PLAN conducted port calls in conjunction with training deployments or as standalone military diplomacy activities. The counterpiracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden that began in late 2008
have crowded out some of these port calls but have provided new opportunities for port callsby PLAN ships en route to or returning from a counterpiracy deployment.41 This study distinguishes between port calls conducted as part of an escort task force (ETF/护航编队) and those
conducted by other PLAN ships as a non-ETF.42 Escort task forces typically include three frigates
and a replenishment ship, while port calls by non-ETFs can be tailored to specific operational
or diplomatic objectives. For example, PLAN submarine port calls in Sri Lanka in 2014 received
much attention in the Indian media, while port calls carried out by the PLAN Peace Ark hospital
ship (和平方舟号医院船) have been viewed as much more benign.43 The objectives advanced byport calls depend on the ships involved and the activities (such as bilateral exercises) conductedin conjunction with the port call. This study does not include port calls by foreign navies toChina or Hong Kong.
Functional Exchanges. These are professional exchanges (including academic and educational exchanges) between PLA and foreign military personnel. Chinese sources emphasize
exchanges as a way to build PLA skills, improve friendly ties, and strengthen cooperation, butthey also support Chinese diplomatic goals and help gather intelligence.44 Examples include the
PLA National Defense University’s educational and exchange programs with multiple countries, PLA academic delegation visits to U.S. military educational facilities, and PLAAF visitswith the Portuguese air force that have reportedly included cooperation in personnel training
and logistics.45
Nontraditional Security Operations. These include a wide variety of military activities
that assist a foreign partner or provide public goods to the international community. These
include noncombatant evacuations, peacekeeping operations, humanitarian assistance/disaster
relief (HA/DR [人道主义援助和灾难救援]) efforts, and antipiracy operations. Chinese writings note the importance of these activities in strengthening PLA capabilities, providing public
security goods, and contributing to world peace and development.46 The latter two objectives
support Chinese foreign policy narratives that portray China as a peaceful, responsible great
power. Examples include PLAN contributions to the Gulf of Aden antipiracy operation beginning in 2008, PLAAF contributions to the 2014 search for Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, and14

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

the PLA Army’s 2014 deployment of an infantry battalion to Sudan as part of a United Nations(UN) peacekeeping operation.47

PLA Military Diplomatic Activities
While the PLA’s aggregate military diplomatic activities have increased in frequency, lessattention has been devoted to what activities the PLA is carrying out. Which military diplomatic activities has the PLA emphasized, and which parts of the PLA are involved in executing
them? Have these patterns changed since Xi Jinping became CMC chairman in late 2012? If so,
are fluctuations in the number and type of military diplomatic activities due to different guidance from Xi?
This analysis groups the PLA’s military diplomatic activities into five main categories thatbroadly parallel the categories described in the first part of the paper:■■

senior-level meetings and visits■■international military exercises■■

naval port calls■■

functional exchanges■■

nontraditional security operations, also known as military operations other than war(MOOTW).48
This section describes and presents major trends for each category, supplementing qualitative descriptions from Chinese media sources with quantitative data where available.
The data reveal five main conclusions. First, senior-level meetings have fallen in number
from their 2010 peak, but still make up the overwhelming majority of military diplomaticinteractions. Second, military exercises have increased sharply across all functions and PLA
services since Xi Jinping took power. Third, naval port calls have increased in aggregate overtime, with ETF port calls largely focusing on replenishment and friendly visits and non-ETF
port calls overwhelmingly consisting of friendly visits. Fourth, the PLA has robust academic
and functional exchange programs with various countries, although detailed information islacking. Fifth, the PLA is actively engaged in MOOTW, especially UN peacekeeping operations, participation in naval antipiracy activities, and search and rescue operations at sea.

15

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Senior-Level Meetings and Visits
Overview and Context. The Chinese military views high-level meetings as an important
aspect of military diplomacy, and senior PLA leaders devote a significant amount of time tointeracting with foreign counterparts. However, senior-level meetings and visits are subject tothe constraints and unique characteristics of the PLA. Generally, all senior PLA leaders aside
from the Defense Minister and Chief of the General Staff (COGS, now the director of the CMC
Joint Staff Department) are limited to one trip abroad per year by regulation, although not every
leader takes advantage of the opportunity and exceptions sometimes occur.49 Senior PLA leaders rarely, if ever, visit the same country twice except to attend multilateral meetings or host thesame foreign military leader twice. The Defense Minister does not necessarily host or meet withall his foreign counterparts, who are often hosted by one of the CMC vice chairmen.
The Chinese defense minister has primary responsibility for hosting foreign defense ministers and meeting with other senior foreign military leaders. Other senior PLA officers, including the CMC vice chairmen, the COGS, and the Deputy Chief of the General Staff (DCOGS,
now Deputy Chief of the CMC Joint Staff Department) with the foreign affairs and intelligenceportfolio also interact regularly with foreign military and civilian officials.50 However, the defense minister hosts more meetings and travels more than any other senior officer.
Although designated as the counterpart of foreign defense ministers, the Chinese defense
minister does not run the Chinese military and is junior to the two CMC vice chairmen. As themilitary interface between the PLA and the Chinese state, the defense minister is charged withrepresenting military equities and liaising with the State Council in areas of overlapping concern(including foreign policy).51 Since 2001, travel by four successive defense ministers has increased
to attend various defense ministers’ meetings, including the SCO annual defense ministers’ conferences, the China–Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Defense Ministers’ Meeting, and the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting–Plus. Chinese defense ministers typically visit
two or three other countries for bilateral talks before or after each multilateral meeting.
The CMC vice chairmen and COGS sometimes stand in for the defense minister at ministerial-level meetings such as the SCO defense ministers’ meeting. The DCOGS will also sometimes represent China at international meetings such as the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.
The COGS or DCOGS usually represents China during strategic partnerships, dialogues, andconsultations instead of the defense minister. The COGS historically averages two trips abroad
per year and hosts several foreign military counterparts each year. Only a few of the five to six
DCOGS travel abroad and host foreign counterparts.

16

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Visits and meetings by other senior leaders are much more limited. CMC vice chairmen
averaged two trips abroad per year to two or three countries from 2009 to late 2012. Historically, the directors of the former General Political Department (now the CMC Political Work
Department), the former General Logistics Department (now the CMC Logistic Support Department), and the former General Armament Department (now the CMC Equipment Development Department) have either not traveled or only taken one trip abroad per year. Since
the 18th Party Congress in November 2012, the PLAN commander’s only travel has been two
trips to the United States, while the PLAAF commander has not traveled at all.52 The PLAN and
PLAAF commanders have continued to host several counterparts each year. The commanderof the PLA Second Artillery Force (now the PLA Rocket Force), who has few direct foreigncounterparts, has not traveled abroad or hosted any visits. Military Region (MR, now Theater
Command) commanders occasionally host foreign leaders and travel abroad, but on a similarly
limited scale.53
A few officers below the grade of theater command leader have opportunities to lead PLA
delegations abroad, mostly for service or functional exchanges. For example, in September
2014, the commander of Pacific Air Forces, General Hawk Carlisle, hosted Nanjing Military
Region Air Force (MRAF) commander Lieutenant General Huang Guoxian (黄国显) and aseven-member delegation at Pacific Air Forces Headquarters in Hawaii.54
Trends in Senior-Level Meetings and Visits. For this study, we identified the names ofsenior PLA leaders from 2003 to 2016 and tracked the number of meetings and visits they conducted with foreign military counterparts.55 Each time a senior PLA officer met a foreign military counterpart for a sit-down, face-to-face conversation is counted as a “meeting”; each time asenior PLA officer made a trip abroad from China to another country is counted as a visit.56 PLA
officers can conduct multiple meetings with foreign counterparts on a single internatonal visit.
An examination of the available data yields several observations. First, senior-level meetings represent the overwhelming majority of PLA military-to-military interactions, accountingfor 2,174 of 2,799 (or 82.9 percent) total military diplomatic interactions from 1985 to 2016 forwhich data were available. That percentage decreases somewhat over time as the PLA begins to
conduct more naval port calls and international military exercises, but senior-level meetings
still represent the bulk of military-to-military interactions. Figure 1 shows total military diplomatic interactions by activity for the years in which meeting data were available.
A likely explanation is the relatively low cost of senior-level meetings compared to theplanning, coordination, logistical preparation, and operational expenditure required for othermilitary diplomatic activities. However, one important cost of senior-level meetings is the time17

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Figure 1. Total Military Diplomatic Interactions by Activity, 2003–2016
350
40

300
250
200
150

38

26

1
4
4
6
121

3
6
175

155

3
2
146

0
11
168

0
2
146

11
8
172

102

22
124

47

14
202
18
8
154

38
170

165

17
12
124

10
145

'12

'13 '14 '15 '16
Naval Port Calls

131

100
50
0

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Senior-Level
Military
Meetings
Exercises'11of senior PLA leaders, who are also less able to conduct PLA business while traveling abroad.
This suggests a hierarchy of emphasis: meetings abroad have a higher opportunity cost thanmeetings at home, and meetings with higher level PLA officers are costlier than meetings withlower ranking officials. The implications are addressed in detail in the next section.
Second, the number of senior-level meetings has increased somewhat from 2003 to 2016.
The available data show an increase from 121 meetings in 2003 to a peak of 202 meetings in2010 and a drop to 131 meetings in 2016, with the number of meetings in each year never dropping below the 2003 figure.
Two smaller trends are evident within these data. The first is a cyclical pattern that roughly
corresponds with the 5-year Chinese political cycle. Since the late 1970s, China has held party
congresses every 5 years. These produce changes in senior political and military leadership, witholder leaders retiring and younger ones being appointed. New military leaders took office in late2002, late 2007, and late 2012 and began to travel and interact with foreign counterparts, with
the number of meetings peaking in their third full year in office (in 2005, 2010, and 2015).57
The years when party congresses are held are characterized by political maneuvering as officials

18Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Figure 2. Total Number of Senior-Level Meetings, 2003–2016
250
225

202

200

175

175
150
125

155

172

168
146

170 165

154

146

145

131

124

121

100
100
75
75
50
50
25
25
0
0

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Meetings Abroad

'11

'12

'13

Meetings Hosted

'14

'15

'16

Total

attempt to secure promotions for themselves or their protégés; this produces less interest in
traveling and raises the opportunity costs of meeting with foreign counterparts. (The year 2007
is a partial exception to this cyclical pattern but represents a period where the CCP general secretary, premier, and the two CMC vice chairmen all kept their positions.)
A second smaller trend is a significant decline in overseas visits and meetings by senior
PLA leaders in 2011 and 2012 after a peak in 2010. Figure 2 documents a steady 28 percent risein meetings from 2008 to 2010 and a sharp 38 percent decline in meetings from 2010 to 2012.
While the increase in meetings in the years leading up to 2010 is modest, the decrease in meetings abroad from 2010 to 2012 is especially pronounced, and those figures remain noticeably
lower than the numbers from 2003 to 2010. The peak of 107 meetings abroad in 2010 fell to only
27 meetings in 2012, and the 5-year cyclical pattern then restarted from a lower base. Figure 3
shows a sharp drop in both meetings and visits abroad, and figure 4 shows that the number of
meetings per visit cratered between 2012 and 2014, possibly because most overseas trips wereshortened due to austerity and anticorruption campaigns in the PLA. Chinese officers had more19

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Figure 3. Total Senior-Level Meetings and Visits Abroad, 2003–2016
120
107

110
100
90

81

80
70

63

69

83

79

73

85

60

65
54

60
50
40

30

31

37

36

47

45

40

38
30

30

35
27
17

20

40

23

23

21

20

'13

'14

'15

'16

10
0

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10'11Visits Abroad'12

Meetings Abroad

Figure 4. Number of Meetings Held per Senior-Level Visit Abroad
2.8
2.57

2.6
2.4

2.23

2.19

2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4

2.17
2.08

2.1
2.03

2.35

2.08
1.89
1.78

1.52

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10

'11

'12

Number of Meetings per Visit

20

1.74

1.59

'13

'14

'15

'16

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

meetings per trip in 2015 and 2016, suggesting some effort to cover more diplomatic ground
per trip.
Diplomatic protocol typically requires reciprocity; if one country wants to send a seniorleader to visit, it needs to be prepared to host the foreign counterpart in return. The data showthat the significant drop in PLA senior leadership travel since 2010 is partially offset by anincrease in military meetings hosted by China. This may reflect temporary factors such as the
anticorruption campaign, which put pressure on the PLA to reduce both the number and duration of overseas trips.58 It likely also reflects China’s increasing strategic weight; more foreigncountries have become willing to disregard protocol and send their senior officers and defense
officials to China without reciprocal visits by their Chinese counterparts.
Third, the number of visits hosted and visits abroad fluctuates according to the military relations planning cycle, which usually culminates at the end of the year when each side agrees to

Figure 5. Total Senior-Level Meetings Abroad and Meetings Hosted by Month,
2003–2016
200

150

100

50

0

r
r
r
ry uary rchlst mbe ober mbe mbe
e
i
y
y
r
l
u
n
a
r Ma
Ju Aug epte Oct ove ece
M
Ap
Ju
Feb
D
N
S

Ja

a
nu

Meetings Hosted By Month, 2003–2016
Meetings Abroad By Month, 2003–2016

21

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

meetings and activities for the next year. Meetings abroad typically spike in May and September
and fall dramatically during October for the PRC’s National Day and during the Chinese New
Year holiday at the end of January and beginning of February. Hosted meetings spike in April
and November. Additional factors include winter weather. Very few visits or meetings occur
during January through March because of the Chinese New Year holiday.

International Military Exercises
Overview and Context. The PLA has historically been a secretive and somewhat insularorganization that was hesitant to engage with foreign counterparts, especially about operational
matters. Even when China embraced “reform and opening up” in the late 1970s, the PLA lagged
behind other parts of the Chinese government in engaging other militaries. This reticence may
have been partly due to fear of revealing military weaknesses or the PLA’s inability to meet thestandards of advanced militaries. The PLA began conducting bilateral and multilateral “combined exercises” (联合演习) with other countries in 2002. This section gives an overview of thedetails of these exercises by PLA service participation.
The PLA often refers to combined exercises with other militaries as “joint exercises” (联合演习); this study uses U.S. definitions, which refer to these as “combined exercises.”59 Joint
exercises involve the participation of multiple services; participation by multiple branches ofa single service is considered a combined arms exercise. Exercises are further categorized byfunction. Combat activities capture exercises that emphasize combat skills on the high end of
the conventional spectrum of conflict, including live-fire drills and combat simulations; combat
support activities include communications, engineering, resupply, logistics, survival skills, andfleet navigation and maneuvers; competitions are exercises where the PLA sends forces to compete with those of other nations, typically simulating combat activities; nontraditional security
activities include search and rescue, HA/DR, and medical exercises; and antiterrorism exercises
are lower intensity, smaller unit activities that resemble conventional combat on the lower endof the spectrum of conflict.
PLA Army International Military Exercises. All the PLA services except for the Rocket
Force engage in at least some combined exercises with foreign counterparts, but the PLA Armyis the only service to participate in military exercises across all functional categories. The 2012
defense white paper states that combined army training is gradually being increased in breadthand depth.60 Table 2 shows the distribution of combined exercises by function for all the PLA
services.

22Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Table 2. PLA International Military Exercises by Service and Function
Antiterrorism Combat Combat Support
Army
Navy
Air ForceJoint

28 (2)4 (1)
14 (1)
14 (0)9 (8)7 (3)50 (17)1 (0)Competition MOOTW
8 (8)
1 (1)
5 (5)
1 (1)

19 (8)
22 (6)
1 (1)Note: (X) indicates the number of multilateral exercises in that category.

Army participation in multilateral exercises emphasizes noncombat activities, such ascombat support and MOOTW functions, though the PLA sends only a few personnel at a timeto these types of exercises. Notable recent examples include PLAA participation in the U.S.- andThailand-led multilateral Cobra Gold exercise for the first time in February 2014, in which a
total of 17 PLAA soldiers, engineers, and medical personnel, mainly from the Guangzhou MR,
participated in HA/DR drills in Thailand.61 The PLAA also sent 25 personnel from unidentified
units (most likely medical and engineering personnel) to a multilateral ASEAN HA/DR exercise that involved 13 countries in April 2014.62 In October 2014, 10 soldiers from the Australianarmy, 10 officers and enlisted personnel from the Guangzhou MR, 5 from the U.S. Army, and5 from the U.S. Marine Corps took part in Kowari 14/Kowary 2014, which focused on survival
skills in northern Australia’s harsh environment.63 An additional 100 military personnel provided support in roles including liaison and logistics.
The PLAA participates in bilateral exercises on a broader and more substantive scale. In
September 2013, a total of 210 personnel and 26 vehicles participated in the China-Mongolia
Prairie Pioneer/Grasslands Vanguard combined HA/DR training event in Tavan Tolgoi, Mongolia. The exercise, focused on rescuing trapped personnel after an earthquake, marked the firsttime that organic PLA units (rather than hand-picked officers and soldiers) went to Mongolia totake part in combined training.64 In April 2014, Pakistan hosted the 11-day bilateral combined
Peace Angel (和平天使) 2014 HA/DR exercise, with 60 PLA medical personnel participating.65
This exercise involved setting up a field hospital for 120 personnel after a flood disaster, simulated 26 types of injuries and more than 160 cases of simulated medical treatment tasks for the
sick and wounded, and mobilized more than 200 medical and hygienic devices, 10 flights of two
types of transport helicopters, and 28 emergency ambulances. China and Pakistan organized
related activities, such as academic exchanges, combined tabletop maneuvers, equipment, personnel, and technical training, and a full-personnel and full-equipment drill in preparation forthe combined exercise.

23

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Army forces have also begun to participate in military competitions, sometimes with
mixed results. The PLA ground forces first participated in an international military competitionin August 2014, sending several tanks from the Nanjing MR’s 1st Group Army to compete in afour-stage competition dubbed Tank-Biathlon 2014 (坦克兩項-2014) at the Alabino Training
Range near Moscow.66 The competition included a single-tank obstacle course that called fortanks to negotiate water, mine fields, soil ridges, and cliffs while completing various shooting
subjects on the way, along with short-distance and speed competitions, physical competitions,and a relay race, in which the four best-performing teams from the previous three stages competed with each other. China was the only nation to use an indigenously produced tank, theType-96A (ZTZ-96A), while the remaining 11 countries competed in Russian T-72B tanks. The
Chinese decision proved disastrous—the Chinese tank suffered from poor mechanical reliability throughout the competition. The lead tank’s caterpillar track fell off during the final stage
and the vehicle stalled in front of the crowd, allowing a Russian T-72B to overtake it and beat itto the finish line. The Chinese team finished third overall, behind Russia and Armenia.
PLA Navy International Military Exercises. The PLAN participates in the most international combat exercises of all the PLA services but thus far has not participated in an international military competition. Its exercise interactions are largely focused on combat, combat support, and MOOTW functional categories. According to the 2012 Defense White Paper,
combined bilateral and multilateral maritime exercises and training are being expanded.67
The PLAN’s first international exercises were relatively simple search and rescue exercises (SAREXs), but the PLAN has gradually increased the complexity of these exercises andincorporated them as parts of larger and more demanding exercise interactions. The PLAN
now routinely includes SAREXs and HA/DR drills in its combined exercises as well as during
various port calls. For example, in September 2013, the PLAN and the U.S. Navy held a SAREX
near Hawaii, the first such exercise in 7 years.68 The exercise involved 1,000 personnel andwas carried out by the PLAN guided-missile destroyer Qingdao, guided-missile frigate Linyi,
and a helicopter. U.S. Navy participants included the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie, anauxiliary ship, and two helicopters. The exercise included the first helicopter formation flight,
first establishment of a joint damage control team, and first search of the same waters by airforces. The SAREX, which was commanded by the two navies in turn, involved four stages
featuring nine areas. Activities included “formation flight communications and commands,
joint missile-helicopter searching for distressed ships, rescues of ships in distress, and ship
formation movements.”69

24

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

PLAN multilateral exercises typically focus on noncombat activities, sometimes because
foreign partners are reluctant to practice combat with the Chinese navy. For instance, thePLAN participated in the U.S.-sponsored Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2014 exercises, sending
the missile destroyer Haikou, missile frigate Yueyang, comprehensive supply ship Qiandaohu,
and hospital ship Peace Ark, as well as two helicopters, a commando unit, and a diving squad,
totaling 1,100 officers and soldiers.70 The PLAN also deployed an uninvited Dongdiao-classauxiliary general intelligence ship to monitor the exercise, highlighting the utility of international military exercises for intelligence-gathering.71 China sent a similar vessel to monitor the
RIMPAC exercise in 2012. U.S. exercise organizers were careful to keep China out of combatrelated activities because the participation of Chinese navy personnel might violate the restrictions in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2000.72 China did participate in “simple”
gunnery exercises that involved shooting at a target in the sea, providing an opportunity for
U.S. Navy officers to assess the accuracy of Chinese gunnery. The PLAN also participated in
RIMPAC 2016, including in a submarine rescue tabletop exercise and a field exercise to test thecompatibility of the PLAN undersea rescue vehicle with the rescue seating surfaces on Western submarines.73 The PLAN has participated in several HA/DR events in conjunction withport calls and other military exercises—for instance, in April 2014, the PLAN’s Changbaishanamphibious landing ship from the South Sea Fleet joined vessels from 13 other countries inIndonesia’s Komodo (科摩多) HA/DR combined exercise.74
The PLAN’s most complex bilateral exercises are the Maritime Cooperation (海上联合)exercise series with the Russian navy, which includes comparatively demanding combat-related
activities.75 The 2012 iteration near Qingdao included combined air defense, maritime replenishment, combined antisubmarine warfare, combined search and rescue, and rescue of a hijacked ship, as well as sea-to-sea, sea-to-underwater, and sea-to-air live-fire practice. The 2013
exercise in the Sea of Japan involved 18 ships from both sides performing similar activities. The
PLAN deployed four destroyers, two frigates, one comprehensive replenishment ship, three helicopters, and one special operations detachment, the Chinese navy’s single largest overseas deployment for exercises with a foreign country. The 2014 version included joint verification andidentification for use in the Chinese-declared air defense identification zone in the East China
Sea and also featured free combat without a preplanned scenario, a first for any PLA service in
a combined exercise. For the first time, vessels from both sides maneuvered in mixed ChineseRussian formations against an opposition force, with the detection and communication devices
on all warships and aircraft operating simultaneously, thus reflecting a high level of trust.76

25

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Sino-Russian combined naval exercises are increasingly used to shape the international security environment. The 2014 exercise coincided with President Vladimir Putin’s visit to China
on May 20–21, and both Putin and Xi cited the exercise as an illustration of Sino-Russia strategic cooperation.77 In May 2015, the two navies conducted their annual naval exercise in the
Mediterranean Sea, demonstrating the ability to project power and showcasing the relevanceof Sino-Russian security cooperation for issues such as Syria.78 In September 2016, the exercise
was conducted in the northern part of the South China Sea near Hainan Island. The exercise
followed an international tribunal ruling in July 2016 that found many of China’s maritime
claims in the South China Sea to be unjustified under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Though both Russian and Chinese interlocutors denied that the maneuvers were being targetedat any third party, the timing and location of the drills were not lost on observers. Moreover, theexercise included extensive joint antisubmarine warfare drills and a joint amphibious landing
exercise involving 90 Russian and 160 Chinese marines.79 PLA scholars have noted explicitlythat one of the main purposes of naval diplomacy is to protect national territorial integrity.80
PLA Air Force Combined Exercises. The PLAAF has also increasingly become involved inbilateral and multilateral exercises with foreign air forces.81 According to a PLAAF spokesman,“The PLA Air Force has adopted a more outspoken and active attitude to reach out in the past
several years to demonstrate the force’s combat prowess. It has actively participated in a host ofmultinational drills, trainings, and exchange activities, thus gaining a lot of useful experiencethat has been adopted to improve the combat capabilities of our commanders and pilots.”82
Exercises allow the PLAAF to demonstrate its improving capabilities to the international
community, observe and learn from foreign militaries in an operational environment, and serve
as a vehicle for building trust and solidifying security cooperation with select countries. Units
involved have included fighters, multirole, attack, bomber, and transport aircraft, as well asairborne troops. All the deployments have been supported by Il-76 transports, and some have
involved aerial and/or ground refueling en route.
PLAAF participation in Peace Mission joint exercises has included many “firsts.” PLAAF
fighters refueled from Russian tankers for the first time in 2005, the PLAAF deployed domestically produced new weapons abroad for the first time in 2007, and it conducted a lowaltitude entry and used precision-guided missiles to attack a camouflaged ground target in2009. The PLAAF deployed J-10s and H-6s from China with support from airborne early
warning and tanker aircraft that operated within China, were escorted by foreign aircraft after
crossing the border, and conducted a ground attack on foreign soil under informatized andcomplex electromagnetic environment conditions in 2010. The 2014 Peace Mission exercise

26

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

marked the deployment of the most weapons and equipment for any exercise, including a totalof 23 aircraft (seven different variants including fighters, attack aircraft, airborne early warning aircraft, transports, and unmanned aerial vehicles), as well as airborne, communications,and radar troops.
The PLAAF has also begun to conduct bilateral exercises with other partners. Examples
include PLAAF Su-27s that participated in Turkey’s 2010 Anatolian Eagle (安纳托利亚之鹰)
exercise and PLAAF J-11 fighters that conducted combined training and aerial maneuvers inPakistan’s Shaheen-1 (雄鹰-1) exercise in March 2011.83 In September 2013, the PLAAF hosted
Pakistan for Shaheen-II and flew J-10s during the exercise,84 and the PLAAF returned to Pakistan for Shaheen-III in May 2014.85
PLAAF airborne troops began participation in bilateral exercises in 2011. PLAAF airborne
troops participated in the Cooperation (合作) 2011 urban combined antiterrorism training in
October 2011 in Venezuela. In July 2011 and November 2012, airborne troops participated in
Divine Eagle (神鹰), which has also been identified as Condor and Swift Eagle, with Belarussian airborne forces in Belarus and China, respectively.86 The airborne forces visited Indonesia
for the Sharp Knife (利刃) drills in November 2013 and hosted Indonesia’s airborne forces for
the Sharp Knife Airborne–2014 antiterrorism drill in October 2014.87 In May 2014, Russian
airborne troops visited the PLAAF’s Airborne Troop College (空军空降兵学院) in Guilin toexchange views and become familiar with the college’s training and facilities.88 Though these
exercises are often billed as “antiterrorism” drills, the content of the exercises suggests that theunits involved are practicing skills closer to traditional combat activities, which is how they arecoded in this study’s data.
The PLAAF has also begun participating in international military competitions. One of themost significant events occurred July 22–28, 2014, when the Russian air force hosted Aviadarts(航空飞镖) 2014 at Voronezh, Russia, which included the PLAAF and Belarus air force.89 Two
PLAAF Su-30s and four pilots competed in six separate events aimed at showing pilot skills invisual reconnaissance, navigation, single-plane or two-plane aerobatics, and air-to-ground attacks.90 They launched 24 rockets and fired 60 cannon rounds. Based on the total scores, Russia
took first place, China took second, and Belarus third. An Il-76 accompanied the aircraft to Russia. The PLAAF has continued to participate in subsequent Aviadarts competitions.
Joint International Military Exercises. PLA joint exercises (involving multiple services)with foreign militaries are almost always in multilateral settings. The few bilateral exercises are
the 2013 iteration of the Peace Mission exercises conducted with Russia, the Peace and Friendship 2014 joint tabletop exercise with Malaysia, and the Joint Sea 2015 maritime exercises with27

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Russia. The 2005 and 2009 iterations of the Peace Mission exercises involved only Chinese andRussian participants but were planned and executed as multilateral events with SCO observer
nations in attendance.
Most PLA joint exercises involve combat activities, and Peace Mission joint exercises haveincreased in complexity over time. Despite their “antiterrorism” billing, the Peace Mission exercises involve extensive conventional combat activities. For instance, Peace Mission 2009 involved sophisticated weapon systems, including surface-to-air missiles;91 Peace Mission 2010
included PLAAF J-10 multirole aircraft and H-6 bombers that conducted air-to-ground attacks.92 Peace Mission 2013 was especially oriented toward conventional combat operations,involving 646 PLA personnel, tanks, armored personnel carriers, light reconnaissance vehicles,
120mm self-propelled howitzers, 152mm self-propelled guns, five JH-7A fighter-bombers, andhelicopters. The primary ground force organizations included the 190th Mechanized Brigade, aspecial operations forces (陆军突击分队) brigade, and an army aviation regiment. A total of
600 Russian military personnel participated in the three-phase exercise, which included force
projection and deployment, campaign planning, and campaign implementation.93 The 2014 iteration was the largest Peace Mission exercise to date and marked the first time that China
served as the chief director of a combined military exercise. The drill simulated an SCO militaryresponse, at the invitation of a host nation, to an extremist or separatist group from abroadthat was inciting people to join a terrorist insurgency in the SCO host nation. The PLA groundforce included Z-19 and Z-10 helicopters. The PLAAF sent 23 aircraft of seven types including
J-10, J-11, and JH-7 fighters and attack aircraft, as well as KJ-200 early warning aircraft andseveral combat vehicles from the airborne forces. The exercise also included more information
technology and information-based warfare. It was the first time that the Chinese military assigned reconnaissance-strike integrated unmanned aerial vehicles to participate in a combined
exercise.94
The increased complexity of joint exercises has sometimes led to poor outcomes. One report from the Moscow Times indicated that inaccurate maps led to approximately 15 Russianand 60 Chinese deaths during Peace Mission 2009.95 Preparation time for that combined exercise was shortened from 10 months in the previous exercises to 4 months.
Peace Mission joint exercises have increased in frequency and typically involve larger numbers of PLA personnel. Peace Mission exercises have been held in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012,2013, 2014, and 2016, with SCO nations acting either as active participants or as observers. Mostof these exercises involve larger numbers of PLA personnel from various PLA services—the28Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

smallest Peace Mission exercise in 2012 involved some 369 personnel from the PLA, while thelargest in 2005 included about 8,000 PLA personnel.96
Overall Trends in International Military Exercises. This study identifies all PLA participation in international military exercises in available media reporting and tracks the total number of exercises and the number of interactions that the PLA had with foreign militaries during
these exercises.97 An examination of the available data yields five notable findings.
First, PLA participation in international military exercises has increased dramaticallysince its first exercise in 2002. Figure 6 shows both the overall increase and an especially pronounced increase from 2014 to 2016, with the number of exercises almost quadrupling from 8
in 2013 to 30 in 2014.
The increase in international military exercises highlights the PLA’s emphasis on using
military exercises as a tool to engage with foreign militaries.98 The PLA’s willingness to takepart in increasingly complex exercises also reflects its growing confidence in its own capabilities. Despite the occasional instances of equipment failure, official media reports claim thatexercises are opportunities “during which a range of advanced weapons, tactics and operational
methods were unveiled, fully demonstrating the openness and confidence of the PLA.”99 The increased participation may also reflect a greater propensity to use international military exercises
to shape China’s security environment. A Ministry of National Defense (MND) spokesman
noted that military exercises gave the Chinese military “the opportunity to demonstrate our fineimage on the international stage.”100 China and Russia have used combined naval exercises in

Figure 6. Total PLA International Military Exercises, 2002–2016
50

44

45

40
30

30
20
10
0

1

3

4

6
2

6

8

11

8

8

8

2

'02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11'12 '13 '14 '15 '16

29

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Figure 7. Total PLA International Military Exercises by Type, 2002–2016
100
80
60
40
20
0

'02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11
Bilateral'12 '13 '14 '15 '16

Multilateral

sensitive regions such as the East China Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and South China Sea to demonstrate their strategic cooperation and to reinforce each other’s diplomatic efforts.101
Second, the PLA has increasingly favored multilateral exercises in recent years. Figure 7
shows a sharp increase in multilateral international military exercises between 2014 and 2016,
which reflects not only an emphasis on multilateral engagement but also a trend toward exercises with more nations per event. Much of the increase in multilateral exercises beginning in 2014
can be attributed to increased Chinese participation in international military competitions.
The PLA's increased emphasis on multilateral military exercises may reflect increased efforts to shape foreign perceptions. Sustained contact with one partner during a bilateral exercise
provides a better opportunity for the PLA to learn. Multilateral exercises are more complicatedto organize but have a larger audience, making them better vehicles for demonstrating peacefulintentions by engaging in nontraditional security cooperation or for shaping China’s security
environment by displaying capabilities to a wider audience. China helps organize the Peace
Mission multilateral exercises, but much of the increase in numbers is attributable to PLA participation in multilateral exercises, especially military competitions organized by Russia.
Third, more than half of all PLA international military exercises involve combat or combat
support activities. Figure 8 shows that 22 percent of the exercises between the PLA and foreign
militaries involve combat activities, 31 percent are combat support, 8 percent occur in military
skills competitions, and 16 percent are antiterrorism exercises. Put another way, only 23 percent

30Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Figure 8. Total PLA International Military Exercises by Function, 2002–2016

MOOTW
23%

Antiterrorism
16%

Competition
8%

Combat22%

Combat Support
31%of the military exercise interactions are focused on MOOTW. Figure 9 illustrates increases in
numbers of military exercises in all functional categories, though MOOTW and antiterrorism
exercises appear to fall off after 2014 as the PLA has become more willing to emphasize its increasing combat capabilities.
Increases in military exercises across all categories, especially in combat and combat support activities, seem to validate Chinese claims that PLA participation in international military

Figure 9. Total PLA International Military Exercises by Function, 2002–2016
20

Antiterrorism

18

Combat16
14

Combat Support

12

Competition

10
8

MOOTW

6
4
2
0

'02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16

31

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

exercises is “increasingly shifting from nontraditional security to traditional security and are
more real combat oriented.”102 This likely reflects an increased PLA ability and desire to learn
combat and combat support skills from other militaries, but it may also reflect the leadership’s
desire to use military exercises to shape China’s security environment. It also indicates that
China feels less need to discuss its increasing military capabilities only in the context of nontraditional security issues.
Fourth, the PLAA and PLAN conduct the overwhelming majority of international exercises, with the PLAAF only accounting for a small fraction of exercise participation and the Rocket
Force conspicuously absent. Figure 10 shows that army-to-army and navy-to-navy exercises
account for 83 percent of international military exercises, while air force exercises comprise
only 10 percent of the total, and the Rocket Force does not participate at all. Figure 11 illustrates
the PLAAF’s late entry into the realm of international military exercises. The PLAAF held its
first international military exercise in 2010 with Turkey, 8 years after other PLA services began
exercising with foreign militaries.
What explains the variation in service participation in international military exercises?
The late start to air force participation could reflect efforts to maintain secrecy about capabilities
or budget constraints on the maintenance and logistics funds required to fly PLAAF aircraft toother countries. Alternatively, the air force may simply have not felt confident enough to send

Figure 10. Total PLA International Military Exercises by Service, 2002–2016
Joint: 7% (12)Navy: 47% (87)32

Air Force: 10% (19)

Army: 26% (66)Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Figure 11. Total PLA International Military Exercises by Service over Time,
2002–2016
25
20

Army

15

Navy
Air Force

10
Joint
5
0

'02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16

pilots and aircraft to participate in exercises with other countries until they reached a certain
level of proficiency. The Rocket Force’s conspicuous absence likely reflects its lack of genuine
foreign counterparts and the sensitivity of nuclear operations.
Fifth, the PLA rarely participates in truly joint military exercises with foreign militaries.
Figure 11 shows that joint military exercises in which more than one PLA service participates in
events with foreign militaries occur only intermittently. Joint exercises have gradually increasedin frequency, occurring annually since 2012 and only increasing to two events per year startingin 2014. Prior to 2014, all of these joint military exercises were Peace Mission events held in cooperation with SCO countries. The increases from 2014 to 2016 can be attributed to non–Peace
Mission exercises, such as a joint tabletop exercise with Malaysia in 2014 code-named Peace andFriendship 2014, participation in Russian-held International Military Games and the second
half of the Joint Sea naval maneuvers in 2015, and the ASEAN HA/DR 2016 exercises. None of
the net increases in joint military exercises from 2014–2016 involve combat activities.

Naval Port Calls
Overview and Context. From 1985 to 2008, the PLAN typically conducted only a handfulof port calls per year, most of which were “friendly visits” that did not involve much operational
interaction with the host-nation’s navy. The PLAN’s ongoing participation in counterpiracy deployments in the Gulf of Aden since late 2008 generated new requirements for port calls (for33

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

ships in the antipiracy ETFs to replenish supplies) and provided new opportunities for theseships to conduct friendly visits to foreign ports. The operational requirements of deploying andsustaining ETFs crowded out port calls by PLAN ships other than the Peace Ark hospital shipfrom 2009 to 2012; other non-ETF port calls resumed in 2013. This section discusses both typesof port calls.
Port Calls and Activities of Antipiracy Escort Task Forces. PLAN ETFs conduct two typesof port calls. Replenishment visits usually last 2 to 5 days, during which the vessels receive fuel,fresh water, vegetables, and fruits.103 Crews are usually met by the Chinese ambassador andmilitary attachés, but the vessels are not open for public display and the crew does not interact
with the host-country’s navy. Friendly visits generally last 2 to 4 days, with the crew usually met
by the Chinese ambassador and military attachés, as well as host-country government and naval
officials.104 Chinese expatriates and students in the country attend welcoming and departure
ceremonies. Throughout the visit, the vessels are open to the public. PLAN crewmembers also
play basketball or soccer with the host navy.
Key personnel from some antipiracy ETFs have visited foreign escort task forces, and foreign task force personnel have also visited PLAN vessels. For example, on May 4, 2013, Rear
Admiral Yuan Yubai (袁誉柏), who served concurrently as commander of ETF-14 and as aNorth Sea Fleet (NSF) deputy commander, hosted the commander of Combined Task Force 151
on the Harbin destroyer.105 In June 2014, Rear Admiral Huang Xinjian (黄新建), who served
concurrently as commander of ETF-17 and as an East Sea Fleet deputy chief of staff, led a sixmember delegation to visit the Singaporean guided-missile frigate RSS Tenacious.106 ETF-17’scommand vessel Changchun also hosted the commander of the European Union’s 465 Task
Force in July 2014.107
Some ETFs participate in combined maritime exercises while deployed. For example, in
September 2012, ETF-12 conducted the first combined counterpiracy exercise with the UnitedStates, and in August 2013 ETF-14 conducted the second exercise between the two navies.108
On March 4, 2013, Pakistan organized the Peace-13 (和平-13) multinational maritime combined military exercise that involved vessels from 14 countries and special operations forcesfrom 7 countries, including China’s ETF-14 and vessels from the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan.109 During May and June 2014, ETF-16 held bilateral antipiracy combined
drills in the Gulf of Guinea with Nigeria’s navy and Cameroon’s navy.110 These were the first
antipiracy drills between the navies, as well as the PLAN’s first maritime drills in the Gulf ofGuinea with a foreign navy. On March 20, 2014, ETF-16 also conducted the PLAN’s first combined antipiracy drill with a European Union combined task force, which comprised vessels

34

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

from France, Germany, and Spain.111 Finally, during a port call in Iran in September 2014, theETF-17’s Changchun destroyer and Changzhou frigate conducted “unprecedented combined
naval drills in the strategic Persian Gulf.”112
Port Calls and Activities of Non–Escort Task Force Ships. Regular navy warships havecontinued to conduct port calls after ETFs began regularly deploying to the Gulf of Aden after
2009, although only the hospital ship Peace Ark made overseas port calls from 2009 to 2012. In
2013, three PLAN vessels (the guided-missile destroyer Lanzhou, guided-missile frigate Liuzhou, and comprehensive supply ship Poyanghu) from the South Sea Fleet conducted the PLA’s
first passage through the Magellan Strait, making port calls in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile.113
One especially notable port call occurred in September 2014, when a Type-039 (Song-class)conventional submarine (hull number 329) from the South Sea Fleet visited Sri Lanka alongwith the NSF’s Changxinghu comprehensive supply ship.114 The submarine also deployed to theGulf of Aden, where it supported the 18th ETF for an undetermined period.115 The limited utilityof a submarine for antipiracy operations suggests other motivations for both the port call andsubmarine deployment, including practicing subsurface warfare in distant waters and shaping
the regional security environment.
Training vessels also pay port calls to foreign countries as part of PLAN diplomatic efforts.
The PLAN’s only officer cadet training ship, the Zhenghe (郑和号训练舰), has been an especially prolific traveler since it became operational and was assigned to the Dalian Naval Ship Academy (part of the North Sea Fleet) in April 1987.116 Since its first port call to the United States(Hawaii) in 1989, it has visited at least 25 different countries, including multiple visits to several
countries, and sailed over 300,000 nautical miles.117 The Zhenghe routinely welcomes foreign
military cadets as part of its friendly port calls: journeys in 2012, 2013, and 2014 welcomedcadets from both various PLAN academies as well as maritime students from India, Myanmar,
Indonesia, Vietnam, and others. The Zhenghe’s 2014 voyage, conducted with the guided-missile
frigate Weifang (潍坊舰), featured exchanges at the Indonesian Naval Academy and welcomed
students from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand, and Bangladesh.118 While visiting
Indonesia, the PLAN task force and the Indonesian navy’s Patrol Ship 813 conducted a combined exercise in the Java Sea. The exercise included task force maneuvering, communications,and employing the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, a first for the PLAN in a combined
exercise.
The Peace Ark hospital ship has also been active in port calls and medical assistance missions abroad. The ship, commissioned in 2008, made a number of port calls during Harmonious
Mission overseas deployments to Africa (2010), the Caribbean (2011), Southeast Asia (2013),

35

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Figure 12. Total Outbound Naval Port Calls, 1985–2016

40
40
35
30
30
25
20
15
10

0

1985
1989
1990
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

5

Total Non-ETF Port Calls

Total ETF Port Calls

Total Outbound Naval Port Calls, 1985–2015
the South Pacific (2014), and Central America and the Caribbean (2015). The Peace Ark’s port
calls represented the only non-ETF port calls made by the PLAN from 2009 to 2012.
Overall Trends in Naval Port Calls. For this study, we identified all PLA naval port calls inavailable media reporting and grouped them by function, fleet, and time. Some port calls wereconducted by task forces comprised of ships drawn from all three PLAN fleets—these weregrouped as “all,” while those port calls conducted by unknown ships from unknown fleets weregrouped as “unknown.” Some uncertainty exists as to exactly which port calls were carried out
by which ETF, as some port calls occurred when two ETFs were on station. This uncertainty isreflected in the data labels for each ETF.
The available data reveal several notable observations. First, the aggregate number of naval port calls has increased significantly since the PLAN conducted its first port call in 1985.
Figure 12 shows that the PLAN did not conduct any port calls in 2007 and 2008 and that the36

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

operational requirements of deploying and sustaining ETFs crowded out port calls by PLAN
ships other than the Peace Ark from 2009 to 2012. The PLAN resumed port calls by other nonETF ships in 2013, and the number of these port calls has been higher than the historical levelfrom 1985 to 2008.
Second, port calls are split mostly evenly by fleet. However, voyages by training vessels account for the higher number of port calls from North Sea Fleet ships, while the East Sea Fleet
has made most of the antipiracy port calls. Approximately 43 percent of non-ETF port calls arecarried out by the North Sea Fleet, 33 percent by the East Sea Fleet, and 19 percent by the SouthSea Fleet. The distribution of antipiracy ETF port calls is also split roughly evenly; the North Sea
Fleet carried out approximately 29 percent, East Sea Fleet approximately 36 percent, and SouthSea Fleet approximately 35 percent.
Third, nearly all ETF port calls either are for replenishment or are friendly visits conducted
after the operational part of the antipiracy deployment is complete. Only 6 of 125 total ETF port
calls included naval drills along with these two functions. This may be because ETFs returning
to China need rest and refit and may not be in suitable condition to carry out combined exercises at the standard of performance demanded by PLA leadership.
Fourth, almost all non-ETF port calls are friendly visits, and a substantial portion of these
are carried out by the PLAN training ship Zhenghe and Peace Ark on HA/DR activities.119 All of
the 49 port calls made by the North Sea Fleet and the 22 made by South Sea Fleet were friendly
visits only. Of the 49 North Sea Fleet non-ETF port calls, 21 were made by the training ship
Zhenghe. Of the 38 East Sea Fleet non-ETF port calls, 27 included drills, all with the Peace Ark.
The PLAN also conducted one noncombatant evacuation operation in 2015.
The PLAN began conducting HA/DR activities through port calls as part of a concerted
effort beginning in 2010. Figure 12 shows this change in non-ETF outbound naval port calls byfunction. Nearly all of these port calls were carried out as part of the Harmonious Mission seriesof deployments by the Peace Ark from the East Sea Fleet as mentioned above.
The Harmonious Mission deployments represent an effort to practice seafaring skills in anonthreatening manner. The PLAN has gained valuable operational experience from participation in antipiracy ETFs while also supporting broader Chinese diplomacy by providing public
goods. However, as piracy in the Gulf of Aden decreases, the PLAN may find reduced opportunities for military diplomacy. An expansion in HA/DR missions may provide an opportunity
for the PLAN to reap the operational and diplomatic benefits of routine, extended deploymentsin the context of a less threatening nontraditional security operation.

37

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Educational and Functional Exchanges
Overview and Context. PLA education and academic exchanges (院校交流) can be categorized into academic institution leader visits, cadet and professional military education student
delegation visits, training foreign military personnel at PLA military educational institutions,and individual PLA officers studying abroad.120 The PLA also conducts functional exchanges
with foreign militaries on specific subjects, including operations, logistics, management, andmilitary medicine. Functional exchanges usually involve visiting expert delegations, and often
are conducted by individual PLA services under the direction of the MND/Foreign Affairs Office (now the CMC Office of International Military Cooperation).121
Although the PLA has published some aggregate data in its 2000, 2006, and 2008 defense
white papers, finding specifics on educational and functional exchanges is difficult. The white
papers indicate a steady increase in Chinese military personnel studying abroad, from “morethan 200 Chinese military personnel” in Russia, Germany, France, Great Britain, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Kuwait in 1999–2000 to “over 900 military students” studying in morethan 30 countries in 2007–2008. The 2008 defense white paper also notes that “twenty militaryeducational institutions in China have established and maintained inter-collegiate exchange relations with their counterparts in over 20 countries, including the United States, Russia, Japan,
and Pakistan. Meanwhile, some 4,000 military personnel from more than 130 countries havecome to China to study at Chinese military educational institutions.” The lack of comparable
data makes it difficult to observe any change in trends since the 18th Party Congress. That said,
it is clear the PLA has a robust military education and academic exchange program.122 Some
examples are discussed below.
General Staff Department and CMC Academic Institution Exchanges. The PLA’s National Defense University (国防大学), which was created in 1985 and is directly subordinate to the
CMC, has a robust exchange program with multiple countries.123 NDU has formal relations
with at least seven countries, including the United States, Australia, and South Korea. Each year,
NDU hosts about 100 foreign groups and organizes visits abroad to attend international conferences and enhance PLA educational programs. For example, NDU usually hosts a delegationof new flag officers from the U.S. NDU’s Capstone Course and sends PLA major generals in its
strategic course for a 7- to 10-day trip to one or more foreign countries.
NDU’s College of Defense Studies (CDS) is the PLA’s primary institution for graduate-level military education for foreign students. Its course offerings include a year-long Defense andStrategic Studies Course, a 5-month Advanced Command Course (in Russian and Spanish),38

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

and a 20-day International Symposium Course.124 In September 2014, CDS awarded its firstmaster’s in military science degrees to 61 foreign military students who completed the 2-year
program.125 CDS is located on a separate campus at Changping and is both geographically andorganizationally separate from the regular courses NDU offers to PLA officers. As of 2010, CDS
had reportedly trained more than 4,000 officers from more than 150 countries.126
Two specialized PLA universities, the PLA University of Science and Technology (PLAUST)
in Nanjing and the PLA National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) in Changsha, also
engage in a range of cooperation with foreign partners, including sponsoring conferences, competitions, and training sessions for foreign experts, military officers, and cadets. For example,
PLAUST has held a biennial international cadets’ week training program since 2005, with 20
foreign army cadets from 10 countries (Argentina, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay) participating in the 2013 edition
along with 16 PLA cadets from PLAUST and the PLA NUDT.127
Service Functional and Academic Exchanges. The PLA services each have their own command colleges, technical schools, and military academies to conduct specialized training. (The
PLA military education system is expected to undergo a major restructuring and consolidationin 2017.) Many of these institutions conduct a variety of functional and academic exchanges
with foreign counterparts. For example, the PLAAF reported in November 2014 that more than
50 foreign air force commanders and chiefs of staff had visited China in the past few years andthat it had sent more than 600 senior science and technology officers from units and academic
institutions to visit and study abroad.128 The PLAAF reportedly hosts more than 90 foreign delegations (1,500 personnel) per year.
Although it is difficult to track PLAAF functional exchanges with different countries, thefollowing examples provide snapshots of exchanges with various countries. In December 2014,
PLAAF commander General Ma Xiaotian hosted the Portuguese air force chief of staff, where
they stated that the two air forces have carried out several pragmatic cooperation activities inpersonnel training, logistics, and other areas, with great potential for cooperation in other areas.129 Another example involves PLAAF Command College visits to the United States. In May
2014, Commandant Major General Ma Jian led a 29-member delegation of faculty and students
from the college to the United States, where they met with experts at the Center for Naval
Analyses and RAND and visited Air University in Montgomery, Alabama, where they met withthe university commander and president, Lieutenant General David Fadok, and toured several
organizations, including Air War College and the Air Force Research Institute. Like NDU, the
PLAAF Command College has established a 2-year master’s degree program available in five39

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

specialties and three languages (English, French, and Russian). It awarded its first degrees to 20
2-year students from 16 unidentified countries in July 2014.130 The college has also offered anannual 4-month command course for foreign officers since 2000.
PLA Army and Navy educational institutions offer a similar range of educational programs
open to foreign military students, such as a 2013 seminar on information warfare offered by the
PLA’s Army Command College (南京陆军指挥学院) in Nanjing to army officers from Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the United States.131 PLA staff colleges offer
training to foreign officers in a range of subjects, including flight training, engineering, radar,sonar, telecommunications, artillery, armor, military medicine, foreign languages, and demining.132 The Rocket Force operates its own command college in Wuhan but is not believed to offer
training or have regular interactions with foreign militaries.
In addition to learning from foreign militaries and providing training on technical andmilitary subjects, PLA functional and educational exchanges provide a means of shaping foreign perceptions of China and advancing PRC policy positions in a variety of settings.
Academy of Military Science. The AMS, which is directly subordinate to the CMC, is the
PLA’s doctrine center and does not appear to train foreign military officers. However, AMS officers interact regularly with foreign military delegations, both in China and in meetings abroad.
The AMS president is also president of the China Association for Military Science, which cosponsors the annual Xiangshan Forum international dialogue.

Nontraditional Security Operations
Overview and Context. China has made a concerted effort to expand military diplomatic
activities in the realm of nontraditional security operations, also known as military operations
other than war. Such operations support broader Chinese diplomatic and foreign policy goals
and provide public goods to the international security environment. Recent examples include
Chinese participation in UN peacekeeping operations and international antipiracy escort task
forces, the deployment of China’s Peace Ark hospital ship on overseas humanitarian missions,the deployment of an escort force for Syrian chemical weapons, and the use of PLA assets tosearch for lost Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 in 2014. In the absence of comparable quantitative data, the qualitative changes and trends in PLA MOOTW activities in recent years aredescribed below.
UN Peacekeeping Operations. The PLA first became involved in United Nations peacekeeping operations (UNPKO) in 1990, when it sent five military observers to the UN Truce
Supervision Organization.133 By the end of September 2014, China had deployed more than40

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

27,000 military personnel around the globe to 23 UN peacekeeping missions.134 Eighteen PLA
soldiers have been killed performing peacekeeping duties. China is the biggest troop and police
contributor among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and it dispatches
the most engineering, transportation, medical support, and security guard troops. China now
pays the second largest share of UN peacekeeping costs.135
As of January 2017, a total of 2,594 PLA personnel were implementing peacekeeping tasks
in nine UN mission areas.136 The largest Chinese contributions were to the UN Organization
Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the African Union/United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur, the UN Mission in Liberia, the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, and the UN Mission
in the Republic of South Sudan, where more than 1,000 PLA soldiers are deployed. Most PLA
peacekeeping troops are military observers, engineers, transportation soldiers, and medical officers, but in June 2013 the PLA sent its first security forces as part of its contribution to themission in Mali.137 China deployed its first UNPKO infantry battalion abroad to South Sudan in
December 2014. The 700-member battalion included 121 officers and 579 enlisted personnel.
The battalion was equipped with drones, armored infantry carriers, antitank missiles, mortars,
light self-defense weapons, and bulletproof uniforms and helmets, among other weapons thatwere “completely for self-defense purposes.”138
The PLA has also continued its active involvement in various peacekeeping training events
abroad, training foreign personnel in China, and conducting programs designed to help select qualified personnel from within the Chinese armed forces. For example, in August 2012,
China sent observers to Mongolia to observe the 10th Khaan Quest multinational peacekeeping
exercise, which involved more than 1,000 soldiers from 10 countries.139 In June 2014, the PLA
hosted a 12-day peacekeeping training session for 33 trainees from 18 countries, including India, Pakistan, Malaysia, South Korea, and other Asian countries.140 The training took place at the
MND’s Peacekeeping Training Center, which was created near Beijing in 2009.141 In September
2014, the center hosted a 3-week course for 40 instructors from 15 countries that included 27
courses and 18 drill subjects.142 In August 2013, the PLA Institute of International Relations
held an examination for 1,670 Chinese field officers seeking positions as UN military observers.143 They were tested on five subjects, including English and driving. As of 2013, the institute
had held 32 training classes for prospective Chinese UN military observers and trained morethan 1,300 qualified personnel.
China derives considerable prestige from its contributions of troops, money, and training
expertise to UN peacekeeping operations, which comport with its preferred UN-centric model

41

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

for global governance and support its claim that a stronger PLA is a force for peace. In 2015,
President Xi Jinping pledged to commit 8,000 Chinese troops to the UN peacekeeping standby
force, making up one-fifth of the 40,000 total troops.144 UN peacekeeping officials attending
the October 2016 Xiangshan Forum in Beijing were given a tour of the Peacekeeping Training Center.145 China is reportedly seeking to leverage its contributions to UN peacekeeping inorder to get a PRC national appointed as Under Secretary General for the UN’s Department of
Peacekeeping Operations.146
Peacekeeping Medical Detachments. Since 2004, the General Logistics Department’s
health department has overseen the training and dispatching of PLA peacekeeping medical
detachments (PMD) from PLA hospitals in the Beijing, Chengdu, Lanzhou, and Nanjing MRs
to four African countries—Liberia, Lebanon, Sudan, and Democratic Republic of Congo—on
8-month deployments.147 Each PMD is assigned to a PLA UNPKO mission and consists ofabout 50 to 60 male and female doctors and nurses, who are organized into two groups and often overlap with each other in country. While in country, PMDs work in a PLA class-II hospital.
In September 2014, the Beijing MR’s 302 Hospital, the PLA’s only infectious disease hospital,
dispatched a PMD to Sierra Leone to deal with the Ebola outbreak. The PMD in Liberia also
helped to fight the Ebola outbreak. Of note, in November 2014, China used nine civilian aircraftfrom China Eastern Airlines and China Cargo Airlines, rather than PLAAF transports, to transport 282 medical staff and 767 tons of medical materials to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone insupport of Ebola rescue efforts.148
Antipiracy Escort Task Forces. China’s participation in international antipiracy escort task
forces is one of the PLA’s most visible nontraditional security activities.149 It began taking part in
December 2008, when the PLAN deployed the first of its ETFs to the Gulf of Aden, and it had
escorted over 6,000 ships as of November 2016.150 As of March 2017, the PLAN has deployed 25
ETFs to the Gulf of Aden, each consisting of two destroyers and/or frigates and a comprehensive supply ship, along with associated helicopters, medical personnel, and PLAN special forces
personnel.151
Peace Ark Hospital Ship Deployments. China has also deployed the Peace Ark on a numberof overseas voyages to provide medical care and make port calls to various nations. The Peace
Ark, commissioned in 2008 and assigned to the East Sea Fleet, has been sent on Harmonious
Mission/Peace Mission (和谐使命) HA/DR missions in 2010, 2011, and 2013–2015, as well asother voyages, and has covered more than 70,000 nautical miles.152 In 2009, the Peace Ark traveled down China’s coastline providing medical services to local populations and PLA troops
stationed on offshore islands. In 2010, in its first overseas deployment, it went to Djibouti, Kenya,

42

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Tanzania, Seychelles, and Bangladesh to provide medical treatment to residents. In late 2011,
Peace Ark traveled through the Caribbean, visiting Cuba, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, andCosta Rica. In April 2012, it participated in Maritime Cooperation–2012 (海上联合-2012) with
Russia, which included a visit to Vladivostok and an HA/DR exercise in Peter the Great Bay in
the Sea of Japan. Other recent deployments include Medical Mission–2013 (卫勤使命-2013) toprovide post-typhoon Haiyan humanitarian medical aid to the Philippines; Harmonious/Peace
Mission–2013, which included a combined disaster relief and military medical science exercise
in Brunei under the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Plus mechanism; and deployments to RIMPAC
2014 and Harmonious Mission 2014.153 The 2015 voyage Harmonious Mission 2015 included
stops in seven countries, including Australia, Barbados, French Polynesia, Grenada, Mexico,
Peru, and the United States.154
Syrian Chemical Weapons Escort Task Force. In accordance with the decision of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on the removal of Syrian chemical weaponsand UN Security Council Resolution 2181 in September 2013, vessels from China, Denmark,Norway, and Russia helped escort the transportation of chemical weapons between December
31, 2013, and June 23, 2014, from Syria to an American vessel for destruction.155
During this period, the Yancheng guided-missile frigate separated from ETF-16 on December 31, 2013, and headed to the Mediterranean Sea to escort the chemical weapons. On
March 8, 2014, the Huangshan guided-missile frigate, which had departed by itself from Zhanjiang, Guangdong Province, on February 17, 2014, relieved the Yancheng, which returned to its
EFT duties. Altogether, the two vessels escorted 20 missions over a 174-day period.
Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370. Immediately following the disappearance of Malaysian
Airlines Flight MH370 on March 8, 2014, with 227 passengers onboard, most of whom were
Chinese, China began conducting space, airborne, and maritime searches for the aircraft.156 A
total of 26 different countries contributed to the unsuccessful search efforts. Altogether, the
PLA assigned 2,273 people and mobilized nine naval vessels, six ship-borne helicopters, andfive PLAAF aircraft (including Il-76 and Y-8 transports from the Guangzhou MRAF’s 13th Air
Division) from March 8 to May 1 to search for the missing plane. Search efforts took place in
the Gulf of Thailand, southwest of Sumatra, the South Indian Ocean, and other sea areas, with
the PLA conducting air and surface searches, using sonar to search underwater, and employing
satellite surveillance.
The aircraft initially operated out of Hainan Island’s Sanya Phoenix International Airport before deploying to Malaysia, where they flew out of the Royal Malaysian Air Force basein Subang. They later deployed to Australia, where they flew out of the Royal Australian Air

43

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Force’s Pearce Base. The aerial search was called off on April 28. PLAN vessels involved included
guided-missile destroyers and frigates, amphibious landing vessels, and comprehensive supply
ships, including the three vessels from ETF-17, which participated in search efforts while enroute to the Gulf of Aden.

Summary
The trends noted above suggest that the PLA has been steadily increasing the overall
amount of military diplomatic activities it carries out with foreign counterparts, with a noticeable increase coinciding roughly with Xi Jinping’s ascent to power. This is consistent with Xi’s
increased emphasis on military diplomacy.157 Senior-level meetings have fallen since 2010 but
continue to make up the overwhelming majority of PLA interactions with foreign militaries.
Military exercises, naval port calls, and nontraditional security operations have increased inboth visibility and quantity over the past 15 years, while the PLA’s functional exchanges withforeign militaries have also likely expanded.

PLA Military Diplomatic Partners
This section examines priorities in Chinese military diplomacy from the country and regional perspective. Which countries does the PLA interact with most? Which countries are the
PLA’s preferred partners for different types of activities? What priorities does China attach todifferent regions?
This section addresses these questions using data from various Chinese- and Englishlanguage media sources. The PLA Navy conducted its first port call in 1985, and the PLA firstbegan conducting international military exercises in 2002.158 The data come with two caveats.
First, not all senior-level meetings and visits are represented in the dataset due to incomplete
information about meetings and visits before 2003. Some meetings and visits certainly occurred
before then, but incomplete data make it difficult to assess trends in meetings and visits tospecific countries during this period. Second, there is little consistently available quantifiable
information that could reveal trends in partners for functional exchanges or military operations
other than war. These two categories are therefore not addressed in this quantitatively focused
analysis.
The available data reveal three main conclusions. First, PLA military diplomacy focusesheavily on the United States and Russia and on Asian countries on China’s periphery. Second,
the PLA conducts different types of military activities with different countries. The PLA stresses
senior-level contact with Asia and Europe, participates in military exercises with Russia and44

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

SCO nations, and conducts most of its port calls in the Middle East and Asia. Third, the volumeof military diplomatic activities with individual countries largely conforms to the priorities implicit in China’s chosen labels for relationships with specific countries.

Geographic Focus of PLA Military Diplomacy
PLA military diplomacy appears to place heavy emphasis on great powers, consistent withseveral strains of Chinese thought on foreign policy and military diplomacy. The United States
and Russia are the PLA’s two most frequent military diplomatic partners. Both nations participate in a full range of military diplomatic activities with the PLA, including military operations other than war and functional exchanges that are not captured in the quantitative data.
Although a senior PLA officer cited interactions with major European militaries as a priority ina 2014 interview, no European country ranks among the PLA’s top 10 partners (see table 3).159
Beyond the United States and Russia, the pattern of the PLA’s military diplomatic interactions over the last 13 years exhibits a clear geographic focus on nations in Asia or near China.
Three of the PLA’s top 5 partners and 8 of the top 10 are in Asia. Table 4 shows that 41.3 percentof the PLA’s military diplomatic interactions from 2003 to 2016 were conducted with countries
in Asia, nearly twice as many as Europe, the next most common region.160
Figure 13 shows that PLA interactions with Asia and with U.S. treaty allies in Asia haveincreased significantly since Xi Jinping took power in November 2012. However, increases inTable 3. The PLA’s Top 10 Most Frequent Military Diplomatic Partners, 2003–2016
Overall
Rank

Countries Geographic Military Naval
Senior-Level
RegionExercises Port Calls Meetings

Grand
Total

1

UnitedStatesRussiaPakistanThailandAustralia
Vietnam
New
ZealandSingapore
Indonesia
India

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

North
America
Russia
Asia
Asia
Asia
Asia
Asia

25

9

101

135

38
29
21
16
2
6

4
12
9
8
4
7

81
67
54
59
54
43

123
108
84
83
60
56

Asia
Asia
Asia

10
16
18

9
6
6

37
33
30

56
55
54

45

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Table 4. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions by Geographic Region, 2003–2016
Geographic
RegionMilitary
Exercises

Naval Port
Calls

Senior-Level
Meetings

Grand
Total

% of Total
Interactions

Asia
EuropeAfricaSouth America
Middle East
North America
Russia

204
51
13
8
10
27
38

105
33
22
12
76
13
4

842
543
259
201
113
130
81

1151
627
294
221
199
170
123

41.3
22.5
10.6
7.9
7.2
6.1
4.4

overall military diplomatic interactions rose at an even faster pace than interactions with Asian
nations, and interactions with Asian nations rose faster than interactions with U.S. allies in Asia.
Figure 14 illustrates PLA military relations with U.S. treaty allies in Asia in more detail, showing an increase in these activities beginning in 2012 led by more interactions with Australia andFigure 13. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions, 2003–2016
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
U.S Allies in Asia

46

'11

All Asia

'12

'13

'14

'15

'16

Total Interactions

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Figure 14. PLA Diplomatic Interactions with U.S. Allies in Asia, 2003–2016
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Australia

New ZealandPhilippines

South Korea

Thailand

Japan

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

'16

Grand Total

Thailand. Of note, PLA military interactions with U.S. allies Japan and the Philippines declined
significantly beginning in 2012 as confrontations with China over maritime territorial disputes(in the East China Sea and South China Sea, respectively) intensified. The Chinese government
sought to increase diplomatic pressure on both governments, and the PLA played its part bycurtailing interactions with the Japanese and Philippine militaries. A similar reduction in PLA
contacts with the South Korean military occurred in 2016 and 2017 as China sought to pressure
the government in Seoul not to deploy the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
missile defense system.161
Increased PLA military diplomatic activity in Asia may be a response to the U.S. rebalance
to Asia, which was announced in fall 2011 and emphasized an increased U.S. focus on Southeast
Asia, or it may reflect guidance from Xi Jinping to increase military diplomacy more generally.

47

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Most of the PLA’s military diplomatic activity in Asia involves South and Southeast Asian
countries. According to table 5, approximately 54 percent of the PLA’s military diplomatic interactions with Asian countries are with 18 countries in Southeast Asia, and interactions with
6 South Asian countries account for some 21 percent of the total activity with Asia.162 Taken
together, these two subregions account for more than 75 percent of the PLA’s military interactions with countries in Asia. Figure 15 documents the PLA’s military relations in Asia over time,demonstrating that the rate of increase was sharpest for Southeast Asia from 2013 to 2016.

Table 5. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions in Asia, 2003–2016

Southeast Asia
South Asia
Central Asia
Northeast Asia

Military Naval Port Senior-Level Grand
Exercises Calls
Meetings
Total% of Interactionsin Asia

91
58
39
16

54.30
21.81
12.25
11.64

68
33
0
4

466
160
102
114

625
251
141
134

Figure 15. Aggregate PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions in Asia, 2003–2016
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

'03

'04

'05

Central Asia

48

'06

'07

'08

'09

Northeast Asia

'10

'11

'12

South Asia

'13

'14

'15

'16

Southeast Asia

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

PLA Military Diplomatic Preferences in Detail
The PLA interacts with different foreign partners in different ways. Patterns in these interactions suggest differing levels of cooperation, trust, expediency, and effort between the PLA
and specific foreign military diplomatic partners.
The PLA appears to place a strong emphasis on senior-level contact with Europe and countries in Asia, especially in the subregions of Southeast and South Asia. Contacts with militaries
in Asia were detailed in the previous section. PLA officers also visit Europe frequently. Nearly
27 percent of total senior-level meetings held abroad take place in Europe, and 24 percent of theattendees at meetings hosted in China are from European countries. Belarus leads European
countries in hosting meetings with visiting Chinese officers, followed by Italy, Germany, Romania, and the United Kingdom. Figures 16 and 17 highlight the PLA’s emphasis on senior-level
engagement with Asia-Pacific and European countries.

Figure 16. Senior-Level Visits Abroad by Geographic Region, 2003–2016

150
16

120

19

90

29

60

79

114

Southeast Asia

South Asia

Northeast Asia

Central Asia

Number of Visits Made Abroad

50

41

37

36

30

30

st

ia
dl
e

Ea

ss
M
id

Am
h

Ru

er
ica

a
ric
Af
No
rt

So

ut

h

Am

er

ica

op
e
Eu
r

As

ia

0

49

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Figure 17. Senior-Level Meetings Abroad and Hosted in China by Region, 2003–2016
46 35
RussiaMiddle East 59 54
North America 51 79
94
South America 107
158
Africa 101
245
Europe29 74
Central Asia
Northeast Asia 50 64
South Asia 42 118
178
Southeast Asia
299
Asia
0
200

Meetings Abroad
Meetings Hosted in China

298

288
544

400

600

800

1,000

Figure 18. Number of PLA Visits Abroad, 2003–2016
40

36

35
30

24

14

13

11

10

10

10

or
e

15

15

nm
ar

20

an

25

10

10

5

Un
50

y
an
rm

Ge

ng
ap

Si

M
ya

ist

Pa
k

an
d
Po
l

ra
lia

t
Eg
yp

Cu
ba

Au
st

ite

d

St

Ru

ss

at
e

s

ia

0

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Figure 18 shows the most frequent destinations for PLA senior-level visits abroad from2003 to 2016; during this period, the PLA dispatched the most delegations to Russia, the UnitedStates, and Cuba.
The differential between senior-level visits sent and those hosted by the PLA can indicate
which country is departing from the diplomatic protocol of reciprocity and trying harder tobuild the bilateral relationship. Countries meeting with the PLA in China more frequently than
the PLA visits their respective countries are putting more effort into their military diplomatic
engagement with China and have large positive differentials in senior-level meetings.163 Figure
19 shows that the United States, Pakistan, and Australia have visited the PLA in China more
often than PLA officers have visited their respective countries. Conversely, the PLA places more

Figure 19. Largest Differentials Between Meetings Hosted in China and Abroad

39

40

39

35
30

23

25

18

20

14

15
10
5

-8

0

-11

-11

-12

-15

-5
-10

ba
Cu

M

ex

ico

in
nt
ge

Ar

ss

ia

a

a
Ru

el
zu
ne
Ve

ly
Ita

Th

ai
la

nd

lia
ra

Au

st

an
ist

Pa
k

Un

ite

d

St

at
e

s

-15

Differential Between Hosted and Abroad51

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

emphasis on senior-level engagement with Cuba, Mexico, Argentina, and Russia than thosemilitaries place on China. As already noted, there has been a drop in the volume of PLA senior
visits overseas since 2012, and more countries have become willing to send senior military anddefense officials to visit China without reciprocal visits from their Chinese counterparts.
Although the PLA stresses senior-level contact with Europe and Asia, broadly speaking,the PLA’s most frequent international partners for military exercises are Russia and SCO nations. Russia, Pakistan, and the United States have the most military exercise interactions with
the PLA, while Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and India have the largest proportion of military exercise interactions. The PLA’s most frequent partners for combat drills, the most complex andsensitive types of military exercises, are Russia, Pakistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Table 6 shows the
PLA’s most frequent partners for military exercises and for combat exercises.

Table 6. Top PLA Partners for Military Exercises, 2003–2016
Number of Military Exercise
Interactions(Number of Combat Exercises)
RussiaPakistan
United States
ThailandIndia
Kazakhstan
Indonesia
Australia
FranceTajikistan

38 (19)29 (7)
25 (0)
21 (5)
18 (0)
16 (6)
16 (3)
16 (0)
13 (0)
11 (6)

Military Exercise Interactions as % of
Total Military Diplomatic Interactions
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
India
Armenia
Tajikistan
RussiaFranceIndonesia
Nigeria
Venezuela

38.1
34.5
33.0
33.0
32.4
30.9
30.2
29.1
28.6
27.3

The demanding characteristics of military exercises suggest a higher degree of coordination and interoperability between the PLA and its most prolific partners for military exercises
and likely reflect the PLA’s effort to learn tactics, techniques, and procedures from Russia and
SCO partners. Military exercises are the most complex and sensitive military diplomatic activities the PLA can conduct with foreign partners, and combat exercises require high levels ofconfidence, coordination, and planning to execute. Some countries such as the United States,
India, France, and Australia regularly exercise with the PLA but are reluctant to conduct combat
exercises due to political constraints on military relations with China and reluctance to help the52

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

PLA build its combat capabilities. The only truly “joint” international military exercise the PLA
participates in is the Peace Mission series of drills with Russia and other SCO partners.
While patterns in its international military exercises suggest that the PLA is learning fromthe drills, its most frequent destinations for naval port calls are either driven by operational
demands or are part of a carefully tailored effort to reassure China’s immediate neighbors about
the benign nature of its naval buildup and its intentions writ large. The overwhelming proportion of the port calls made by China’s antipiracy escort task forces occur in Middle Eastern
nations as replenishment visits for ETF ships, while the most frequent non-ETF port call destinations are nations in the Asia-Pacific region. Table 7 shows the PLAN’s most frequent port calldestinations. The PLA’s establishment of a logistics support facility in Djibouti in 2016 is likely
to reduce the volume of ETF replenishment visits to other foreign ports in the future.
The PLA’s non-ETF port calls are mostly in the Asia-Pacific region and reflect a gradualexpansion of the PLA’s naval reach. The most frequent destinations for non-ETF port calls were
New Zealand, the United States, Australia, and the South Asian countries of Pakistan and India.
All of the non-ETF visits in the top 10 PLAN port call destinations were friendly port calls or
HA/DR missions from the Peace Ark designed to generate favorable publicity for the PLAN. The
use of friendly visits (and the absence of naval drills) likely reflects an effort by China to reassure
its neighbors about the benign nature of its naval buildup, even as PLAN ships begin to venture
farther into the South Pacific, Western Pacific, and Indian oceans.
The PLA carries out different military diplomatic activities with different partners. The
data from 2003 to 2016 indicate that the PLA strongly emphasizes senior-level meetings with

Table 7. Most Frequent PLAN Port Call Destinations, 2003–2016
Overall Port Calls
Oman
Djibouti
Pakistan
Yemen
Sri Lanka
Singapore
Thailand
United States
Australia
Saudi Arabia

25
23
12
11
9
9
9
9
8
7

ETF Port Calls
Oman
Djibouti
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Singapore
Thailand
Malaysia
Greece

25
22
10
7
7
7
6
4
3
3

Non-ETF Port Calls
New ZealandUnited States
Australia
Pakistan
India
ThailandBangladeshIndonesia
Philippines
Russia

7
7
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
3

53

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

counterparts in Asia, Europe, the United States, and Russia; participates in the most military exercises with Russia and SCO countries; and conducts the most port calls in the Middle East andthe Asia-Pacific region. These trends suggest that the PLA seeks to improve military relations
with European and Asian nations, while the United States, Pakistan, and Australia are working
to improve relations with the PLA. The PLA appears most comfortable participating in complex
military exercises with Russia and SCO nations, suggesting a higher level of trust and cooperation between the PLA and these militaries. Most PLA port calls in the Middle East are intended
to meet operational requirements of PLAN counterpiracy missions, while PLA port calls in the
Asia-Pacific are mostly friendly port calls rather than exercises.

The Broader Strategic Context of PLA Military Diplomacy
PLA military diplomatic activities are ostensibly subordinate to the broader contours ofChinese diplomacy and foreign affairs directives, and trends in PLA military diplomacy should
therefore reflect China’s overall strategic orientation.164 How well do PLA military relations conform to the broader strategic priorities that China assigns to various nations around the world?
China began establishing strategic partnerships (战略伙伴关系) with various countries
in the early to mid-1990s under Jiang Zemin, and the number and types of partnerships increased under Hu Jintao. Although several partner countries have worked out unique names fortheir bilateral relationships with China, the Chinese foreign ministry generally employs specificterms to distinguish between higher and lower priority relationships. The first distinction is
between countries that are partners (伙伴) and those with which China only has relationships(关系) or no specific relationship label. The second distinction is between partnerships thatare strategic (战略) and those that are merely friendly (友好). The third distinction is between
comprehensive (全面) and cooperative (合作) relationships, with comprehensive describing abroader range of cooperation. Within this hierarchy, a comprehensive strategic partnership (全面战略伙伴关系) is toward the top of the scale, while a friendly cooperative relationship (友好合作关系) denotes a less important relationship.165 The United States and Japan are important
exceptions to this pattern. China sought a strategic partnership with the United States but ultimately settled for calling the bilateral relationship a “new type of major country relationship.”
Nevertheless, Chinese diplomats consider the U.S.-China relationship as equivalent to a strategic partnership. Japan is a second anomaly, since historical animosities made China reluctant
to accord Japan “strategic” status or endorse a full partnership. Accordingly, the two countries
are called “mutually cooperative partners,” even though Japan receives much more diplomatic
attention from China than that term suggests.

54

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

While Chinese scholars emphasize that China’s strategic partnerships are broader relationships and not military alliances, there are at least two reasons that military diplomacy might
be correlated to the relationship labels that Beijing uses.166 First, because military diplomacy issubordinate to higher level foreign policy guidance, the volume and types of military diplomatic
activities should correspond to those countries with higher overall strategic priority. Second,the comparatively greater amount of effort required to carry out foreign military relations andthe higher sensitivity of military relations suggest that those ties would be easier to maintainwith countries that China prioritizes. Given the strong top-down nature and complexity of Chinese military diplomacy, observers would expect that higher strategic priority should translate
into more military diplomatic interactions.
Preliminary empirical evidence indicates that this intuitive observation is broadly true.
Despite a wide variety of labels, certain terms appear to be correlated with higher levels of PLA
military diplomatic interaction. To determine if certain terms were likely to lead to higher levelsof PLA military diplomatic activity, we used multivariate regression analysis with the amountof military diplomatic interaction as the dependent variable, and the eight terms used withmultiple countries as independent variables: strategic, comprehensive/all-round/all-weather, cooperative, friendly, relationship, partnership/partner, new type, and no specific relationship. These
independent variables were coded as dummy variables—that is, if a country’s relationship label
contained a given term, it was assigned a value of one; otherwise, they were coded with zeros.
Comprehensive, all-round, and all-weather were coded together as one variable because theseterms were believed to mean the same thing; partnership and partner were similarly coded together. The United States was coded as a strategic partner because Chinese diplomats consider
the U.S.-China relationship equivalent to a strategic partnership, even though strategic is notincluded in the label.
The regression analysis in table 8 shows that strategic was associated with the biggest increase in military diplomatic activity, followed by comprehensive/all-round/all-weather and cooperative. The increases in military diplomatic interactions caused by these three variables are
represented by positive coefficients and were statistically significant, with p-values below 0.05.
The term new type also caused a statistically significant increase in military diplomatic activity,
but the increase is skewed upward because the moniker applies only to the United States andFinland. Other variables were associated with both increases and decreases in military diplomatic activity, but these results were not statistically significant enough (at the 0.05 level) torule out change attributable to random chance. China uses many of these terms liberally andinterchangeably among different countries.

55

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Table 8. Regression Analysis on Key Terms Used in PRC Strategic Partnerships andRelationships
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
R SquareAdjusted R SquareStandard Error
Observations

0.612684742
0.375382593
0.340438962
18.1142473
152

ANOVA
Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
Strategic
Comprehensive/
All-Round/AllWeather
Cooperative
Friendly
Relationship
Partnership/Partner
New Type
No Specific
Relationship

Df

SS

MS

F

Significance F

8
143
151

28199.19235 3524.899 10.74252
46922.0116 328.126
75121.20395

9.1342E-12

Coefficients

Std.
Error

t StatP-value

Lower
95%

Upper
95%

8.500031.9997
14.331612.8087
7.08514.20330.66364.51653.4096

0.508008 -16.8189
1.31E-05 17.9946
0.000846 6.0229

33.8189
46.0048
22.6403

13.59659.8876-21.4982-24.3482

5.40977.070316.675415.1674

2.5134
1.3985-1.2892-1.6053

0.013068
0.164136
0.199404
0.110634

2.9032-4.0882-54.4603-54.3296

24.289923.8634
11.46395.633173.6251
0.236813.9041
13.1415

5.29520.01804.39E-07 46.1409
0.985646 -25.7398

101.1093
26.2135

While the regression analysis suggests that strategic, comprehensive, and cooperative are associated with the greatest increases in military diplomatic activity, the results should not be overinterpreted. The analysis only tested for the independent impact of single terms on the amount ofmilitary diplomatic activity; it did not test for the interaction between these terms—that is, what
the impact would have been if strategic and comprehensive occurred simultaneously. Additionally, the R-Square value of 0.375 suggests that the regression line may not be the best fit for the data.

56

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

In some cases, the data do not reflect the known historical evolution of the terms. For
instance, while partnership is associated with a decrease in military diplomatic activity, thischange is not statistically significant, likely due to the increasing and widespread use of partnership over time, which dilutes the hierarchical importance of the term. Past analysis has indicated that partnership was mostly reserved for major powers in the 1990s, was broadened toinclude major regional powers in the 2000s, and was subsequently applied as a catch-all term
to any country with a good relationship with China.167 Several countries were “upgraded” from
relationship to partnership as relations with China developed, suggesting that the Chinese emphasize partnerships over relationships.168 The regression does not account for this upgrading
and the hierarchical priority that the Chinese ascribe to partnerships.
The hierarchy of strategic partnerships and the empirical analysis also do not account for
China’s caution in military diplomacy with countries that are under UN sanctions or where close
strategic ties might cause serious tensions with the United States. For instance, North Korea is
China’s one treaty ally and depends heavily on China for economic aid and political support. Yet
the countries do not have a strategic partnership and have only limited military diplomatic contacts: North Korea ranks 45th in overall PLA interactions, with no military exercise interactions,
1 naval port call, and 21 senior-level meetings since Hu Jintao took power in 2003. Similarly,
China’s arms sales and security ties with Iran have long been a source of tension in Sino-U.S. relations due to U.S. concerns about Iran’s support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.
China did not establish a strategic partnership with Iran until UN sanctions were removed after
Iran signed an agreement restricting its nuclear program.169 PLA interactions with the Iranian
military were also limited, with Iran ranking 56th in overall PLA interactions, hosting only 1
naval port call and 11 senior meetings from 2003 to 2016. Once sanctions were lifted and China
established a strategic partnership with Iran, Chinese and Iranian military forces participated infour separate military competitions (exercises) in August 2016.
The overall volume of PLA military diplomatic activities with different partners indicatesthat the PLA’s military relations generally correspond with the broader strategic priorities laidout by China’s higher level leadership. In particular, the PLA’s military relations appear to reflect
the priorities expressed in China’s convoluted partnership classification system.

Conclusion and Implications
The analysis in this study reveals a concerted PLA effort to use military relations to achieve avariety of objectives, with a particular emphasis on supporting overall Chinese diplomacy, learning new skills and benchmarking the PLA against foreign militaries, and shaping the security

57

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

environment. Other military diplomatic objectives such as intelligence gathering and building
partner capacity appear to be lower priority objectives.
Almost all military diplomatic activities support China’s overall diplomatic efforts in somefashion. The country and regional priorities in China’s military diplomatic interactions appear
to correspond closely with the priorities in China’s wider foreign policy. This includes a broad
focus on building good strategic relations with major powers such as the United States andRussia and the priority placed on countries in Asia and along China’s periphery. Moreover, thevolume of military relations also appears to correspond with the naming taxonomy used toindicate priorities in China’s relations with various foreign countries.
The PLA’s growing participation in nontraditional security operations, military exercises,
and functional exchanges highlights PLA efforts to learn new skills and benchmark the capabilities of its forces against those of other nations. PLA participation in military competitions is an
explicit form of benchmarking and reflects greater confidence that PLA units will not embarrassthemselves. The PLA’s expanded program of exercises and functional exchanges also provides
opportunities to learn from foreign militaries.
Analysis of the PLA’s military relations from 2003 to 2016 confirms that the PLA is using military diplomacy to shape China’s security environment. For instance, the majority of
non-ETF port calls are friendly port visits that occur in Asia, highlighting Chinese attempts
to assuage neighbors concerned about its new naval might. The Peace Ark routinely stops at
multiple Asian ports in order to cultivate China’s image as a benign power that can make positive contributions to regional security. Since 2010, however, shaping efforts have increasingly
displayed military capabilities rather than downplaying them. Military exercises in particularhave become more combat-oriented and sometimes appear designed to deter or discourage
potential opponents using specific capabilities. For example, China partnered with Russia tocarry out a missile defense exercise in May 2016, shortly after a row over U.S. deployment of
the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea.170 The two countries also highlighted their
missile defense cooperation and opposition to U.S. missile defense deployments in a joint press
conference at the Xiangshan Forum in October 2016.
While the PLA’s foreign military relations have placed strong emphasis on supporting China’s overall diplomatic posture, learning new skills and benchmarking, and shaping the security
environment, the PLA has apparently placed less emphasis on active intelligence-gathering andbuilding partner capacity. Almost all PLA military diplomatic interactions present opportunities to collect intelligence, and the PLA takes full advantage of those opportunities. However,few military diplomatic activities appear to have intelligence collection as their primary focus.

58

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Every contact with a foreign military is an opportunity to gain knowledge, but activities involving deeper operational contacts are likely to have more intelligence value. For instance, PLAN
exercises with the Russian navy provide hands-on opportunities to learn from Russia and toaccurately assess the technical capabilities of Russian weapons systems and the operational proficiency of Russian crews.
Unlike the United States, building partner military capacity does not appear to be an especially important goal of PLA military diplomacy. Although some military diplomatic interactions help build partner capacity, the PLA’s foreign military relations do not emphasize thisobjective. Military diplomatic activities are typically framed as efforts to improve ties with foreign militaries.171 Building the capacity of foreign military partners appears to be a means ofstrengthening relations rather than an end in itself. China does conduct activities intended to
improve the military and domestic security capabilities of some foreign partners, but these do
not necessarily fall within the scope of military diplomacy. For instance, Chinese arms sales
are conducted by state-owned arms manufacturers, internal security assistance falls under thepurview of the Ministry of State Security and the Ministry of Public Security, and advice on
censorship or control of the Internet would be the province of the Cyberspace Administrationof China and other organizations.172
The PLA is using its program of foreign military relations to pursue a range of objectives,
but the increased volume of military diplomatic activities documented in this study does notnecessarily translate into success. The PLA’s foreign military relations are subject to a numberof international and domestic constraints. First and foremost, PLA military diplomacy is constrained by what activities foreign counterparts are willing and able to do with the PLA. China’s
increasingly assertive behavior on the international stage could reduce the efficacy of its military diplomatic efforts and reduce its neighbors’ willingness to interact with the PLA; China willfind it harder to reassure its neighbors if it is also bullying them. Resource limitations, including
the small staff of the CMC Office of International Military Cooperation and the demands placedon senior PLA officers by ongoing military reforms, are likely to reduce the number of PLA
military engagements in 2017 and perhaps for the next several years.
Other constraints stem from the nature of the Chinese system and the desire of the CCP
to exert tight control over the military. Chinese culture emphasizes form over substance, andChina’s strategic culture makes it averse to binding security agreements. PLA officers are subject
to top-down directives, tight control of political messaging, and the need to protect information about PLA capabilities, which inhibits candid conversations with foreign counterparts.173
Most PLA interlocutors are not empowered to negotiate or share their real views, which makes

59

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

it difficult to build strong personal or institutional ties with foreign counterparts.174 As a result,much of China’s military diplomatic activity consists of formal exchanges of scripted talking
points during senior-level meetings, occasional naval port calls, and simple scripted military
exercises focused on nontraditional security issues. These activities support existing relationships but are unlikely to build much strategic trust or support deeper military cooperation.
The PLA’s program of military diplomacy is best understood as a product of these constraints. Many of the trends observed in this paper are reflections of long-standing, higher level
Chinese diplomatic strategy, consistent with military diplomacy’s hierarchical position in China’s top-down system of governance. Some of the trends noted here will not be surprising toclose observers of the PLA; for instance, closer Sino-Russian defense ties and China’s cultivationof influence on Australia and Thailand have been years in the making. The PLA’s role in thesemilitary diplomatic trends appears to be a slower-moving manifestation of broader Chinese
strategy.
This does not mean the PLA’s military diplomacy is insignificant or does not warrant analytic and policy attention. The PLA’s growing involvement in a web of bilateral and multilateralforeign military relationships produces pressure for greater transparency and for adherence
to international rules and norms. For example, after blocking agreement on the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) in the Western Pacific Naval Symposium for several years,
the PLAN eventually accepted the agreement while hosting the symposium in Qingdao in 2014and has subsequently employed CUES in interactions with foreign navies. Military-to-military
relationships have also been useful for establishing military hotlines and rules governing air
and maritime encounters that can reduce the risk of crisis or conflict.175 However, PLA scholars believe military diplomacy can also be used to escalate crises when beneficial to national
interests (for example, by cutting off planned military exercises or exchanges), making military
diplomatic activities a bargaining chip that Beijing can wield.176 The PLA can be expected touse military diplomacy to try to win support for China’s diplomatic objectives, such as China’s
cooperation with Russia to oppose U.S. missile defense deployments and to promote an international code of conduct for space weapons.177 In some cases, these efforts may erode or modify
existing international norms in ways that work against U.S. interests.
U.S. policymakers should also focus on the PLA’s ability to use military diplomacy to improve its operational capabilities or build strategic relationships that give it access to strategic
airfields and ports. U.S. allies and partners with advanced military capabilities should be discouraged from helping the PLA learn to conduct advanced combat operations or sharing details
about U.S. military capabilities and tactics. At the same time, U.S. allies and partners will want60

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

to interact with the PLA as part of their efforts to manage their relations with China, and U.S.
policymakers should not try to stop them. PLA military diplomatic activities might also advance Chinese national interests at the expense of U.S. interests. For example, Chinese transfersof advanced military capabilities to potential U.S. adversaries such as Iran and North Korea orcountries providing PLA significant access to bases, airfields, or ports in strategically important
areas should be of concern to U.S. policymakers. Military diplomatic interactions with any ofthese characteristics would likely be the result of national-level strategic decisionmaking, notlower level PLA decisions.
While these developments should concern U.S. policymakers, not all potentially alarming
trends in PLA military diplomacy are as easily noticed. Functional and academic exchanges that
improve the PLA’s warfighting capability are difficult to measure or detect until well after they
have occurred. The most worrisome developments may be ones we cannot observe or measurequantitatively.
The patterns observed in the PLA’s military relations from 2003 to 2016 indicate that although PLA military diplomatic activity has increased in volume and expanded in scope, thisincreased activity has not necessarily translated into increased Chinese influence. In manycases, the volume and type of activity may be an indicator of the quality of China’s diplomatic
relations and security cooperation with a particular country rather than an effective means of
expanding Chinese influence. The data in this study indicate that the PLA has continued to
expand its foreign military relations program in accordance with directives from the highest
levels of China’s leadership. This means that shifts in functional and regional emphasis in the
PLA’s foreign military relations likely reflect China’s broader national priorities as well as shifts
in PLA capabilities and interests.

61

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Appendix. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions, 2003–2016

62

Country

Military
Exercises

Naval Port
Calls

Senior-Level
Meetings

Grand Total

United States
RussiaPakistanThailandAustralia
Vietnam
New ZealandSingapore
Indonesia
India
Malaysia
South Korea
BelarusFranceGermany
Kazakhstan
Italy
United Kingdom
Bangladesh
Myanmar
Japan
Egypt
Chile
Romania
BrazilCuba
Laos
Tajikistan
CambodiaSouth Africa
Djibouti
Sri Lanka

25
38
29
21
16
2
6
10
16
18
10
4
9
13
4
16
2
7
4
1
6
3

9
4
12
9
8
4
7
9
6
6
6
3

101
81
67
54
59
54
43
37
33
30
35
42
40
26
35
26
36
31
29
34
33
32
36
34
29
33
34
23
28
25
8
18

135
123
108
84
83
60
56
56
55
54
51
49
49
43
42
42
41
40
39
39
39
38
37
37
35
35
35
34
33
32
31
30

2
3
1
11
2
2
3

4
3
3
2
6
4
3
1
1
3
2

3
5
23
9

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Appendix. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions, 2003–2016, cont.
Country

Military
Exercises

Naval Port
Calls

Senior-Level
Meetings

Grand Total

GreeceFinland
Oman
PolandKyrgyzstan
Philippines
Tanzania
TurkeyBulgaria
Hungary
Mongolia
Argentina
North Korea
Switzerland
Nepal
Brunei
MexicoSerbiaSwedenCanadaUzbekistan
Namibia
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Afghanistan
ZambiaZimbabwe
Yemen
EcuadorUkraineMozambique

2

4
1
25
1

24
28
3
28
19
20
24
20
25
24
18
21
21
21
15
14
16
16
16
13
14
14
11
7
14
15
14
12
3
12
11
12

30
29
29
29
29
28
27
26
26
25
24
22
22
21
19
18
18
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
15
15
14
14
14
14
13
13

1
10
3
1
3

5
2
3
1

1
6
1
1
4
3

1
2

1
2
2
1
4
2

1
2
1
1
7
1

2
11
2
2
1

63

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Appendix. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions, 2003–2016, cont.
Country
Portugal
Peru
AngolaJordanKenya
Bolivia
IsraelVenezuela
Denmark
Croatia
Tunisia
Slovakia
Uruguay
Colombia
Spain
NorwayCzech RepublicNetherlands
Algeria
Maldives
UgandaSyria
Ethiopia
Macedonia
Nigeria
Austria
Gabon
MoroccoUnited ArabEmirates
Togo
LebanonCameroon64

Military
Exercises

Naval Port
Calls

Senior-Level
Meetings

Grand Total

2

3
2
1
1
2

1
2

10
11
10
11
10
12
10
8
8
10
9
10
10
8
10
9
7
7
6
7
8
8
8
8
4
7
6
6
4

13
13
13
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
6

1

6
6
4

6
6
6

1
3
2

1
1
1

2

1
1
2
1

2

1

1

1

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Appendix. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions, 2003–2016, cont.
Country
Seychelles
Belgium
Ghana
Congo
Papua New
GuineaArmenia
Qatar
Turkmenistan
Fiji
GuyanaDR Congo
Trinidad andTobagoSuriname
Botswana
Mali
CyprusTonga
BosniaHerzegovina
KuwaitRwandaMalta
Liberia
SenegalAzerbaijan
East Timor
VanuatuBahrain
Malawi
LatviaJamaica

Military
Exercises

Naval Port
Calls

Senior-Level
Meetings

Grand Total

3

3
6
5
6
5

6
6
6
6
6

4
5
5
3
5
5
4

6
6
5
5
5
5
5

5
4
4
4
3
4

5
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2

4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

1
1
2
1
2

1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1

1

65

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Appendix. PLA Military Diplomatic Interactions, 2003–2016, cont.
Country

Military
Exercises

Ivory Coast
Barbados
LesothoGrenada
Niger
Mauritania
GuineaComoros
Moldova
Central African
Republic
Guinea-Bissau
Lithuania
Montenegro
BurundiBenin
Costa Rica
Eritrea
Cape Verde
Sierra Leone
Chad
Slovenia
Antigua andBarbudaMadagascar
Mauritius
Albania
Estonia

Grand Total

66

Naval Port
Calls

Senior-Level
Meetings

Grand Total

1
1

2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

2,162

2,785

1

1

1

349

274

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Notes
These dates begin with the first full year of the Hu Jintao era (2003) and capture 4 years of theXi Jinping era to provide a basis for comparison. Another reason for the start date is some key sources,
such as China Vitae, do not cover activities before 2003.
2
The Chinese version of Jiefangjun Bao (JFJB) or Liberation Army Daily (LAD) can be found at<www.chinamil.com.cn/>, and the English version at <english.chinamil.com.cn/>.
3
China Armed Forces has been published since January 2009 by Xinhua News Agency’s military
department. It was published quarterly from 2009 to 2011 and has been produced bimonthly since then.
4
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is not consistent in how it translates guofang bu (国防部). Although it normally uses “Ministry of National Defense,” it also uses “Defense Ministry” and“Ministry of Defense.” It also uses the initialisms MND and MOD.
5
Information Office of the State Council, “The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed
Forces,” April 2013, People’s Republic of China Ministry of Defense, available in English at <http://eng.
mod.gov.cn/TopNews/2013-04/16/content_4442750.htm>. The Chinese version is available at <www.
mod.gov.cn/affair/2013-04/16/content_4442839.htm>.
6
Andrew S. Erickson and Austin M. Strange, No Substitute for Experience: Chinese Antipiracy
Operations in the Gulf of Aden (Newport, RI: U.S. Naval War College, 2013).
7
Although the former name was the General Logistics Department, the new name uses
Logistic instead of Logistics. See Zhang Tao, “China Establishes Joint Logistic Support Force,” China
Military Online, September 13, 2016, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2016-09/13/content_7256651.htm>.
8
For an analysis and details on the reorganization, see Joel Wuthnow and Phillip C. Saunders,
Chinese Military Reform in the Age of Xi Jinping, China Strategic Perspective 10 (Washington, DC: NDU
Press, 2017), available at <http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/china/ChinaPerspectives-10.pdf?ver=2017-03-21-152018-430>.
9
The authors thank Joel Wuthnow for pointing this out.
10
Gu Dexin, ed., International Military Relations, vol. 1[国际军事关系 (学科分册I)] (Beijing:
Encyclopedia of China Publishing House, 2007), 1.
11
All-Military Military Affairs Management Committee [全军军事管理委员会], ed., PLA Military Terminology [中华人民解放军军语] (Beijing: Academy of Military Sciences Press, 2011), 1063.
12
Ibid., 7–10; Zhou Congbao and Zhong Hai, eds., On Strategy for Military Diplomacy [军事外交战略学] (Beijing: National Defense University Press [NDU], 2015), 7.
13
Gu, Dexin, 1.
14
Chu Yongzheng, ed., Military Diplomacy [军事外交学] (Beijing: NDU Press, 2015),
117–125.
15
Ibid., 125–131.
16
Ibid., 133, 137–141.
17
Yang Lina and Chang Xuemei, eds., “Xi Jinping: Start a New Phase of Military Diplomacy [习近平：进一步开创军事外交新局面],” Xinhua, January 29, 2015, available at <http://cpc.people.com.
cn/n/2015/0129/c64094-26474947.html>.
167

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Jin Canrong and Wang Bo, “On Theory of Military Diplomacy with Chinese Characteristics [有关中国特色军事外交的理论思考],” Pacific Studies Report [太平洋学报] no. 5 (2015), 22, available
at <www.cssn.cn/jsx/201601/P020160104312124234558.pdf>; Wan Fayang, Chinese Military Diplomacy—Theory and Practice [中国军事外交理论与实践] (Beijing: Current Affairs Press, 2015), 294–309;
Chen Zhiyong, “Retrospect and Thinking of the 60 Years of Military Diplomacy in New China [新中国60年军事外交回顾与思考],” China Military Science [中国军事科学] 5 (2009), 35–36; “Chinese
Military Diplomacy and Military Messaging to the Outside [中国军事外交中的军事对外传播],” PLA
Daily, January 2, 2014, available at <www.81.cn/jkhc/2014-01/02/content_5716684.htm>.
19
Wan Fayang, 294–309.
20
For an overview of the geographical distribution of Chinese foreign policy interests, see Phillip
C. Saunders, China’s Global Activism: Strategy, Drivers, and Tools (Washington, DC: NDU Press, 2006).
21
China’s Asia-Pacific white paper provides numerous examples of the role of military diplomacy in advancing China’s regional policy and relations with the United States and Russia. See StateCouncil Information Office, “China’s Policies on Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation,” January 11, 2017.
22
Peter Cai, Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative (Sydney: Lowy Institute, 2017),
available at <www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/understanding-belt-and-road-initiative>.
23
Ibid., 181.
24
Li Lu and Li Jing, “‘Peace Mission’ Is Deeply and Broadly Meaningful [和平使命 军演意义深远],” PLA Daily, September 5, 2014, available at <www.81.cn/jwgd/2014-09/05/content_6125535.htm>.
25
Information Office of the State Council, “China’s Military Strategy,” May 2015, People’s
Republic of China Ministry of Defense, available at <http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Database/WhitePapers/2015-05/26/content_4586715.htm>.
26
Wan Fayang, 312, 348; Huang Zijuan and Yan Jiaqi, “Expert: PLA Navy Ships Exercise in theSouth China Sea to Display the Achievements of PLA Military Construction [海军三大舰队南海演
习，专家：展示中国军队建设成就],” People’s Daily, July 11, 2016, available at <http://military.people.
com.cn/n1/2016/0711/c1011-28543175.html>.
27
Wan Fayang, 315.
28
“China’s Military Strategy”; Information Office of the State Council, “The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed Forces.”
29“‘Aviadarts 2014’ International Pilot Competition Ends,” China Military Online, July 29, 2014,
available at http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Photos/2014-07/29/content_4525343.htm.; Yao Jianing, “Ma Xiaotian
Meets with Portuguese Air Force Chief of Staff,” China Military Online, December 9, 2014, available at<http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-12/09/content_6261756.htm>.
30
China does not have allies in the Western sense of the term.
31
Wan Fayang, 326.
32
Zhang Tao, “China, Pakistan Launch Joint Air Drill,” China Military Online, September 6,
2015, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2015-09/06/
content_6667497.htm>; Ayaz Gul, “China Delivers First Batch of Military Aid to Afghanistan,”
Voice of America, July 3, 2016, available at <www.voanews.com/content/china-military-aid-afghanistan/3402178.html>.
33
Wan Fayang, 312.
18

68

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

This position, currently held by Admiral Sun Jianguo, was the Deputy Chief of General Staff
with the intelligence and foreign affairs portfolio prior to the PLA reforms announced in January 2016.
35“China’s Military Strategy.”
36
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, “The Third Round of ChinaGermany Foreign Ministers’ Strategic Dialogue to Be Held Soon,” October 9, 2012, available at <www.
fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/wsrc_665395/t978502.shtml>.
37
The Xiangshan Forum is co-sponsored by the China Institute for International Studies (aForeign Ministry think tank) and the China Association for Military Science (a nominally independentassociation headed by the president of the PLA’s Academy of Military Sciences).
38
Zhang Tao, “Defense Ministry’s Regular Press Conference on Dec. 25, 2014,” Ministryof National Defense, December 25, 2014, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/2014-12/25/content_6284814.htm>.
39
Information Office of the State Council, “The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed
Forces”; Zhang Tao, “Aviadarts 2014 International Pilot Competition Ends,” China Military Online, July29, 2014, available at <http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Photos/2014-07/29/content_4525343.htm>.
40
Wan Fayang, 313.
41
Erickson and Strange.
42
Whereas Western English-language articles use escort task force, China’s English-language articles from sources such as Xinhua, China Armed Forces, and China Military Online use escort taskforce.
An official brochure published by the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) International Communication Bureau of the Ministry of National Defense (国防部国际传播局) titled Escort Operations of theChinese PLA Navy use convoy task force and the acronym CTF. For purposes of this paper, escort task
force (ETF) is used.
43
Fang Lihua and Ju Zhenhua, “Spreading Friendship and Compassion to 16 Nations and Tempering Capabilities While Journeying Across the Worlds’ Oceans—Peace Ark: The Impressive Calling
Card for a Responsible Nation [倾情播撒友谊爱播十六国眠断能力航迹遍及工三洋—和平方舟:
负责任大国形象的亮丽名片],” Renmin Haijun, November 1, 2013; Shihar Aneez and Ranga Sirilal,“Chinese Submarine Docks in Sri Lanka Despite Indian concerns,” Reuters, November 2, 2014, available
at <www.reuters.com/article/us-sri-lanka-china-submarine-idUSKBN0IM0LY20141102>.
44
Wan Fayang, 314–319.
45
Yao Jianing, “Ma Xiaotian Meets with Portuguese Air Force Chief of Staff ”; John S. Van
Oudenaren and Benjamin E. Fisher, “Foreign Military Education as PLA Soft Power,” Parameters 46, no.
4 (Winter 2016–2017), 105–118.
46“China’s Military Strategy”; see also Du Nongyi and Wang Tao, “Peacekeeping Diplomacy:
Main Theme of Military Diplomacy in the New Phase of the New Century [维和外交: 新世纪新阶段
军事外交的主旋律],” China Military Science [中国军事科学] 4 (2007), 109–111.
47
Zhang Tao, “China Sends First Infantry Battalion for UN Peacekeeping,” Xinhua, December
22, 2014, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/2014-12/22/content_6280182.
htm>; Erickson and Strange; Qiang Lijing, “Timeline: China’s Military in the Search for MH370,” China
Armed Forces 2, no. 26 (2014), 12–17; Meng Jinyu, “Aerial Search for MH370 [空中搜寻MH370],”
China Air Force, April 2014, 36–38.
34

69

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

The PLA’s participation in strategic dialogues is grouped with senior-level meetings andvisits, as information on the meetings held by senior PLA leaders often did not confirm whether the
meeting was held as part of a dialogue.
49
Although China’s official media uses Minister of National Defense and Defense Minister for
its leader (国防部部长), this paper uses Defense Minister. See Yao Jianing, “Four Meetings Between
Chinese and U.S. Naval Chiefs in One Year,” China Military Online, September 18, 2014, available
at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-09/18/content_6144343.
htm>; Yao Jianing, “Wu Shengli Flies to U.S. for International Seapower Symposium,” China Military
Online, September 16, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-militarynews/2014-09/16/content_6140003.htm>.
50
Other PLA leaders also sometimes interact with foreigners, but on a much less regular basis.
51
One of these areas is national defense mobilization. The Defense Minister serves as a vicechairman of the National Defense Mobilization Committee (国家国防动员委员会), established in
1994 under the dual control of the CMC and State Council. The other notable military representative on this committee is DCOGS Admiral Sun Jianguo, whose portfolio includes defense mobilization. The Defense Minister’s position as a State Councilor provides him with the appropriate status in
the state system to participate in cabinet executive meetings, though his status is probably informallygreater than other State Councilors because he represents the CMC, which is an organization of thesame weight as the State Council. For more, see Kenneth W. Allen et al., “China’s Defense Minister andMinistry of National Defense,” in The PLA as Organization v2.0, ed. Kevin Pollpeter and Kenneth Allen,(Vienna, VA: Defense Group, Inc., 2015).
52
PLA Air Force Commander General Ma Xiaotian traveled extensively while serving as the
DCOGS in charge of foreign affairs and intelligence and did not want to travel abroad, according to
information from various interviews conducted by the author.
53
For instance, Beijing Military Region commander Zhang Shibo (张仕波) led a delegation
to the United States in November 2013, and Chengdu MR PC Zhu Fuxi hosted Thailand’s acting Vice
Minister of Defense, who was en route to attend the 10th China-Thailand Defense and Security Consultations in Beijing in June 2014. See Xu Hongcai, “Zhu Fuxi Meets Thailand’s Acting Vice Defense
Ministry [朱福熙会见泰国国防部代理次长],” Zhanqi Bao, June 16, 2014, 1.
54
United States Air Force, “Nanjing Regional Air Force Command Visits Pacific Air Forces,”
September 25, 2014, available at <http://www.pacaf.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/377/Article/591140/nanjing-regional-air-force-command-visits-pacific-air-forces.aspx>.
55
Senior PLA leadership included CMC members, designated deputy General Department
leaders, National Defense University (NDU) and Academy of Military Science leaders as well as political commissars, military region commanders and political commissars, and designated assistants toGeneral Department leaders for which media reporting was available.
56
On occasion, when foreign military leaders meet with their PLA counterparts, they also meetseparately with other senior PLA officers. These separate meetings are included in this dataset. PLA
leaders who accompany senior civilian leaders to foreign countries are not counted as separate visitsbecause these personnel are not heads of delegation.
57
The year 2007 is a slight anomaly, probably because the CCP General Secretary (Hu Jintao)
48

70Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

and the two CMC Vice Chairs (Xu Caihou and Guo Boxiong) all stayed on for a second term. This
reduced the need for senior PLA officers to stay at home to lobby for promotions.
58
Authors’ interactions with PLA delegations.
59
The term joint is a term used in PRC English-language media. Chinese media use 联合,which can mean combined, combined arms, and joint in U.S. military parlance.
60
Information Office of the State Council, “The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed
Forces.” See also Zhang Tao, “Chinese and Indonesian Special Operation Forces Hold Joint Training,”
China Military Online, July 2, 2012, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2012-07/02/content_4920071.htm>; and Chen Jie, “China, Thailand Hold Anti-Terrorism
Training,” Xinhua, December 9, 2013, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/chinamilitary-news/2013-12/09/content_5683020.htm>.
61
See Guo Renjie, “PLA to Debut in U.S.-Thailand Military Exercise,” Xinhua, February 11,
2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-02/11/content_5764942.htm>; and Li Xiaokun and Mo Jingxi, “China Joins U.S.-Thailand Drill,” China Daily, February 12, 2014, available at <http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-02/12/content_17277823.htm>.
62“Chinese Troop Joins ASEAN Humanitarian Assistance, Disaster-Relief Exercise,” Xinhua,
April 29, 2014, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-04/29/c_133296424.htm>.
63
Yao Jianing, “Chinese Soldiers Join Australian, U.S. Troops in Joint Exercises in Australia,” Xinhua, October 8, 2014, available at <http://eng.mod.gov.cn/DefenseNews/2014-10/08/content_4541775.htm>.
64
Zhang Tao, “China-Mongolia Joint Military Training for Disaster Relief Ends,” China
Military Online, September 24, 2013, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/photoreports/2013-09/24/content_5533347.htm>.
65
Li Fenfen, “Pakistan Hosts ‘Peace Angel-2014’ Combined Humanitarian Assistance andDisaster Relief Exercise [中巴举行和平天使-2014联合卫勤演练],” Xinhua, April 19, 2014, available at <http://news.mod.gov.cn/headlines/2014-04/19/content_4504223.htm>. See also Guo Renjie,“‘Peace Angel 2014’ China-Pakistan Joint Medical Exercise Concludes,” China Military Online, April 28,
2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-04/28/content_5883969.htm>.
66
See Guo Renjie, “Chinese Military Exercises Create Records in 2014,” China Military Online,
December 17, 2014, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-militarynews/2014-12/17/content_6273930.htm>; Zhang Tao, “Chinese Tanks Appear in International Tank
Competition,” China Military Online, August 5, 2014, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.cn/
news-channels/photo-reports/2014-08/05/content_6080294.htm>; “Russia Wins World Championship
Tank Biathlon 2014,” Russia Today, August 16, 2014, available at <http://rt.com/in-motion/180820-final-russia-tank-biathlon/>; Guo Renjie, “Made-in-China Armored Equipment Debuts in Tank Biathlon-2014,” China Military Online, October 23, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/newschannels/photo-reports/2014-10/23/content_6192140.htm>; Miles Yu, “Tanked in Russia,” Washington
Times, August 21, 2014, available at <www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/21/inside-chinatanked-in-russia/?page=all>.
67
Information Office of the State Council, “The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed71

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Forces”; Fang Yang, “Marine Forces of China, Thailand to Hold Joint Training,” Xinhua, May 8, 2012,
available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-05/08/c_131575846.htm>.
68“China, U.S. Successfully Stage Joint Maritime SAREX,” Crienglish.com, November 12, 2013,
available at <http://english.cri.cn/11354/2013/11/12/3481s797984.htm>.
69
Ibid.
70
Zhang Tao, “Chinese Fleet Joins Others for RIMPAC Exercise,” Xinhua, June 14, 2014, available
at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-06/14/content_5960521.htm>.
71
Zachary Keck, “U.S. Welcomes China’s RIMPAC Spying,” The Diplomat, July 30, 2014, available at <http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/us-welcomes-chinas-rimpac-spying/>.
72
Jane Perlez, “U.S. Naval Ties with China Advance, Symbolically,” New York Times, July 20,
2014, available at <http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/u-s-naval-ties-with-china-advancesymbolically/?_r=0>.
73
Rear Admiral Frederick J. Roegge, “RIMPAC 2016: An Exercise in Response and Interoperability,” Navy Live Blog, July 29, 2016, available at <http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2016/07/29/rimpac2016-an-exercise-in-response-and-interoperability/>.
74
Guo Renjie, “‘Komodo’ Multilateral Humanitarian Rescue Maritime Actual-Troop Drill Concluded,” China Military Online, April 2, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/
photo-reports/2014-04/02/content_5837820.htm>.
75Note that the exercises have also been identified as joint sea exercises. China Armed Forces
has an article that identifies the exercise as Joint-Sea 2014. See Cao Kai, “A Record of ‘Joint-Sea 2014’ [海上联合-2014演习全记录],” China Armed Forces 3, no. 27 (2014), 14–23. To further confuse the situation, the PLA Navy (PLAN) held a combined exercise on April 23, 2014, near Qingdao in conjunction
with its 65th anniversary and Western Pacific Naval Symposium–2014 that was also identified in English
as Maritime Cooperation–2014; however, the Chinese characters are different (海上合作). See Wang
Jingguo, “Maritime Cooperation 2014 [海上合作-2014],” China Armed Forces 3, no. 27 (2014), 60–65.
76
The use of sensors and communications devices in an exercise allows the foreign partner tocollect information on the ranges and frequencies of such systems, which is valuable technical intelligence. See “Chinese Military Exercises Create Records in 2014,” China Military Online, December 17,
2014, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.con/news-channels/china-militay-news/2014-12/17/
content_6273930.htm>.
77
For an assessment of these exercises and of Sino-Russia military cooperation more generally,see Richard Weitz, Parsing Chinese-Russian Military Exercises (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute,2015).
78
Ben Blanchard, “China, Russia to Hold First Joint Mediterranean Naval Drills in May,”
Reuters, April 30, 2015, available at <www.reuters.com/article/us-china-russia-military-idUSKBN0NL16F20150430>.
79
Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer, “The Chinese-Russian South China Sea Naval Exercises: What
Happened and Why Did It Matter?” Eastern Arsenal Blog, September 21, 2016, available at <www.popsci.com/chinese-russian-south-china-sea-naval-exercises-what-happened-and-why-did-it-matter>.
80
Zhang Qiliang, Naval Diplomacy Theory [海军外交论] (Beijing: Academy of Military Science Press, 2011), 243.

72

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Kenneth Allen, “China’s Air Force Foreign Relations Program and Implications for Interaction
with the U.S. Air Force,” Foreign Area Office Association Journal of International Affairs, March 3, 2015.
82
Zhao Lei, “PLA Air Force Seeks Collaboration,” China Daily, September 24, 2014, available at<www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-09/24/content_18649783.htm>.
83
Ouyang Dongmei, “Chinese and Pakistani Air Forces Hold Joint Training,” China Military Online, September 23, 2013, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/photo-reports/2013-09/23/content_5527605.htm>.
84
Ibid.
85
Yao Jianing, “Ma Xiaotian Meets with Portuguese Air Force Chief of Staff.”86“Chinese, Belarusian Airborne Troops Hold Joint Exercise in China,” Xinhua, November 27,
2012, available at <http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90786/8035739.html>. See also “China-Belarus‘Condor 2012’ Joint Anti-Terrorism Training Wrapped Up,” China Military Online, December 6, 2012,
available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/special-reports/2007zgjdgjtm/2012-12/06/content_5140507.
htm>; Zhang Xuefeng, “The Thunderers [雷神突击队],” China Armed Forces 3, no. 15 (2012), 42–47.
87“China, Indonesia Airborne Troops Complete Anti-Terrorism Exercise,” Xinhua, November 11, 2013, available at <www.globaltimes.cn/content/824095.shtml#.UvPw2P0ZIYV>. This was afollow-up to Sharp Knife 2011 in Bandong, Indonesia, and Sharp Knife 2012 in Jinan, China. See Jiang
Fan, “China-Indonesia Joint Training for Special Forces Ends in Bandung,” People’s Daily, June 18, 2011,
available at <http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/7413666.html>. Each of these involved special forces. Guo Renjie, “Chinese, Indonesian Airborne Forces Hold Joint Anti-Terror Drill,”
China Military Online, October 27, 2014, available at <http://eng.mod.gov.cn/DefenseNews/2014-10/27/
content_4547351.htm>.
88“Russian Airborne Troops to Visit China for Skills Exchange,” Xinhua, May 27, 2014, available at <www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-05/27/content_17545229.htm>.
89
Zhang Tao, “Aviadarts 2014 International Pilot Competition Ends,” China Military Online,
July 29, 2014, available at <http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Photos/2014-07/29/content_4525343.htm>.
90
While three Su-30s and six pilots deployed to Russia, it appears that only two aircraft andfour pilots participated.
91
Fang Yang, “‘Peace Mission–2009’ Improves Anti-Terror Response: Chinese Military Officer,”
Xinhua, July 24, 2009, available at <http://news.Xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/24/content_11765127.
htm>; Du Mingming and Zhang Qian, “Backgrounder: China-Russia Joint Military Exercises Since
2003,” Xinhua, July 6, 2013, available at <http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90786/8313722.html>.
92
Lian Junyi et al., eds., “Agenda,” in Peace Mission-2010, China Military Online, available at<http://eng.mod.gov.cn/SpecialReports/SCO%20Joint%20Military%20Exercises.htm>; Yang Lina,“Peace Mission 2010 Concludes, Opens New Page for SCO Cooperation,” Xinhua, September 25, 2010,
available at <http://news.Xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-09/25/c_13529321.htm>; Roger McDermott, “PLA Displays Network-Centric Capabilities in Peace Mission 2010,” Eurasia Daily Monitor
7, no. 180 (October 6, 2010), available at available at <www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_
ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=37001&cHash=ff5fd5240d#.U_oxmbl0y9I>.
93
China Military Online hosted an official English-language Web site (http://eng.chinamil.com.
cn/special-reports/node_60757.htm) devoted solely to Peace Mission–2013, which also had links to the8173China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

previous exercises. Several other Chinese and Russian English-language articles provided information
about the exercise. See also Pavel Lisicin, “Peace Mission 2013 Russian-Chinese Anti-Terror Exercise,”
RIA Novosti, August 14, 2013, available at <http://en.ria.ru/photolents/20130814/182739162/PeaceMission-2013-Russian-Chinese-Anti-Terror-Exercise.html>; Liu Dan, “Peace Mission–2013 ChinaRussia Joint Drill Ends,” Xinhua, August 16, 2013, available at <http://news.Xinhuanet.com/english/
video/2013-08/16/c_132635278.htm>; “‘Peace Mission-2013’: China-Russia Relations in New Context,”
ITAR-TASS News Service, August 20, 2013, available at <http://rbth.asia/world/2013/08/20/peace_mission-2013_china-russia_relations_in_new_context_48549.html>; Tan Changjun, “China Carries Out
1st Reconnaissance Mission in Joint Military Drills,” Global Times, August 7, 2013, available at <www.
globaltimes.cn/content/802152.shtml>.
94
See Guo Renjie, “Joint Tactical Coordination Conducted in Peace Mission–2014 Exercise,”
China Military Online, August 22, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/
china-military-news/2014-08/22/content_6107131.htm>; Yao Jianing, “PLA Air Force Troops in‘Peace Mission–2014’ Show Four Main Features,” China Military Online, August 21, 2014, available
at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-08/21/content_6105578.
htm>; Zhang Tao, “Chinese Troops Participating in ‘Peace Mission–2014’ Take Mass Pledge in Zhurihe,” China Military Online, August 7, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/
china-military-news/2014-08/07/content_6084068.htm>; “SCO Exercise Peace Mission 2014 to
Involve 7,000 Troops,” ITAR-TASS News Agency, August 19, 2014, available at <http://en.ITAR-TASS.
com/world/745617>; Wang Xu, “Joint Military Drill to Hone Anti-Terror Capacity,” China Daily,
August 19, 2014, available at <http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-08/19/content_18444004.
htm>; Yao Jianing, “Ten Breakthroughs of China’s Military Diplomacy in 2014 (1),” China Military
Online, December 26, 2014, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/2014-12/26/
content_6286046.htm>.
95
Paul Goble, “Military Suffering Casualties in War Games,” Moscow Times, August 12, 2009,
available at <www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?163042-Bad-maps-kill-60-Chinese15-Russian-soldiers-during-Peace-Mission-2009>.
96
Zhu Yingqiu et al., eds., “About Peace Mission 2012,” China Military Online, June 8, 2014,
available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/special-reports/node_54180.htm>; Roger N. McDermott,“SCO ‘Peace Mission’ 2012 Promotes Security Myths,” FOI Memo 4040, July 2012, available at <www.
foi.se/Global/V%C3%A5r%20kunskap/S%C3%A4kerhetspolitiska%20studier/Ryssland/Briefings/
RUFS%20Briefing%20No.%2014%20-%2012070>; Martin Andrew, “Power Politics: China, Russia, andPeace Mission 2005,” China Brief 5, no. 20 (September 2005).
97
This paper defines exercises as maneuvers that the PLA had a hand in planning, and exercise
interactions as the number of times the PLA interacted with a foreign country in the context of military
exercises, including those that the Chinese had no role in planning.
98
Authors’ interview with a PLA flag officer, 2014.
99“Chinese Military Exercises Create Records in 2014,” China Military Online, December 17,
2014, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.con/news-channels/china-militay-news/2014-12/17/
content_6273930.htm>. See the PLA Army’s performance at the Tank Biathlon 2014 competition.
100
Zhang Tao, “Defense Ministry’s Regular Press Conference on Dec. 25, 2014.”

74

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Lin and Singer.
Zhang Tao, “Defense Ministry’s Regular Press Conference on Dec. 25, 2014.”
103
Good examples of a replenishment visit include Wu Di, “Chinese Naval Ship Berths in Salalah
Port for Replenishment,” China Military Online, October 8, 2014, available at <http://eng.mod.gov.cn/
HomePicture/2014-10/08/content_4542110.htm>; and Yao Jianing, “Chinese Naval Escort Taskforce
Stops at Djibouti Port for Replenishment and Rest,” China Military Online, September 9, 2014, available at<http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-09/09/content_6129544.htm>.
104
Good examples of a friendly visit include Zhang Tao, “Chinese Naval Escort Taskforce
Docks in Singapore,” China Military Online, October 13, 2014, available at <http://eng.mod.gov.cn/
DefenseNews/2014-10/13/content_4543084.htm>.
105
Yan Meng and Yao Chun, “CTF 151 Commander Visits 14th Chinese Naval Escort Taskforce,” People’s Daily, May 8, 2013, available at <http://en.people.cn/90786/8235569.html>.
106
Guo Renjie, “Chinese Escort Taskforce Commanding Officer Meets with Singaporean Counterpart,” China Military Online, June 11, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/
china-military-news/2014-06/11/content_5953400.htm>.
107
Li Youping, “European Union Navy 46th Task Force Command Officers Visits the Changchun Vessel [欧盟海军465编队指挥官访问长春舰],” Renmin Haijun, July 4, 2014.
108
Lu Yu, “Commentary: Closer Military Cooperation Conducive to Improving ChinaU.S. Mutual Trust,” Xinhua, August 24, 2013, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/
indepth/2013-08/24/c_132659450.htm>; Chen Lin, “Joint Sea Drill Shows Improved Relations,” China
Daily, August 26, 2013, available at <http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-08/26/content_16919254.
htm>; Deng Xiguang, Wang Changsong, and Cai Zengbing, “A Sino-U.S. Joint Anti-Piracy Drill,” China
Armed Forces 5, no. 23 (2013), 23–25.
109
Wang Changsong, Qin Chuan, and Li Ding, “‘Peace-13’ Joint Maritime Drill [和平-13 多国
海上联合演习],” China Armed Forces 2, no. 20 (2013), 42–47.
110
Guo Renjie, “Chinese and Nigerian Navies Conduct First Anti-Piracy Joint Drill,” China
Military Online, May 29, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-militarynews/2014-05/29/content_5923490.htm>; Guo Renjie, “Chinese Naval Fleet Pays First Visit to Cameroon,” China Military Online, June 3, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/
china-military-news/2014-06/03/content_5932926.htm>.
111
Rong Junjie, Li Xiao, and Hu Quanfu, “First Sino-European Anti-Piracy Drill,” China Armed
Forces 2, no. 26 (2014), 8, 83–85.
112
Zhang Tao, “China, Iran to Stage Joint Navy Drills in Persian Gulf,” Global Times, September
23, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-09/23/
content_6150650.htm>.
113
Zeng Xingjian and Hong Yihu, “Passing the Strait of Magellan,” China Armed Forces 6, no.
24 (2013), 80–83.
114
Dong Zhaohui, “Chinese ‘Changxing Island’ Submarine Support Ship in Colombo Port of
Sri Lanka,” China Military Online, September 24, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/newschannels/china-military-news/2014-09/24/content_6152669.htm>.
115
Dong Zhaohui, “Dutch Expert: Sending Submarine by China for Escort Beyond Reproach,”
101
102

75

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

China Military Online, September 29, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/
china-military-news/2014-09/29/content_6160307.htm>.
116
The PLAN also has another training ship, the Type 0891A Shichang (82), which was commissioned in January 1997. The Shichang is primarily used for surface navigation and helicopter training. It has also participated in task force visits to various countries, including Australia in 1998, andnaval exercises. See Bernard D. Cole, The Great Wall at Sea: China’s Navy in the Twenty-first Century(Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2010), 132.
117
Zhang Xiaomin, “Naval Training Ship Going Round the Globe,” China Daily, April 17, 2012,
available at <www.china.org.cn/china/2012-04/17/content_25160837.htm>.
118
Dong Zhaohui, “Naval Training Taskforce Commander: ‘High-sea Training Voyage Reaps
a Lot,’” China Military Online, June 25, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/
china-military-news/2014-06/25/content_6010970.htm>; Yao Jianing, “Chinese Training Ship Taskforce
Wraps Up Visit to Indonesia,” Ministry of Defense, June 9, 2014, available at <http://eng.mod.gov.cn/
DefenseNews/2014-06/09/content_4514963.htm>. The vessels were originally scheduled to visit Vietnam but apparently switched to Singapore while at sea.
119
Some PLAN ships conducted port calls during military exercises with other countries, as
one ship did during a 2012 exercise with Russia. The reporting on these port calls did not always specify
if a port call occurred as a part of a military exercise.
120
The PLA does not have a term that translates directly as professional military education. The
closest term is peixun (培训), which is a combination of peiyang (培养) and xunlian (训练). PLA dictionaries translate peiyang as development and training, training, or cultivation and training. See Dong
Huiyu and Mou Xianming, eds., Dictionary of Modern Military Education, 2nd ed. [现代军校教育辞典](Beijing: National Defense University Press, August 2011), 223; China’s PLA Military Terminology (中国人民解放军军语) (Beijing: Academy of Military Science Press, December 2011), 323.
121
See Eric Hagt, “The Rise of PLA Diplomacy,” in PLA Influence on China’s National Security
Policymaking, ed. Phillip C. Saunders and Andrew Scobell (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015),
218–248.
122
Van Oudenaren and Fisher, 105–118.
123
Chu Zhenjiang and Luo Jinmu, “National Defense University Strengthens Strategic Cooperation with Several Countries’ Well-Known Academic Institutions [国防大学与多国名校加强战略合作],” PLA Daily, May 12, 2014.
124“Courses,” College of Defence Studies Web site, available at <www.cdsndu.org/html_en/
to_columnContent_orderNo=2402&superOrderNo=2400.html>.
125
Guo Renjie, “National Defense University of PLA Awards Master Degree to Foreign Senior
Officers,” China Military Online, September 9, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/newschannels/china-military-news/2014-09/09/content_6129447.htm>.
126
Lin Peixiong, Liu Demao, and Tao Shelan, “College of Defense Studies’ Top Secret:
4,000 Foreign Military Officers Trained Already [国防大学防务学院首次揭秘：已培训4千多
名外国军官],” Xinhua, September 5, 2010, available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/school/201009/05/c_12519388.htm>.
127
Yan Meng and Yao Chun, “5th International Cadets Week Unveiled at PLA University of76

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

Science and Technology,” China Military Online, November 4, 2013, available at <http://english.people.
com.cn/90786/8445306.html>.
128
Yu Hongchun, “Opening: Flying High and Far in Confidence [开放: 在自信中高飞远航
],” China Air Force, November 2014, 28–29.
129
Yao Jianing, “Ma Xiaotian Meets with Portuguese Air Force Chief of Staff.”
130
Guo Kai and Wang Caishan, “Air Force Command College Grants 20 Foreign Students Master’s Degree [空军指挥学院授予20名外军留学生硕士学位],” Air Force News, July 17, 2014, 1.
131130Feng Guoxiong, “China and Foreign Army Academic Institution Presidents Hold Discussions and Exchanges [中外陆军院校长研讨交流活动举行],” PLA Daily, November 7, 2013.
132
David Shambaugh, China Goes Global: The Partial Power (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2013), 301.
133
Information Office of the State Council, “The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed
Forces.”
134
Zhang Tao, “China Sends First Infantry Battalion for UN Peacekeeping,” Xinhua, December
22, 2014, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/2014-12/22/content_6280182.
htm>.
135
“China to Replace Japan as Second-Largest Funder of U.N. Peacekeeping,” Japan Times,
December 22, 2015, available at <www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/12/22/national/politics-diplomacy/
china-replace-japan-second-largest-funder-u-n-peacekeeping/#.WMm64fIsDZv>.
136
See United Nations (UN), “UN Mission’s Summary Detailed by Country: Month of Report:
31-Jan-17,” January 31, 2017, available at <www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2017/jan17_3.
pdf>.
137
“News,” China Armed Forces 4, no. 22 (2013), 6.
138
Zhang Tao, “China Sends First Infantry Battalion for UN Peacekeeping”; Yao Jianing, “China
to Send First Infantry Battalion for UN Peacekeeping,” China Daily, December 23, 2014, available at<http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/2014-12/23/content_6281041.htm>.
139
Yang Lina, “Multinational Peacekeeping Exercise Begins in Mongolia,” Xinhua, August 12,
2012, available at <http://news.Xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-08/12/c_131779809.htm>.
140
Zhang Tao, “China Trains Foreign Peacekeepers,” Xinhua, June 16, 2014, available at <http://
eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-06/16/content_5966206.htm>.
141
International Crisis Group, China’s Growing Role in UN Peacekeeping, Asia Report No. 166,
International Crisis Group, April 17, 2009, 1, available at <www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/China_and_
UN_Peacekeeping.pdf>.
142
Yao Jianing, “UN Military Observers Course Begins in Beijing,” China Military Online, September 2, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-militarynews/2014-09/02/content_6121898.htm>.
143“News,” China Armed Forces 5, no. 23 (2013), 6.
144
See Courtney J. Fung, China’s Troop Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping, Peacebrief 212,
July 26, 2016, available at <www.usip.org/publications/2016/07/chinas-troop-contributions-un-peacekeeping>.
145
Authors’ interview with UN peacekeeping official, October 2016.

77

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

Colum Lynch, “China Eyes Ending Western Grip on Top U.N. Jobs with Greater Control
Over Blue Helmets,” Foreign Policy, October 2, 2016, available at <http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/02/
china-eyes-ending-western-grip-on-top-u-n-jobs-with-greater-control-over-blue-helmets/>.
147
Mo Yinglong and Wan Chusheng, “PLA Is to Send a Peacekeeping Medical Team to
Liberia,” PLA Daily, November 18, 2003, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.cn/english/
pladaily/2003/11/18/20031118001014_militarynews.html>; Guo Renjie, “PLA Sends First Medical
Team to Fight Against Ebola in Sierra Leone,” China Military Online, September 17, 2014, available at<http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-09/17/content_6142314.htm>;
Mengjie, “Chinese Medical Team Stays in Liberia to Fight Ebola,” Xinhua, August 2, 2014, available at<http://news.Xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-08/02/c_133526735.htm>. Several other articles wereused to provide a list of every peacekeeping medical detachments since 2004.
148
Xiang Bo, “Nine Chinese Aircraft Finish Ebola Rescue Task,” Xinhua, November 19, 2014,
available at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-11/19/c_133801063.htm>.
149
Erickson and Strange.
150
Zhang Zhihao, “Naval Escort Fleet Returns After Successful Gulf of Aden Mission,” China Daily, November 3, 2016, available at <www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2016-11/03/content_27263994.htm>.
151“Chinese Naval Escort Taskforces Complete Mission Handover,” China Military Online,
January 3, 2017, available at <http://eng.mod.gov.cn/DefenseNews/2017-01/03/content_4769046.htm>;
Zhu Ke, “China Naval Special Forces ‘Dragon Commando’: 300 Days of Gulf of Aden Escorts [中国海军特种部队蛟龙突击队:亚丁湾护航300天],” China.com, February 5, 2010, available at <www.china.
com.cn/military/txt/2010-02/05/content_19373527_2.htm>; PLA special forces are organized into
regiment-level dadui (大队) and are separate from the PLAN’s Marine Corps.
152
For an excellent description of the Peace Ark’s expanding role in the PLAN’s overseas presence, see Peter W. Mackenzie, “Red Crosses, Blue Water: Hospital Ships and China’s Expanding Naval
Presence,” Center for Naval Analyses, September 2011. See also Kyle Mizokami, “Peace Ark: Onboard
China’s Hospital Ship,” USNI News, July 23, 2014, available at <http://news.usni.org/2014/07/23/peaceark-onboard-chinas-hospital-ship>; Fang Lihua and Ju Zhenhua, “Spreading Friendship and Compassion to 16 Nations and Tempering Capabilities While Journeying Across the Worlds’ Oceans—Peace
Ark: The Impressive Calling Card for a Responsible Nation [倾情播撒友谊爱播十六国眠断能力航迹
遍及工三洋—和平方舟:负责任大国形象的亮丽名片],” Renmin Haijun, November 11, 2013.
153
Kamlesh Kumar Agnihotri, “China’s ‘Peace Ark’: The Navy and Band-aid Diplomacy,” IPCS
Article 4026, July 9, 2013, available at <www.ipcs.org/article/military/chinas-peace-ark-the-navy-andband-aid-diplomacy-4026.html>; Mizokami; Zhang Tao, “Australian Military Doctors Join Chinese
Ship,” China Military Online, September 10, 2014, available at <http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-09/10/content_6131160.htm>.
154
Zhang Tao, ed., “Chinese Hospital Ship Peace Ark Set Out for Harmonious Mission–2015,”
China Military Online, September 25, 2015, available at <http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2015-09/25/content_6699367.htm>.
155
Li Xiao and Hu Quanfu, “Chinese Navy Escort Transport of Syria’s Chemistry Weapons,”
China Armed Forces 1, no. 25 (2014), 82–87; Kong Defang and Yan Meng, eds., “Chinese Navy to Escort
Transportation of Syria’s Chemical Weapons,” People’s Daily, January 2, 2014, available at <http://eng146

78

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

lish.people.com.cn/90786/8501590.html>.
156
Qiang Lijing, “Timeline: China’s Military in the Search for MH370,” China Armed Forces 2,
no. 26 (2014), 12–17; Meng Jinyu, “Aerial Search for MH370 [空中搜寻MH370],” China Air Force, April
2014, 36–38; Yao Jianing, “Ten Breakthroughs of China’s Military Diplomacy in 2014 (1).”157
Yang Lina and Chang Xuemei, eds., “Xi Jinping: Start a New Phase of Military Diplomacy [习近平：进一步开创军事外交新局面],” Xinhua, January 29, 2015, available at <http://cpc.people.
com.cn/n/2015/0129/c64094-26474947.html>.
158
All these military diplomatic interactions are recorded in the dataset, which is available fordownload on the NDU Press Web site.
159
Authors’ interview with PLA flag officer, 2014.
160
The Europe region does not include Russia, which was counted as a separate region in order
to better examine its relative importance. A full accounting of PLA military diplomatic activity by country and region is included in the appendix.
161
The authors’ interactions with the Japanese and South Korean militaries indicate that the
reduction in interactions was due to decisions made by the Chinese side.
162
In addition to the 10 Association of South East Asian Nations countries, we include Australia, New Zealand, and other countries in Oceania in the Southeast Asia subregion.
163
The differentials were calculated as the difference between meetings hosted in China andmeetings held abroad.
164
Zhang Wei, “On Study of the Theory of Chinese Military Diplomacy [关于中国军事外交的理论探讨],” China Military Science 3 [中国军事科学] (2004), 34; Chen Zhiyong, 35–36, 39.
165
For a comprehensive listing and taxonomy of Chinese strategic partnerships and relationships, see Peter Wood and Matt G. Brazil, “China’s Foreign Relations: Levels of Commitment,” available
at <https://www.p-wood.co/2016/09/18/chinas-foreign-relations/>.
166
Scott L. Kastner and Phillip C. Saunders, “Exploring China’s Strategic Partnerships: Characteristics, Motivations, and Consequences,” paper presented at the International Studies Association,
March 26, 2014, 2; Su Hao, “The ‘Partnership’ Frame in China’s Foreign Affairs [中国外交的’伙伴关
系’框架],” World Knowledge [世界知识] 5 (2000).
167
Kastner and Saunders, 4–6.
168
Feng Zhongping and Huang Jing, “China’s Strategic Partnership Diplomacy: Engaging witha Changing World,” European Strategic Partnerships Observatory, Working Paper 8, June 2014, available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459948>.
169
Joel Wuthnow, Posing Problems Without an Alliance: China-Iran Relations after the Nuclear
Deal, INSS Strategic Forum 290 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, February 2016), 1.
170
Franz Stefan-Gady, “China and Russia to Hold First Computer-Enabled Missile Defense
Exercise in May,” The Diplomat, May 2, 2016, available at <http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/china-andrussia-to-hold-first-computer-enabled-missile-defense-exercise-in-may/>.
171
Chu Yongzheng, 117.
172
See Dean Cheng, Cyber Dragon: Inside China’s Information Warfare and Cyber Operations(Denver, CO: Praeger, 2017).
173
Wan Fayang.

79

China Strategic Perspectives, No. 11

174

Authors’ experience, among others.
“U.S., Chinese Navies Practice Search and Rescue, CUES,” USS Benfold Public Affairs, Officeof the Commander, United States Pacific Fleet, August 15, 2016, available at <http://www.cpf.navy.mil/
news.aspx/130061>.
176
Chu Yongzheng, 137–141.
177
Nuclear Threat Initiative, “Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (Paros) Treaty,”
March 25, 2015, available at <www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-racespace-paros-treaty/>. The full draft is available at <http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/
PPWT.pdf>.
175

80

Chinese Military Diplomacy, 2003–2016

About the Authors
Mr. Kenneth Allen is the Research Director of the China Aerospace Studies Institute at
the U.S. Air Force. For the past 25 years, his primary focus has been on the Chinese military’sorganizational structure, personnel, education, training, and foreign relations, with particularemphasis on the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force. He previously worked for the U.S.Taiwan Business Council, Henry L. Stimson Center, Litton TASC, Center for Naval Analysis,
Defense Group, Inc., and Long Term Strategy Group. During his 21 years in the U.S. Air Force(1971–1992), he served as an enlisted Chinese and Russian linguist and intelligence officer withtours in Taiwan, Germany, Japan, PACAF Headquarters, China, and Washington, DC (Instructor in the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] Joint Military Attaché School). From 1987–1989,
he served as the Assistant Air Attaché in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, where he received theindividual Exceptional Collector of the Year Award for 1988 and the Unit Exceptional Collectorof the Year Award for 1989 (Tiananmen). He was inducted into DIA’s Defense Attaché Hall of
Fame in 1997. He has BAs from the University of California at Davis and University of Maryland, and an MA from Boston University. He has written multiple books, monographs, bookchapters, journal articles, and online articles on the PLA.
Dr. Phillip C. Saunders is Director of the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs(CSCMA) and a Distinguished Research Fellow, Institute for National Strategic Studies, at the
National Defense University. Dr. Saunders previously worked at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, where he was Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program from 1999–
2003, and served as an officer in the U.S. Air Force from 1989–1994. Dr. Saunders is co-author,
with David Gompert, of The Paradox of Power: Sino-American Strategic Restraint in an Era ofVulnerability (NDU Press, 2011) and co-editor of five books on Chinese military and security
issues. Dr. Saunders attended Harvard College and received his MPA and Ph.D. in International
Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University.
Mr. John Chen is a Research Associate at Defense Group, Inc., where he conducts Chinarelated research and analysis on foreign policy, national security, and science and technology
issues using Chinese-language sources. Previously, he was a research intern in CSCMA andreceived an AB from Dartmouth College and an MA from Georgetown University.

81

China Strategic Perspectives Series
Editor, Dr. Phillip C. Saunders

10 Chinese Military Reforms in the Age of Xi Jinping: Drivers, Challenges, and Implications
by Joel Wuthnow and Phillip C. Saunders
9 China Moves Out: Stepping Stones Toward a New Maritime Strategy
by Christopher H. Sharman (03/15)
8 Red China’s ‘Capitalist Bomb’: Inside the Chinese Neutron Bomb Program
by Jonathan Ray (01/15)
7 “Not an Idea We Need to Shun”: Chinese Overseas Basing Requirements in the 21st Century
by Christopher Yung and Ross Rustici, with Scott Devary and Jenny Lin (10/14)
6 China’s Forbearance Has Limits: Chinese Threat and Retaliation Signaling and Its Implications for a
Sino-AmericanMilitary Confrontation
by Paul H.B. Godwin and Alice Miller (04/13)
5 Managing Sino-U.S. Air and Naval Interactions: Cold War Lessons and New Avenues of Approachby Mark E. Redden and Phillip C. Saunders (09/12)
4 Buy, Build, or Steal: China’s Quest for Advanced Military Aviation Technologies
by Phillip C. Saunders and Joshua Wiseman (12/11)
3 China’s Out of Area Naval Operations: Case Studies, Trajectories, Obstacles and Potential Solutions
by Christopher Yung and Ross Rustici, with Isaac Kardon and Joshua Wiseman (12/10)
2 Civil-Military Relations in China: Assessing the PLA’s Role in Elite Politics
by Michael Kiselycznyk and Phillip C. Saunders (08/10)
1 Assessing Chinese Military Transparency
by Phillip C. Saunders and Michael Kiselycznyk (06/10)

For a complete list of INSS publications, researchers, and staff, visit http://inss.ndu.edu