PLA reorganisation ... from 7 military regions to 4 strategic regions

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Upppss ! I just got aware that this is from Phoenix TV ... I know it is deemed not the "most reliable" source, but it was already mentioned in other reports that there will be now five instead of four zones.

So my question now is "WHY" one more and first of all, how reliable is this map ?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The PLA’s grey decades-old, army-centred regional command structure will be broken up and replaced with five new zones, sources say

South China Morning Post
Minne Chan
Tuesday, 08 December, 2015

A dramatic overhaul of the PLA’s military command system is expected to be completed by the end of the month, according to sources close to the armed forces.

The present seven military commands of the People’s Liberation Army would soon be dismantled and replaced by five new strategic zones as part of a wide-ranging restructure of the system, the sources said.

A source close to the Jinan military command – one of seven throughout the country – told the South China Morning Post that the command was “finishing its historical mission”, and would be dismantled along with the other military commands on December 20. “The candidates for the leadership of the new five combat zones have not yet been finalised, but the list of names will be announced very soon,” the source said.

Another source close to the army said the top brass of the powerful Central Military Commission, which oversees the armed forces and is chaired by President Xi Jinping, had demanded the five combat zone system be up and running as early as January 1.

The restructure is part of Xi’s massive military overhaul, which aims to shift the PLA from an army-centric system towards a Western-style joint command, in which the army, navy and air force are equally represented.

The PLA’s mouthpiece last week published a commentary saying the existing system of seven military commands and four headquarters was outdated, too centralised and challenged the Communist Party’s absolute leadership over the army. The overhaul, it said, aimed to consolidate the CMC’s power and the party’s control over the gun.

The Post reported in September that the military overhaul also included plans to reorganise the existing “four headquarters” – the General Staff, General Political, General Logistics and General Armaments departments.

To that end, the CMC had already created three new commissions and six departments, three sources close to the army confirmed.

General Cai Yingting, head of the Nanjing military command, is tipped to lead the Joint General Staff Department, while General Liu Yuan, political commissar of the General Logistics Department who helped bring down former CMC vice-chairmen Guo Boxiong and Xu Caihou, is likely to be the secretary of the new military discipline inspection commission. General Li Zuocheng, the chief of the Chengdu military command, is expected to be the new head of land forces.

“The three new commissions and six departments are directly under the CMC, and the restructure aims to reduce the political influence of leaders of the existing four headquarters and seven military commands,” one of the three sources said.

“For example, the General Political Department was seen as a hotbed of corruption because it controlled personnel, discipline and audits.

But under the new structure, those jobs will be separated to create a better system of checks and balances.”

Earlier reports said four military regions – North, South, East and West – would emerge from the dismantled seven-command system. But the latest blueprint followed a decision to add a strategic zone in central China, according to two sources.

Another source said the administrations of the Jinan and Chengdu military commands would be completely scrapped, while the five other military areas were likely to be reorganised.

Hong Kong-based military commentator Liang Guoliang said it made sense to scrap the Jinan command in the general restructure.

“The dissolution of the Jinan military command is inevitable because under the outdated army-centric system, it was seen [only] as support for other major military zones,” Liang said.

Liang said part of the Chengdu military area would be merged into the new West, South or Central strategic zones.

“The new five-strategic-zone system is sufficient to help the PLA deal with challenges today and in the near future,” Liang said.

Two PLA officials at the mainland’s top military academy earlier warned Beijing that it could destabilise the armed services and society if it went ahead with plans to restructure and slash the size of the country’s military without addressing salaries and pensions.

NEW NAMES FOR THE TOP?

Cai Yingting, 61

Nanjing command chief; tipped to be head of joint general staff department

Liu Yuan, 64

General Logistics Department political commissar; tipped to lead military discipline inspection commission

Zhang Yang, 64

head of General Political Department; tipped to be political work department head

Li Zuocheng, 62

head of Chengdu command; tipped to be head of the land forces

Wei Fenghe, 61

head of Second Artillery Corps; tipped to be strategic supporting forces head

Zhou Songhe, 60

deputy head of General Logistics; tipped to be head of joint logistics department

Deino
 

schlieffen

New Member
I could see folding logistics and armaments departments under the General Staff, but I suspect the Sino-NKVD would remain an independent watchdog of the PLA.


Sino-NKVD?? You mean the People’s Armed Police don’t you?


Despite the considerable similarities between the responsibilities of NKVD and PAP, they are very different institutes by nature. NKVD as you stated was the watchdog of Stalin that helped maintain mass surveillance and close control of the army, the party and the Soviet people. The PAP is significantly less powerful in the Chinese power hierarchy. Its responsibility lies primarily in internal security and surveillance of the population. Neither is it really independent from the military.


BTW, to imagine that the CCP needs an independent watchdog organization to keep an eye on the army shows total ignorance of the history of Chinese communist movement and revolutionary wars. The way CCP won power was so different from their Soviet counterpart that you should really be careful to take one to analog the other.


The Red Army was created in a rushed, almost desperate effort to remain in power in the disastrous aftermath of October revolution. Since the Bolsheviks were almost completely rootless and inexperienced in the military except some low-rank sympathizers, they were force to take huge number of ex-tsar army soldiers, so much so that the early Red Army was basically a twisted reincarnation of the Tsarist Army. Naturally the Bolsheviks were extremely suspicious towards the loyalty of the ex-Tsarist that they could not possibly thoroughly screen so they put Cheka on watch to keep the bourgeoisie soldiers in check. This early antagonism poisoned the relationship between the party and army till the end of Soviet union.


By contrast, the PLA has its root as the rebelled Bolshevik element of the National Revolutionary Army created during the First United Front. The distinction between communist revolutionaries and army officers were blurred from the beginning, as they were more often than not the same group of people. A few professional revolutionaries have had issues with their military counterparts, and this actually caused some purges in the formative years of the PLA, but in the subsequent 22 years of ruthless civil war (interrupted by eight years of even bloodier war against Japan) the two were largely blend together for the simple reason of survival. By 1949 the PLA was literally an organic part of the party machine which it remained ever since, their officers career communist revolutionaries (albeit uniformed).


Of course, the CCP is no longer the revolutionary party it was 70 years ago, and the PLA is also very different from the revolutionary army it used to be. That said, from my personal experience (my mother’s extended family consists mostly PLA officers) I do not believe the PLA ever developed a line of thought, or esprit de corps independent from those of the party.

Obviously the loyalty of individual generals and factions need to be closely watched, as sometimes they cannot be taken as granted (evidenced by recent turmoil and purge within the military), but I don’t think the party consider the armed force as a whole an potential threat in the same way the Soviets did, by and large. The surveillance role was mostly taken by discipline and inspection organizations within the military, similar to the arrangements within the party bureaucracy as the military is no less (or more, depends on perspective) trustworthy than the latter.
 
Last edited:

schlieffen

New Member
I think Deino has started an excellent post to discuss this extremely important development. Unfortunately it somehow became a dud and really needs more attention.


Gentlemen, this is the single most dramatic reshuffling of the PLA since the early 80s. Although the amount information released so far is somewhat paucity, it’s already obvious that the scope goes far, far beyond routine reorganization and cuts. Its impact will be profound and lasting.


Now we know almost for sure that some major doctrine reform on many levels will soon follow. This is way more significant than all those fighter jet, warship or missile thingy combined. As we are on Sino Defense Forum - not Sino weaponry Forum – people really should keep a close eye on this.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Sino-NKVD?? You mean the People’s Armed Police don’t you?


Despite the considerable similarities between the responsibilities of NKVD and PAP, they are very different institutes by nature. NKVD as you stated was the watchdog of Stalin that helped maintain mass surveillance and close control of the army, the party and the Soviet people. The PAP is significantly less powerful in the Chinese power hierarchy. Its responsibility lies primarily in internal security and surveillance of the population. Neither is it really independent from the military.


BTW, to imagine that the CCP needs an independent watchdog organization to keep an eye on the army shows total ignorance of the history of Chinese communist movement and revolutionary wars. The way CCP won power was so different from their Soviet counterpart that you should really be careful to take one to analog the other.


The Red Army was created in a rushed, almost desperate effort to remain in power in the disastrous aftermath of October revolution. Since the Bolsheviks were almost completely rootless and inexperienced in the military except some low-rank sympathizers, they were force to take huge number of ex-tsar army soldiers, so much so that the early Red Army was basically a twisted reincarnation of the Tsarist Army. Naturally the Bolsheviks were extremely suspicious towards the loyalty of the ex-Tsarist that they could not possibly thoroughly screen so they put Cheka on watch to keep the bourgeoisie soldiers in check. This early antagonism poisoned the relationship between the party and army till the end of Soviet union.


By contrast, the PLA has its root as the rebelled Bolshevik element of the National Revolutionary Army created during the First United Front. The distinction between communist revolutionaries and army officers were blurred from the beginning, as they were more often than not the same group of people. A few professional revolutionaries have had issues with their military counterparts, and this actually caused some purges in the formative years of the PLA, but in the subsequent 22 years of ruthless civil war (interrupted by eight years of even bloodier war against Japan) the two were largely blend together for the simple reason of survival. By 1949 the PLA was literally an organic part of the party machine which it remained ever since, their officers career communist revolutionaries (albeit uniformed).


Of course, the CCP is no longer the revolutionary party it was 70 years ago, and the PLA is also very different from the revolutionary army it used to be. That said, from my personal experience (my mother’s extended family consists mostly PLA officers) I do not believe the PLA ever developed a line of thought, or esprit de corps independent from those of the party.

Obviously the loyalty of individual generals and factions need to be closely watched, as sometimes they cannot be taken as granted (evidenced by recent turmoil and purge within the military), but I don’t think the party consider the armed force as a whole an potential threat in the same way the Soviets did, by and large. The surveillance role was mostly taken by discipline and inspection organizations within the military, similar to the arrangements within the party bureaucracy as the military is no less (or more, depends on perspective) trustworthy than the latter.
well said.
Simply put, PLA is an organic part of CCP, their trustworthness is no more and no less than any other party organs. There is no need to have another orgnization to watch them.
 
Not so much about the military regions or geographic commands, but about the deeper structural reforms reaching all the way to the top:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China's new Central Military Commission organ established

Source: China Military OnlineEditor: Zhang Tao
2016-01-11 18:45

BEIJING, Jan. 11 (ChinaMil) -- President Xi Jinping has urged the restructured Central Military Commission (CMC) and its subordinate departments to be highly disciplined and able to take on heavy duties with iron beliefs, so as to make contributions to the realization of the Chinese Dream and the Dream of a Strong Military.

President Xi, who is also general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and chairman of the CMC, made the remarks when meeting with responsible officers of the CMC's departments. He urged them to do well in acting as the strategic advisors of the CMC.

The meeting kicked off in Beijing on Monday morning. Xi Jinping shook hands with all the leaders of the CMC's departments present at the meeting and took a group photo with them. On behalf of the CPC Central Committee and the CMC, Xi Jinping expressed his warm congratulations on the establishment of the new CMC organ.

President Xi pointed out that the adjustment and establishment of the new CMC organ has been basically completed, saying that "this is a dramatic breakthrough made in the reform of the military leadership and command system, a symbolic achievement during the overall implementation of the strategy on conducting military reform and building a strong military, and a key step on the road of building a strong military with Chinese characteristics."

Xi also stressed that the CMC organ, serving as a connecting link and playing a coordinating role in the military leadership and command system, should have a strong service awareness.

It is learnt that the adjustment and establishment of the new CMC organ was carried out according to a general guideline, namely, the CMC takes charge of the overall administration of the Chinese armed forces, the battle zones focus on combat readiness, and the various military services focus on their own construction and development.

The former general headquarters/departments system, including the General Staff Headquarters, the General Political Department, the General Logistics Department and the General Armament Department, will be replaced by a multi-sectoral system consisting of 15 functional departments.

The 15 functional departments are the CMC General Office, the CMC Joint Staff Department, the CMC Political Work Department, the CMC Logistic Support Department, the CMC Equipment Development Department, the CMC Training and Administration Department, the CMC National Defense Mobilization Department, the CMC Discipline Inspection Commission, the CMC Politics and Law Commission, the CMC Science and Technology Commission, the CMC Office for Strategic Planning, the CMC Office for Reform and Organizational Structure, the CMC Office for International Military Cooperation, the CMC Audit Office and the CMC Agency for Offices Administration.

Fan Changlong, member of the political bureau of the CPC Central Committee and vice chairman of the CMC, Xu Qiliang, member of the political bureau of the CPC Central Committee and vice chairman of the CMC, and other CMC members including Chang Wanquan, Fang Fenghui, Zhang Yang, Zhao Keshi, Zhang Youxia, Wu Shengli, Ma Xiaotian and Wei Fenghe, also attended the meeting.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
well said.
Simply put, PLA is an organic part of CCP, their trustworthness is no more and no less than any other party organs. There is no need to have another orgnization to watch them.
Taxiya, You're right on PLA as an organic part of the CCP, but what's the outlook of most Chinese citizens on their tax money supporting private armies and internal security forces which swear allegiance The Leader and his small cadre and not to the people and nation?
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Taxiya, You're right on PLA as an organic part of the CCP, but what's the outlook of most Chinese citizens on their tax money supporting private armies and internal security forces which swear allegiance The Leader and his small cadre and not to the people and nation?
now we are drifting away from the topic. But I am happy to share something I think I know of.

The whole logic/setup/explanation (whatever one calls it) of PRC institution is this, the CCP and state is one entity, not separated entities like in the west where there are many parties and each party is only an organization similar to a Co. Ltd. This is stated in the PRC constitution where CCP is designated as the leading political force. The armed force is state asset, the state grants CCP by its constitution to be the leader of the state apparatus including the armed force. In this way, there is no private army as you think. Swearing allegiance to the party is the same as to the state. This is "de jure", in fact, CCP founded PLA in 1927 before it founded the state PRC in 1949, so to be fair CCP "owns" the "state" and PLA. People know that, I don't think anyone can object PLA being "owned" by the party in their conscience unless they object the whole institution (state+party+army). But that is a whole different discussion.

Put an analoge, the state is the board of directors, the party is the president selected by the board, people are the share holders.

Now, you don't need to agree with this, but that is something similar to the old "king claim divine power from God" or modern western "sovereign power derives from the people". So long as the population live by that (more like not rebelling against it). It will stay like that.

My outlook of most Chinese view? I don't intend to enter a debate, so here is only my personal outlook, most Chinese have no objection to this establishment, I have come across one or two oversea Chinese who may object, I say may as I cannot be sure because Chinese avoid expressing strong political/religious convictions to others even though there is no way for them to worry. Often Chinese will simply walk away if they sense a strong disagreement and never repeat the subject.
 

schlieffen

New Member
Taxiya, You're right on PLA as an organic part of the CCP, but what's the outlook of most Chinese citizens on their tax money supporting private armies and internal security forces which swear allegiance The Leader and his small cadre and not to the people and nation?

What exactly does ‘swear allegiance to the people’ suppose to mean? The PLA has always identify itself as the ‘People’s Army’. The party and the general secretary was commissioned by the people to lead. Well the legitimacy of that claim can be open to debate but ‘the people’ is really too vague to be of any meaningfulness. Who are ‘the people’ in Moscow 1991, 1993 or more recently, in the Arab spring? Ultimately it depends on the political allegiance of individual soldiers.


As to the state, it is much easier to identify the nation-state, but if an army affiliate solely with the nation-state we get something like Wehrmacht. The armed force could and should be non-partisan, but it cannot possibly be A-political. Swear allegiance to the constitution is political, because the constitution is a political construct that manifests specific ideological ideas. In a party-state like PRC or USSR, one cannot set clear distinction between the party and the state as long as the establishment is still viable. Affiliate with the party and the state is the same thing.
 
Top