ASIA-PACIFIC
Maritime Security Strategy

This page left intentionally blank

The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy:
Achieving U.S. National Security Objectives in a Changing Environment

In accordance with Section 1259 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Public Law 113-291, this report outlines the Department of Defense’s strategy with regard
to maritime security in the Asia-Pacific region. Recognizing the importance of the Asia-Pacific region and its
maritime domain for the security of the United States, the Department is focused on safeguarding freedom of theseas, deterring conflict and coercion, and promoting adherence to international law and standards. As it does aroundthe world, the Department will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, in support of thesegoals and in order to preserve the peace and security the Asia-Pacific region has enjoyed for the past 70 years.
Recognizing the growing complexity of the Asia-Pacific maritime domain, this report outlines four lines of effort the
Department is employing in order to preserve security in this vital region. First, we are strengthening our militarycapacity to ensure the United States can successfully deter conflict and coercion and respond decisively when needed.
Second, we are working together with our allies and partners from Northeast Asia to the Indian Ocean to build theircapacity to address potential challenges in their waters and across the region. Third, we are leveraging military
diplomacy to build greater transparency, reduce the risk of miscalculation or conflict, and promote shared maritime
rules of the road. Finally, we are working to strengthen regional security institutions and encourage the developmentof an open and effective regional security architecture. Together with our inter-agency colleagues and regional allies
and partners, the Department is focused on ensuring that maritime Asia remains open, free, and secure in the decades
ahead.

The estimated cost of this report or study for the
Department of Defense is approximately $84,000
for the 2015 Fiscal Year. This includes $5,000 in
expenses and $79,000 in DoD labor.
Generated on 2015Jul27 RefID: F-79748EF

The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

UNCLASSIFIED
Draft Deliberative Document//Not Subject to FOIA Release1

The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

1

INTRODUCTION

The United States has enduring economic and security interests in the Asia-Pacific region. And because theregion – stretching from the Indian Ocean, through the South and East China Seas, and out to the Pacific
Ocean – is primarily water, we place a premium on maintaining maritime peace and security.

To that end, the Department of Defense has three maritime objectives in the Asia-Pacific region: to safeguard thefreedom of the seas; deter conflict and coercion; and promote adherence to international law and standards.

Why We Safeguard the Freedom of the Seas
The United States has, throughout its history, advocated for the freedom of the seas for economic and security
reasons.
Maritime Asia is a vital thruway for global commerce, and it will be a critical part of the region’s expected economic
growth. The United States wants to ensure the Asia-Pacific region’s continued economic progress. The importanceof Asia-Pacific sea lanes for global trade cannot be overstated. Eight of the world’s 10 busiest container ports are in
the Asia-Pacific region, and almost 30 percent of the world’s maritime trade transits the South China Sea annually,
including approximately $1.2 trillion in ship-borne trade bound for the United States.1 Approximately two-thirds ofthe world’s oil shipments transit through the Indian Ocean to the Pacific, and in 2014, more than 15 million barrels ofoil passed through the Malacca Strait per day.
1 U.S. Energy Information Administration.

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The Department of Defense has three maritime objectives in the Asia-Pacific region:
to safeguard the freedom of the seas; deter conflict and coercion; and promoteadherence to internationallaw andstandards.
ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONALSECURITYOBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

2

Freedom of the seas, however, includes more than the mere freedom of commercial vessels to transit throughinternational waterways. While not a defined term under international law, the Department uses “freedom of theseas” to mean all of the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace, including for military ships andaircraft, recognized under international law. Freedom of the seas is thus also essential to ensure access in the event ofa crisis. Conflicts and disasters can threaten U.S. interests and those of our regional allies and partners. The
Department of Defense is therefore committed to ensuring free and open maritime access to protect the stableeconomic order that has served all Asia-Pacific nations so well for so long, and to maintain the ability of U.S. forces to
respond as needed.

"Freedom of the seas" means all of the rights,
freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea andairspace, including for military ships and aircraft,recognized under international law.

Why We Deter Conflict and Coercion
For 70 years, U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region has played a vital role in undergirding regional peace,stability, and security. This presence has enabled tremendous prosperity and economic growth across the region andfacilitated the unimpeded flow of resources and trade across vital Asian waterways. It is in the interests of all nations,
not only those in the Asia-Pacific region, that the United States continues to deter and prevent conflict in this criticalregion.
As the maritime security environment continues to evolve, this task is becoming more challenging. But there should
be no doubt that the United States will maintain the necessary military presence and capabilities to protect ourinterests and those of our allies and partners against potential threats in the maritime domain.

Why We Promote Adherence to International Law and Standards
Adherence to a rules-based system has been critical to furthering peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacificregion. This system provides the basis for shared use of maritime waterways and resources, and ensures safe
operations within the maritime domain. This is why the United States operates consistent with – even though the
U.S. Senate has yet to provide its advice and consent – the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Law of
the Sea Convention), which reflects customary international law with respect to traditional uses of the ocean.
The Department of Defense, in conjunction with interagency partners, regional institutions, and regional allies andpartners, is working to ensure that the rule of law – not coercion and force – dictate maritime Asia’s future.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

For decades, the Asia-Pacific region has remained
free from major conflicts, allowing nations to continue
enjoying the benefits of the maritime domain.
ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT

3The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT

4The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

5

STRATEGIC CONTEXTF

or decades, the Asia-Pacific region has remained free from major conflicts, allowing nations to continue
enjoying the benefits of the maritime domain. However, the security environment is changing, potentiallychallenging the continued stability of the region. Rapid economic and military modernization, combinedwith growing resource demands, has exacerbated the potential for conflict over long-standing territorial
disputes. In addition, non-traditional threats such as weapons proliferation, human and other illicit trafficking, piracy,
and natural disasters continue to pose significant security challenges. On the other hand, we have seen a number of
positive trends in recent years as well, including the peaceful resolution of some maritime disputes in the region.

[1] Competing Territorial and Maritime Claims
There are numerous, complex maritime and territorial disputes in the Asia-Pacific region. The presence of valuable
fish stocks and potential existence of large hydrocarbon resources under the East and South China Seas exacerbate
these complicated claims. A United Nations report estimates that the South China Sea alone accounts for more than
10 percent of global fisheries production. Though figures vary substantially, the Energy Information Administration
estimates that there are approximately 11 billion barrels and 190 trillion cubic feet of proved and probable oil andnatural gas reserves in the South China Sea and anywhere from one to two trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves,and 200 million barrels of oil in the East China Sea. Claimants regularly clash over fishing rights, and earlier attempts
at joint development agreements have faltered in recent years.

U.S. allies and partners are seeking U.S. leadership and engagement in maritime Asia.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

The United States has a strong
interest in ensuring all claimants
seek to address and resolve theircompeting sovereignty claims
peacefully, without conflict or
coercion.

6

Although the United States takes no position oncompeting sovereignty claims to land features in
the region, all such claims must be based upon land
(which in the case of islands means naturally
formed areas of land that are above water at hightide), and all maritime claims must derive fromsuch land in accordance with international law, as
reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention. The
United States has a strong interest in ensuring all
claimants seek to address and resolve their issues
peacefully, without conflict or coercion. We also
encourage and support the efforts of claimantStates to pursue diplomatic and other peacefulefforts to resolve the issues of sovereignty.

In the East China Sea, we continue to acknowledge Japan’s administration of the Senkaku Islands and oppose any
unilateral action that seeks to undermine it. In the South China Sea, we urge all parties to pursue peaceful means ofresolving their disputes, which includes diplomacy as well as third party dispute settlement, such as the Philippines’
submission of its claims for arbitration in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures in the Law of the Sea
Convention. We also urge all parties to take action to implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in theSouth China Sea (DoC) and take steps towards early conclusion of a meaningful Code of Conduct (CoC), which
would provide agreed upon rules of the road to reduce tension among claimant States.
South China Sea
South China Sea territorial and maritime disputes revolve around three primary issues: (1) competing territorial claims
among claimants, (2) competing maritime claims among claimants, and (3) excessive maritime claims asserted by someof the claimants. Regarding competing territorial claims, there are six claimants to the land features in the South
China Sea: Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
There are three primary disputes over territorial sovereignty. The first is a dispute among China, Taiwan, andVietnam over the sovereignty of the Paracel Islands, which China has occupied since 1974. The second is a ChinaTaiwan-Philippines contest over Scarborough Reef. The third is a multi-claimant dispute over the Spratly Islands,
which includes more than 200 geographic features. China, Taiwan, and Vietnam claim sovereignty over all of theSpratly land features, while Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines claim sovereignty of only certain land features in theisland group. Vietnam and Malaysia have yet to delimit fully their maritime claims in the South China Sea.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

7

Regarding competing maritime claims, claimants assert a combination of sovereignty, resource-related sovereign
rights, and jurisdictional claims to the maritime areas located within the South China Sea. Some of these claimants
have clarified the nature and breadth of their maritime claims, but others have not. For example, although Indonesia’s
claimed Exclusive Economic Zone extends into the South China Sea, the Indonesian government does not currently
recognize China’s so-called “Nine-Dash Line” (which overlaps with that EEZ) and so does not consider itself aclaimant in any South China Sea-related maritime dispute.
Regarding excessive maritime claims, several claimants within the region have asserted maritime claims along theircoastlines and around land features that are inconsistent with international law. For example, Malaysia attempts torestrict foreign military activities within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and Vietnam attempts to require
notification by foreign warships prior to exercising
the right of innocent passage through its territorial
The United States encourages allsea. A number of countries have drawn coastal
baselines (the lines from which the breadth ofclaimants to conform their maritime
maritime entitlements are measured) that areinconsistent with international law, including
claims to international law.
Vietnam and China, and the United States also hasraised concerns with respect to Taiwan’s Law on

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

8

the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone’s provisions on baselines and innocent passage in the territorial sea.
Although we applaud the Philippines’ and Vietnam’s efforts to bring its maritime claims in line with the Law of the
Sea Convention, more work remains to be done. Consistent with the long-standing U.S. Freedom of Navigation
Policy, the United States encourages all claimants to conform their maritime claims to international law and challenges
excessive maritime claims through U.S. diplomatic protests and operational activities.
China has not clearly defined the scope of its maritime claims in the South China Sea. In May 2009, China
communicated two Notes Verbales to the UN Secretary General stating objections to the submissions by Vietnam
and Malaysia (jointly) and Vietnam (individually) to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The
notes, among other things, included a map depicting nine line segments (dashes) encircling waters, islands and otherfeatures in the South China Sea and encompassing approximately two million square kilometers of maritime space.
The 2009 Note Verbales also included China’s assertion that it has “indisputable sovereignty over the islands in theSouth China Sea and the adjacent waters and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as wellas the seabed and subsoil thereof.” China’s actions and rhetoric have left unclear the precise nature of its maritime
claim, including whether China claims all of the maritime area located within the line as well as all land features
located therein.2
East China Sea
Since the 1972 reversion of Okinawa and other Ryukyu Islands from the United States, Japan has administered the
Senkaku Islands. In April 2012, the Governor of Tokyo announced plans to purchase three of the five islets fromprivate Japanese owners, prompting the Government of Japan to purchase the three islands in September 2012 in an
attempt to prevent sparking a crisis. However, China interpreted the action as an attempt to change the status quo
and protested the move, re-kindling tensions between the neighboring countries.
Regarding the delimitation of maritime boundaries in the East China Sea, China has voiced a claim to an extended
continental shelf that extends beyond the midpoint between China and Japan (i.e., in an area more than 200 nautical
miles from China but within 200 nautical miles of Japan). The unresolved maritime boundary continues to create
tensions over access to fish and hydrocarbon resources in that area.
Through a persistent military and law enforcement presence and the announcement in November 2013 of a new Air
Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea, which the United States does not recognize, China
continues to engage in actions that appear designed to challenge Japan's administration of the Senkaku Islands. China
has sent Maritime Law Enforcement (MLE) ships (and less often, aircraft) on a regular basis to patrol near the
Senkaku Islands, including within 12 nautical miles from the islands. Japan has responded, sending increased patrols
by the Japan Coast Guard to support its administration of the islands.
As President Obama noted in Tokyo last year and reiterated earlier this year during Prime Minister Abe’s visit, “ourtreaty commitment to Japan’s security is absolute, and Article 5 covers all territories under Japan's administration,
including the Senkaku Islands” – a point that Secretaries Carter and Kerry also reaffirmed with their Japanesecounterparts on Monday, April 27, 2015, during the “2+2” meeting in New York. We will continue to oppose any
unilateral action that seeks to undermine Japan’s administration.
2

On December 5, 2014, the State Department issued a study examining China’s Maritime Claims in the South China Sea in its
Series, Limits in the Seas No. 143.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

9

Indian Ocean
In sharp contrast to the South and East China Seas, the Indian Ocean region has remained relatively free of tensions
caused by territorial and maritime disputes in recent years. Although there are a few maritime disputes in the region,
they are relatively stable or have been resolved through international tribunals and arbitration.
India has been involved in two maritime disputes with neighboring countries: Pakistan and Bangladesh. India’s
primary remaining maritime boundary dispute is with Pakistan, deriving from a disagreement about where the landboundary hits the coastline as New Delhi and Islamabad maintain differing claims over Sir Creek. Pakistan claims theentire creek with the boundary drawn along the eastern bank, while India believes that the boundary should be drawn
at the mid-channel point, as demarcated in a 1925 map. Although the dispute is ongoing, tensions between the twocountries have been much lower over the Sir Creek boundary and the undelimited maritime boundary than those overtheir other disputed land boundaries.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

10

India and Bangladesh also had competing claims over a portion of the Bay of Bengal. However, in 2009, both nations
agreed to submit their conflicting claims to international arbitration. The July 2014 arbitral ruling largely favoredDhaka’s position, awarding Bangladesh sovereign rights to approximately 7,500 square miles, or about three-quarters,of the sea area of the Bay of Bengal, thereby giving Bangladesh rights to explore extensive oil and gas reserves thatwere previously held by India. Both India and Bangladesh publicly supported the arbitration. In a joint statementwith Dhaka, New Delhi pledged to abide by the ruling, expressing satisfaction that the settlement of the maritime
boundary would enhance mutual understanding and goodwill, bring closure to the maritime boundary issue, and pave
the way for cooperation in sustainable exploitation of the maritime resources of the Bay of Bengal.

[2] Military and Maritime Law Enforcement (MLE) Modernization
Rapid military modernization across the Asia-Pacific region has significantly increased the potential for dangerous
miscalculations or conflict in the maritime domain. Many countries are also significantly enhancing their maritime law
enforcement (MLE) capabilities. These assets have become increasingly relevant as countries, particularly China, areusing them to assert sovereignty over disputed areas.

Rapid military modernization across the
Asia-Pacific region has significantly increased
the potential for dangerous miscalculations or
conflict in the maritime domain.

China is modernizing every aspect of its maritime-related military and law enforcement capabilities, including its naval
surface fleet, submarines, aircraft, missiles, radar capabilities, and coast guard. It is developing high-end technologies
intended to dissuade external intervention in a conflict and designed to counter U.S. military technology. Although
preparation for a potential Taiwan conflict remains the primary driver of Chinese investment, China is also placingemphasis on preparing for contingencies in the East and South China Sea. China sees a need for the People’s
Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to be able to support China’s “new historic missions” and operational tasks outside
the first island chain with multi-mission, long-range, sustainable naval platforms equipped with robust self-defense
capabilities. Although quantity is only one component of overall capability, from 2013 to 2014, China launched more
naval vessels than any other country. The PLAN now possesses the largest number of vessels in Asia, with more than
300 surface ships, submarines, amphibious ships, and patrol craft.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

11

China also is executing the largest MLE modernization effort in Asia, quantitatively and qualitatively improving its
fleet, which is designed to enforce its maritime claims in the East and South China Seas. China’s MLE fleet,composed primarily of vessels from the newly formed China Coast Guard, is likely to increase in size by 25 percent
and is larger than that of all of the other claimants combined.
Other Asia-Pacific nations are also enhancing their maritime capabilities. Japan is improving Japan Self-Defense
Force (JSDF) deterrent capabilities and realigning military and MLE assets to areas near the Senkaku Islands, which
are also claimed by China. Japan plans to acquire and realign Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
assets to the area; upgrade maritime patrol craft and ground force radar, and missile units; and develop an amphibious
assault capability within a joint JSDF task force. The Japanese cabinet has approved a modest increase to the Japan
Coast Guard's budget, in part to fund a permanent Senkakus patrol unit.
In Southeast Asia, Vietnam is pursuing an ambitious maritime modernization program, highlighted by its ongoingacquisition of six Russian-built Kilo-class submarines, frigates and corvettes, and its potential procurement of longrange coastal defense cruise missiles. In 2014, Japan announced it would provide Vietnam six used coast guard
surveillance vessels, and Hanoi is expanding the Vietnam Coast Guard’s power to enforce maritime law. The
Philippines is also modernizing its maritime forces—some of its ships date to World War II—including through its
acquisition in 2011 and 2013 of two excess defense article U.S. Coast Guard cutters.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT

12The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT

13

The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

14[3] Maritime Challenges
Although many claimants are using their military and maritime law enforcement capabilities in a responsible manner,recent provocative actions have heightened tensions in the region and raised concerns. Actions such as the use of
MLE vessels to coerce rival claimants, unsafe air and maritime behavior, and land reclamation to expand disputedfeatures and create artificial islands hamper efforts to manage and resolve territorial and maritime disputes peacefully.
Expanded Use of Non-Military Assets to Coerce Rivals
Several nations have expanded their use of non-military assets to advance their territorial and maritime claims in the
East China Sea and South China Sea. Most notably, China is using a steady progression of small, incremental steps toincrease its effective control over disputed areas and avoid escalation to military conflict.
In particular, China is increasingly deploying the Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) to enforce its claims over features in the
East and South China Seas. China prefers to use its government-controlled, maritime law enforcement ships in thesedisputes, and operates PLAN vessels over the horizon so they are ready to respond to escalation. China has
demonstrated this model during disputes withrival claimants over Scarborough Reef, Second
China is using a steady progression
Thomas Shoal, the South Luconia Shoal, andCNOOC-981 drilling operations south of theof small, incremental steps toParcel Islands. Since 2012, the CCG has
maintained a persistent presence in areas
increase its effective control overincluding around the Senkaku Islands in the
East China Sea and Scarborough Reef in thedisputed areas and avoid
South China Sea. Similarly, China has used
MLE ships to restrict and put pressure on
escalation to military conflict.
Philippine access to Second Thomas Shoal
where the Philippines maintains presence via agrounded naval vessel, the Sierra Madre. Although China is not the only claimant to use non-military assets to conduct
worrying or dangerous actions against rival claimants – for example, in 2013, members of the Philippines Coast Guard
killed a Taiwan fisherman in waters claimed by both the Philippines and Taiwan – it has been, by far, the most active.
Unsafe Air and Maritime Maneuvers
The growing efforts of claimant States to assert their claims has led to an increase in air and maritime incidents inrecent years, including an unprecedented rise in unsafe activity by China’s maritime agencies in the East and South
China Seas. U.S. military aircraft and vessels often have been targets of this unsafe and unprofessional behavior,
which threatens the U.S. objectives of safeguarding the freedom of the seas and promoting adherence to internationallaw and standards. China’s expansive interpretation of jurisdictional authority beyond territorial seas and airspacecauses friction with U.S. forces and treaty allies operating in international waters and airspace in the region and raises
the risk of inadvertent crisis.
There have been a number of troubling incidents in recent years. For example, in August 2014, a Chinese J-11 fighter
crossed directly under a U.S. P-8A Poseidon operating in the South China Sea approximately 117 nautical miles eastof Hainan Island. The fighter also performed a barrel roll over the aircraft and passed the nose of the P-8A to show
its weapons load-out, further increasing the potential for a collision. However, since August 2014, U.S.-China military
diplomacy has yielded positive results, including a reduction in unsafe intercepts. We also have seen the PLAN

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

15

implement agreed-upon international standards for encounters at sea, such as the Code for Unplanned Encounters at
Sea (CUES), which was signed in April 2014.
Land Reclamation on Disputed Features
One of the most notable recent developments in the South China Sea is China’s expansion of disputed features andartificial island construction in the Spratly Islands, using large-scale land reclamation. Although land reclamation – thedredging of seafloor material for use as landfill – is not a new development in the South China Sea, China’s recent
land reclamation campaign significantly outweighs other efforts in size, pace, and nature.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Philippines and Malaysia conducted limited land reclamation projects on disputedfeatures, with Vietnam and later Taiwan initiating efforts. At the time, the Philippines constructed an airfield on Thitu
Island, with approximately 14 acres of land reclamation to extend the runway. Malaysia built an airfield at Swallow
Reef in the 1980s, also using relatively small amounts of reclaimed land. Between 2009 and 2014, Vietnam was themost active claimant in terms of both outpost upgrades and land reclamation. It reclaimed approximately 60 acres ofland at 7 of its outposts and built at least 4 new structures as part of its expansion efforts. Since August 2013, Taiwan
has reclaimed approximately 8 acres of land near the airstrip on Itu Aba Island, its sole outpost.

Timeline of Infrastructure and Capability Improvements on Spratly Outposts

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

16

China’s recent efforts involve land reclamation on various types of features within the South China Sea. At least someof these features were not naturally formed areas of land that were above water at high tide and, thus, underinternational law as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention, cannot generate any maritime zones (e.g., territorial
seas or exclusive economic zones). Artificial islands built on such features could, at most, generate 500-meter safetyzones, which must be established in conformity with requirements specified in the Law of the Sea Convention.
Although China’s expedited land reclamation efforts in the Spratlys are occurring ahead of an anticipated ruling by thearbitral tribunal in the Philippines v. China arbitration under the Law of the Sea Convention, they would not be likely
to bolster the maritime entitlements those features would enjoy under the Convention.
Since Chinese land reclamation efforts began in December 2013, China has reclaimed land at seven of its eight Spratly
outposts and, as of June 2015, had reclaimed more than 2,900 acres of land. By comparison, Vietnam has reclaimed a
total of approximately 80 acres; Malaysia, 70 acres; the Philippines, 14 acres; and Taiwan, 8 acres. China has now
reclaimed 17 times more land in 20 months than the other claimants combined over the past 40 years, accounting for
approximately 95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands.
All territorial claimants, except Brunei, maintain outposts in the South China Sea, which they use to establish presencein surrounding waters, assert their claims to sovereignty, and monitor the activities of rival claimants. All of theseclaimants have engaged in construction-related activities. Outpost upgrades vary widely but broadly are composed ofland reclamation, building construction and extension, and defense emplacements.

Relative Size Comparison of Spratly Features
With Airfields of Various Claimants

At all of its reclamation sites, China either
has transitioned from land reclamation
operations to infrastructure development,or has staged construction support for
infrastructuredevelopment.
As
infrastructure development is still in its
early stages, it remains unclear what China
ultimately will build on these expanded
outposts. However, China has statedpublicly that the outposts will have amilitary component to them, and will also
be used for maritime search and rescue,disaster prevention and mitigation, marine
scientificresearch,meteorologicalobservation,
ecologicalenvironment
conservation, navigation safety, andfishery production. At the reclamationsites currently in the infrastructure phaseof development, China has excavated deepchannels and built new berthing areas toallow access for larger ships to the
outposts.
China is also completing
construction of an airstrip at Fiery Cross
Reef, joining the other claimants with
outposts – Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan,
and Vietnam – that have an airstrip on atleast one of their occupied features, andmay be building additional ones.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

17

Though other claimants have reclaimed land on disputed features in the South China Sea, China’s latest efforts aresubstantively different from previous efforts both in scope and effect. The infrastructure China appears to bebuilding would enable it to establish a more robust power projection presence into the South China Sea. Its latest land
reclamation and construction will also allow it to berth deeper draft ships at outposts; expand its law enforcement andnaval presence farther south into the South China Sea; and potentially operate aircraft – possibly as a divert airstrip for
carrier-based aircraft – that could enable China to conduct sustained operations with aircraft carriers in the area.
Ongoing island reclamation activity will also support MLEs’ ability to sustain longer deployments in the South China
Sea. Potentially higher-end military upgrades on these features would be a further destabilizing step. By undertaking
these actions, China is unilaterally altering the physical status quo in the region, thereby complicating diplomatic
initiatives that could lower tensions.

[4] Dispute Resolution
Despite the recent destabilizing actions in maritime Asia, claimants have engaged in some positive steps. The
Department of Defense believes that peaceful resolution of maritime disputes is essential, and many countries areusing, and abiding by, the various available international legal mechanisms. India and Bangladesh reached agreement
over their dispute in the Bay of Bengal, and some claimants in the South China Sea have used the International Courtof Justice, ad hoc arbitral tribunals under the Law of the Sea Convention, and the International Tribunal for the Lawof the Sea (ITLOS), to resolve their maritime and territorial disputes. For example, Malaysia and Singapore used theInternational Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2008 to resolve a land and maritime dispute over offshore islands and rocks.
Claimants have concluded a number of bilateral maritime boundary delimitation agreements as well, including in 2014,
when the Philippines and Indonesia reached bilateral agreement on overlapping EEZs in the Mindanao, Celebes, andPhilippine Seas.
In January 2013, the Philippines requested that an arbitral tribunal set up under the Law of the Sea Convention
address a number of legal issues arising with respect to the interpretation and application of the Convention. The
arbitration, among other things, seeks to clarify maritime entitlements of certain South China Sea features under theConvention and to determine whether China’s Nine-Dash Line claim is consistent with the Convention. China’s
Foreign Ministry publicly rejected the submission and has refused to participate. In June of 2015, the arbitral tribunal
held a hearing on the question of jurisdiction. Should it rule that the case may proceed on grounds of jurisdiction andadmissibility, the arbitral tribunal will proceed to determine the merits of the Philippines’ claims. How China
responds to a potential ruling from the arbitral tribunal will reflect China’s attitude toward international maritime law.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT

18

The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

19

MARITIME SECURITY STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE U.S. OBJECTIVESM

any of the aforementioned issues have the potential to place the hard-won stability of the Asia-Pacificregion at risk. Continued territorial and maritime disputes, combined with rapid military modernization,
have led to the development of a more contested and potentially risky maritime environment. Althoughmany states are pursuing efforts to reduce risk and resolve their disputes peacefully, the potential for miscalculationand instability remains high. Accordingly, U.S. allies and partners are seeking U.S. leadership and engagement. The
Department is not standing still in light of these challenges, and is enhancing our efforts to safeguard the freedom of
the seas, deter conflict and coercion, and promote adherence to international law and standards.
The Department of Defense, in concert with our interagency partners, therefore is employing a comprehensive
maritime security strategy focused on four lines of effort: strengthening U.S. military capabilities in the maritime
domain; building the maritime capacity of our allies and partners; leveraging military diplomacy to reduce risk andbuild transparency; and, strengthening the development of an open and effective regional security architecture.

DoD LINES OF EFFORTFirst, we are strengthening our military capacity to ensure the United States can successfully deter conflict and coercion and responddecisively when needed. The Department is investing in new cutting-edge capabilities, deploying our finest maritime
capabilities forward, and distributing these capabilities more widely across the region. The effort also involves
enhancing our force posture and persistent presence in the region, which will allow us to maintain a higher pace of
training, transits, and operations. The United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate in accordance withinternational law, as U.S. forces do all around the world.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Department will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows.

The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

20

Second, we are working together with our allies and partners from Northeast Asia to the Indian Ocean to build their maritime capacity.
We are building greater interoperability, updating our combined exercises, developing more integrated operations, andcooperatively developing partner maritime domain awareness and maritime security capabilities, which will ensure astrong collective capacity to employ our maritime capabilities most effectively.
Third, we are leveraging military diplomacy to build greater transparency, reduce the risk of miscalculation or conflict, and promote sharedmaritime rules of the road. This includes our bilateral efforts with China as well as multilateral initiatives to develop
stronger regional crisis management mechanisms. Beyond our engagements with regional counterparts, we also
continue to encourage countries to develop confidence-building measures with each other and to pursue diplomaticefforts to resolve disputed claims.
Finally, we are working to strengthen regional security institutions and encourage the development of an open and effective regional security
architecture. Many of the most prevalent maritime challenges we face require a coordinated multilateral response. As
such, the Department is enhancing our engagement in ASEAN-based institutions such as the ASEAN Defense
Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum(EAMF), as well as through wider forums like the Western Pacific Naval Symposium (WPNS) and Indian Ocean
Naval Symposium (IONS), which provide platforms for candid and transparent discussion of maritime concerns.

[1] Enhancing U.S. Military Capacity in Maritime Asia
Investments and Capabilities
For decades, the United States has stood with its allies and partners to help maintain peace and stability in the AsiaPacific region. During this period, the U.S. military has enjoyed and depended upon the ability to project power andmaintain freedom of action in the maritime domain. Increasingly, we see countries developing new technologies thatappear designed to counter these advantages. The Department is therefore working to maintain the necessary
capabilities to deter conflict and reassure allies and partners, while protecting our ability to respond decisively if
required. This includes investing in new capabilities and concepts that will allow U.S. forces to operate freely even incontested environments.

We are increasing thesize, frequency, andsophistication of ourregional exercises.

program.
The Department is enhancing U.S. capabilities to project power from the sea, in the air, and under the water. As partof this effort, we are deploying some of our most advanced surface ships to the region, including replacing the aircraft
carrier USS George Washington in 2015 with the newer USS Ronald Reagan; sending our newest air operations-oriented
amphibious assault ship, the USS America, to the region by 2020; deploying two additional Aegis-capable destroyers toJapan; and home-porting all three of our newest class of stealth destroyers, the DDG-1000, with the Pacific fleet. We
are complementing these surface capabilities with some of our most capable air assets, including F-22s, continuous
deployments of B-2 and B-52 strategic bombers, additional tilt rotor aircraft for the Marine Corps and Special Forces,
and, in 2017, the first forward-stationing of F-35s to Iwakuni, Japan. The Department will also procure 395 F-35
aircraft over the next several years, many of which will be deployed to the Asia-Pacific region. For the subsurface
environment, the Department is basing an additional attack submarine in Guam and funding two additional Virginia
ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

21

class submarines and the Virginia Payload Module, a compartment added to our new attack submarines that will
increase dramatically their capacity to carry weapons and other payloads. These capabilities will help protect and add
versatility to our advantages at sea, in the air, and under the water.
In support of these assets, the Department is investing in a comprehensive weapons modernization program,including plans for new or updated land-, sea-, and air-launched missiles relevant to the maritime domain. DoD is
procuring advanced precision munitions that will allow our forces to strike adversaries from greater stand-off
distances, like the new extended-range Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER), and a new long-range antiship cruise missile that will improve the ability of U.S. aircraft to engage surface combatants in defended airspace.
And we are finding new ways to use existing weapons systems, including by enhancing the capabilities resident in ourcurrent inventory of Tomahawk cruise missiles.
In addition to enhancing our power projection capabilities, the Department is investing in flexible capabilities that willallow us to respond more rapidly and effectively to a wider range of potential maritime challenges. The rotational
deployment of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) in Singapore provides the U.S. Navy with a flexible, nimble asset that canoperate effectively in the region’s challenging littoral waters. The Department is currently conducting the second
proof-of-concept deployment of the LCS to the region, a deployment that will not only include port calls andengagements with seven different Southeast Asian States, but also participation in one of our largest and mostcomplex war-fighting exercises in the
Republic of Korea (ROK), Foal
Eagle. Additionally, we will deploy
the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP)
to the region, which will more
effectively enable a range of
missions, from counter-piracy efforts
to special forces operations anddisaster relief missions.
Finally, the Department of Defense
is investing in critical enabling
capabilities, including persistent,
deep-look ISR platforms that will
provide us with greater situationalawareness and early warning ofpotential crises in the maritime
domain. The U.S. Navy is procuring
24 E-2D Hawkeye carrier-based
Our forward presence not only serves to deter
airborne early warning and control
regional conflict and coercion, it also allows us
aircraft, and as stated in the
President’s most recent budget
to respond rapidly to maritime crises.
submission, investing $9.9 billion
over the next four years to procure
the final 47 P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, many of which will be deployed to the Asia-Pacific region.
The Department is also making substantial investments to develop the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial system, which
will provide broad area situational awareness to our operational commanders. The first deployment of MQ-4Cs will
arrive in the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR) in FY 2017.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

22

These enhanced capabilities are already making a difference in improving the Department’s ability to respond tohumanitarian crises in maritime Asia. In March 2011, when an earthquake and tsunami devastated parts of Japan anddamaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, the U.S. military was able to deploy state-of-the-art maritime
capabilities, including the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) toassess the damage. Similarly, when Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 disappeared in March 2014, the U.S. Navy
dispatched a newly arrived P-8A Poseidon aircraft along with a P-3C Orion aircraft to search for the missing plane.
The P-8A’s transit speed to the search area was so much higher and its expected fuel burn so much lower, a second P8A was added to the search in place of the P-3C, allowing for more time spent actively searching. And in December
2014, when AirAsia flight 8501 crashed into the Java Sea, the U.S. Navy was able to quickly dispatch the LCS USS
Fort Worth quickly to help search for the wreckage.
Over the longer-term, the Department of Defense is also developing a suite of innovative ideas and capabilities –known as the third offset – to advance U.S. military dominance in the 21st century and ensure the United States candeter adversaries and prevail in conflict, including in maritime Asia. To offset advances in anti-access and area-denial(A2/AD) weapons that we see proliferating in maritime Asia and beyond, the Department will identify, develop, andfield breakthroughs in cutting-edge technologies and systems – especially in the fields of robotics, autonomous
systems, miniaturization, big data, and additive manufacturing, and will draw these together in innovative operationaland organizational constructs to ensure freedom of access for United States’ forces in a contested A2/AD
environment.
Force Posture
One of the most important efforts the Department of Defense has underway is to enhance our forward presence bybringing our finest capabilities, assets, and people to the Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. military presence has
underwritten security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region for more than 60 years. Our forward presence not only
serves to deter regional conflict and coercion, it also allows us to respond rapidly to maritime crises. Working inconcert with regional allies and partners enables us to respond more effectively to these crises.
The United States maintains 368,000 military personnel in the Asia-Pacific region, of which approximately 97,000 arewest of the International Date Line. Over the next five years, the U.S. Navy will increase the number of ships
assigned to Pacific Fleet outside of U.S. territory by approximately 30 percent, greatly improving our ability tomaintain a more regular and persistent maritime presence in the Pacific. And by 2020, 60 percent of naval andoverseas air assets will be home-ported in the Pacific region. The Department will also enhance Marine Corps
presence by developing a more distributed and sustainable laydown model.
Enhancing our forward presence also involves using existing assets in new ways, across the entire region, with anemphasis on operational flexibility and maximizing the value of U.S. assets despite the tyranny of distance. This is
why the Department is working to develop a more distributed, resilient, and sustainable posture. As part of thiseffort, the United States will maintain its presence in Northeast Asia, while enhancing defense posture across theWestern Pacific, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean.
The cornerstone of our forward presence will continue to be our presence in Japan, where the United States maintains
approximately 50,000 military personnel, including the U.S. Navy Seventh Fleet and the only forward-stationed
Carrier Strike Group in the world, as well as U.S. Marine Corps III Marine Expeditionary Force and significant Air
Force assets. DoD is working more closely than ever with our Japanese allies, forward progress that will accelerate in
future years under the new revised defense guidelines. In an effort to ensure that this presence is sustainable, we haveworked with Japan to develop a new laydown for the U.S. Marine Corps in the Pacific. As a result, the Department of
Defense will be able to shift its concentrated presence on Okinawa toward a more distributed model that includes

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

23

The Department of
Defense is enhancing its
defense posture acrossthe Western Pacific,
Southeast Asia, and theIndian Ocean.
Australia, Hawaii, Guam, and mainland Japan. As part of this program, the Department will develop new training
ranges in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to enhance the readiness of our forward forces to
respond to regional crises. The footprint associated with this laydown will support the arrival of next-generation
capabilities and joint training and readiness in the USPACOM AOR.
Through the bilateral Force Posture Agreement (FPA) with Australia and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation
Agreement (EDCA) with the Philippines, the Department will be able to increase our routine and persistent rotationalpresence in Southeast Asia for expanded training with regional partners. In Australia, the FPA will enable full
implementation of the rotational presence for training and access for the U.S. Air Force and a Marine Air Ground
Task Force (MAGTF) of up to 2,500 Marines. Additionally, the Department is on track to achieve its stated goal of
simultaneous rotation of 4 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) through Singapore by 2017, which will provide the first
persistent U.S. naval presence in Southeast Asia in more than 20 years.
DoD is also modernizing our maritime presence in Guam, as part of our efforts to develop Guam into a strategic hub
for our joint military presence in the region. This includes forward-stationing a fourth attack submarine to Guam thisyear and deploying the Joint High Speed Vessel by 2018, while making investments in the resilience of theinfrastructure supporting these capabilities. Guam is the regional hub for Air Force’s Global Hawk fleet and the Navy
will operate the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicle from Andersen Air Base by 2017. The Air
Force continues a program to modernize hangars and other support structures to augment those and other U.S.
military capabilities.
Operations, Exercises, and Training
These efforts to enhance our force posture and presence allow the Department to maintain a higher tempo of routine
and persistent maritime presence activities. U.S. Pacific Command maintains a robust shaping presence in and aroundthe South China Sea, with activities ranging from training and exercises with allies and partners to port calls to
Freedom of Navigation Operations and other routine operations. They are central to our efforts to dissuade conflictor coercion, preserve the freedom of the seas and our access to the region, encourage peaceful resolution of maritime
disputes and adherence to the rule of law, and to strengthen our relationships with partners and allies.
As part of the Department’s routine presence activities, the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Coast Guard conduct
Freedom of Navigation operations. These operational activities serve to protect the rights, freedoms, and lawful usesof the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations in international law by challenging the full range of excessive
maritime claims asserted by some coastal States in the region. The importance of these operations cannot be
overstated. Numerous countries across the Asia-Pacific region assert excessive maritime claims that, if left

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

24

unchallenged, could restrict the freedom of the seas. These excessive claims include, for example, improperly-drawn
straight baselines, improper restrictions on the right of warships to conduct innocent passage through the territorial
seas of other States, and the freedom to conduct military activities within the EEZs of other States. Added together,
EEZs in the USPACOM region constitute 38 percent of the world’s oceans. If these excessive maritime claims wereleft unchallenged, they could restrict the ability of the United States and other countries to conduct routine military
operations or exercises in more than one-third of the world’s oceans.
Over the past two years, the Department has undertaken an effort to reinvigorate our Freedom of Navigation
program, in concert with the Department of State, to ensure that we regularly and consistently challenge excessive
maritime claims. For example, in 2013, the Department challenged 19 excessive maritime claims around the world.
In 2014, the Department challenged 35 excessive claims – an 84 percent increase. Among those 35 excessive
maritime claims challenged in 2014, 19 are located in U.S. Pacific Command’s geographic area of responsibility, andthis robust Freedom of Navigation program will continue through 2015 and beyond.
The Department is also pursuing a robust slate of training exercises and engagements with our allies and partners thatwill allow us to explore new areas of practical bilateral and multilateral maritime security cooperation, build thenecessary interoperability to execute multilateral operations, and promote regional trust and transparency. We are
increasing the size, frequency, and sophistication of our regional exercise program, with a particular focus ondeveloping new exercises with Southeast Asian partners and expanding our multilateral exercise program. We havealso begun incorporating a maritime focus into many of these engagements in order to tailor our training to address
regional partners’ evolving requirements.

Over the past two years,
the Department has
undertaken an effort toreinvigorate our Freedomof Navigation program.

In Northeast Asia, the Department conducts several regularmaritime exercises with Japan and South Korea focusing on
enhancing our combined capabilities to counter provocations andmanage the changing Northeast Asian security environment.
Though its original purpose was to counter special operations
forces, the annual bilateral Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercise with
the ROK now includes amphibious operations and anti-submarine
warfare in recognition of the importance of the maritime domain
in defending South Korea. Similarly, the U.S.-Japan Shin Kameanti-submarine warfare exercise is designed to improve how U.S.
and Japanese forces counter diesel submarines, a concern in theregion.

In Southeast Asia, the Department is honing an already robust bilateral exercise program with our treaty ally, theRepublic of the Philippines, to assist it with establishing a minimum credible defense more effectively. We areconducting more than 400 planned events with the Philippines in 2015, including our premier joint exercise, Balikatan,
which this year was the largest and most sophisticated ever. During this year’s Balikatan, more than 15,000 U.S.,
Philippine, and Australian military personnel exercised operations involving a territorial defense scenario in the Sulu
Sea, with personnel from Japan observing.
We are also expanding our maritime engagements with partners like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. In Indonesia,
the April 2015 iteration of the Sea Surveillance Exercises (SEASURVEX) included a flight portion over the South
China Sea for the first time, and this past spring, our navies concluded their first tabletop Simulated Submarine
Casualty Exercise (SMASHEX). We also established a new joint exercise with Malaysia, which is scheduled to occur
for the first time in 2015, and in 2014, the Marine Corps participated in an amphibious exercise with the Malaysian
Armed Forces, during which our forces trained side-by-side in eastern Sabah. In Vietnam, we are rapidly growing our

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

25

maritime training, having recently concluded our sixth-annual Naval Engagement Activity (NEA) in March 2015, a
historic five-day engagement that included a full day of at-sea operations. In just six years, our naval cooperation
with Vietnam has grown from a simple port visit to multi-day engagements that allow our sailors to develop a better
understanding of each other’s operations and procedures.
The Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise, hosted since 1971, is the largest international military exercise in theworld. The 2014 iteration was the largest on record, with participation from 22 nations, including 49 surface ships, 6
submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and 25,000 personnel in and around the Hawaiian Islands and Southern
California. The exercise’s objectives are to enhance the interoperability of the combined RIMPAC forces as well as tointegrate new participants in the employment of multinational command and control at the tactical and operational
levels.
In 2014, China participated for the first time in RIMPAC, though at a limited level, and the Department has invited
China to portions of the 2016 exercise, at a level similar to its 2014 participation. As the largest naval exercise in theworld, RIMPAC provides an opportunity for the United States, China, and countries throughout the Asia-Pacificregion to exercise key operational practices and procedures that are essential to ensuring that tacticalmisunderstandings do not escalate into crises.

[2] Building Ally and Partner Capacity
Given the growing array of challenges the United States and our allies face in the maritime domain, one of the
Department’s top priorities is to enhance the maritime security capacity of our allies and partners, both to respond to
threats within their own territories as well as to provide maritime security more broadly across the region. The
Department is not only focused on providing enhanced capabilities, but also on helping our partners develop thenecessary infrastructure and logistical support, strengthen institutions, and enhance practical skills to develop
sustainable and capable maritime forces. The Department is particularly focused on helping our partners enhancetheir maritime domain awareness and establish a common maritime operating picture that would facilitate more timely
and effective regional responses to maritime challenges.

The Department is particularly focused on
helping our partners enhance their maritime
domain awareness and establish a common

maritime operating picture.

In Northeast Asia, the Department of Defense is working closely with Japan to augment its already extremely capable
maritime forces. The United States and Japan recently announced new Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense
Cooperation, which will enable the U.S. Armed Forces and the Self-Defense Forces to work more closely together tosupport peace and security, including in the maritime domain. Our expanded bilateral cooperation will now
encompass a wide range of activities from peacetime cooperation on shared maritime domain awareness up tocooperation in a contingency.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

26

We are also working together with Japan to improve the maritime-related capabilities of the JSDF, which is especiallysalient given the new Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation. The United States is augmenting Japan’s
amphibious capabilities for island defense, including through sales of AAVs and V-22 Ospreys. Through the sale ofE-2D Hawkeyes and Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Japan is improving its ability to monitor the maritime
domain and airspace around the country, an issue of particular importance given the large increase in Chinese andRussian air and naval activity in the area, including continuing Chinese incursions in the vicinity of the Senkaku
Islands.
In Southeast Asia, the Department’s first priority is working together with our allies and partners to develop the mosteffective mix of capabilities to provide credible maritime defenses and patrol capabilities. At the Shangri-La Dialogue
on May 30, 2015, Secretary Carter announced the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative, a new effort to work
together with our allies and partners in Southeast Asia to build greater regional capacity to address a range of maritime
challenges. As part of this initiative, DoD, incoordination with the Department of State, willconsult with our allies and partners to ascertain
The Southeast Asia Maritime
their needs and requirements more effectively andto explore new opportunities for maritime
Security Initiative is a newcollaboration. In particular, we are focused on
several lines of effort: working with partners toeffort to build greater regional
expand regional maritime domain awarenesscapabilities, with an effort to work towards a
regional common operating picture; providing thecapacity to address a range
necessary infrastructure, logistics support, andoperational procedures to enable more effectiveof maritime challenges.
maritime
response
operations;furtherstrengthening
partnernationoperational
capabilities and resilience by deepening andexpanding bilateral and regional maritime exercises and engagements; helping partners strengthen their maritime
institutions, governance, and personnel training; and identifying modernization or new system requirements forcritical maritime security capabilities. To support this initiative, the Department is working to maximize and rebalance
Title 10 security cooperation resources to prioritize the Southeast Asia region more effectively.
Even before this initiative, and in conjunction with the Department of State and the U.S. Coast Guard, we havedramatically expanded our maritime security assistance in recent years. In the Philippines, the Department isproviding coastal radar systems and assisting the Department of State with naval maintenance capacity building as wellas providing interdiction vessels, naval fleet upgrades, communications equipment, and aircraft procurement. We arehelping Vietnam bolster its maritime ISR and command and control within their maritime agencies, and we areworking with Malaysia to build maritime law enforcement training capacity and interagency coordination to help
improve their maritime domain awareness. The Department also is working with Indonesia to increase its patrol
capacity, ISR integration, and maintenance capability. In 2015, we established new bilateral working groups with bothIndonesia and Vietnam to help clarify their maritime defense requirements.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

27

Select DoD Maritime Capacity Building Efforts in Southeast Asia
Initiative

VietnamPhilippines

Malaysia

Indonesia

Ministry of Defense Technical Expert.

Authority

Timeframe

Section 1081 Ministry of
Arrived March
Defense Advisor Program
2015(MoDA)

Section 1206 of theIntegrated Maritime Surveillance System (IMSS): 18 coastal
National Defense
surveillance stations, 11 ship-based radars, 2 regional and 2 fleet
Authorization Act
command centers ($51M) Note: FMF provided sustainment(NDAA) for FY 2006, as
and integration in following years.
amended (Section 1206)

Funded FY20062008
Delivered 2011

Reform of defense planning, defense strategy, and budget
development and execution system and processes.

Defense Institution
Reform Initiative (DIRI)

2013 to present

Upgrade TNI Bell helicopters and Navy Special Forces
Equipment, including 12 RHIBs ($27M).

Section 1206

2010 funding,
RHIBs delivered
2012

Integrated Maritime Surveillance System: 8 coastal surveillance
radar stations, 28 small boats and associated maritime
interdiction training, Joint Regional Command Center ($42M).

Section 1206

Funded FY2007,2008, 2011
Delivered 20102011

National Coast Watch Center ($19M).

Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program

2013-2017

Coast Watch Radar System.

Section 1206

Reform of defense planning system.

DIRI

2005-2012

Provision of WMD detection equipment; improved
communications; construct coast guard training center;maritime security workshops ($21M).

Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program

FY2014-2015

Law enforcement, advisory, and boat maintenance training($405K).

Counternarcotics andGlobal Threats Authority

FY2014-2015

An additional priority for the Department is helping our partners develop the institutional structures and procedures
necessary to manage their growing maritime forces effectively. This includes establishing unified maritime agencies,
such as the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA), as well as developing standard training protocols andprocedures for maritime personnel. For example, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is helping toconstruct a Philippine National Coast Watch Center in Manila that will assist the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) inassuming increased responsibility for enhancing information sharing and interagency coordination in maritime security
operations. Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam are similarly improving their maritime capabilities.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

28

One of the Department’s top priorities is to promote greater maritime domain awareness, which is an essential
capability for all coastal States. Given the size of the Asian maritime domain, no coastal State can provide effective
maritime domain awareness on its own. This is why DoD is working closely with partners in the Asia-Pacific region
to encourage greater information sharing and the establishment of a regional maritime domain awareness network that
could provide a common operating picture and real-time dissemination of data. Singapore has been a leading partnerin this effort. Together, we have established the Singapore Maritime Information-Sharing Working Group, an ideal
platform to share best practices and lessons learned from recent regional maritime activities and explore options forincreased information sharing across partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region. The near-term iterations of the working
group will be bilateral and then expand to include other regional partners to participate in this community of interest.
The United States and Singapore also are working together to support Singapore’s development of the Information
Fusion Center (IFC) into an interagency information-sharing hub for the region.
A key element of DoD’s approach to maritime security in Southeast Asia is to work alongside capable regional
partners. There is broad regional agreement on the importance of maritime security and maritime domain awareness,
and we’re working closely with our friends in Australia, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere to coordinate and amplify
our efforts toward promoting peace, stability, and prosperity in Asia. In part, we are partnering trilaterally to achievethese goals. In November 2014, President Obama, Prime Minister Abe, and Prime Minister Abbott hosted their first
trilateral meeting and agreed to expand maritime cooperation, trilateral exercises, and defense development. The
Department is working with these two allies in a coordinated fashion to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of
our maritime security capacity building efforts in Southeast Asia, beginning with the Philippines.

The Department sees astrategic convergence
between India’s “Act East”
policy and the U.S. rebalance
to the Asia-Pacific region.

In South Asia, the Department sees a strategic
convergence between India’s “Act East” policy and the
U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, and we are
seeking to reinforce India’s maritime capabilities as a net
provider of security in the Indian Ocean region andbeyond. Given our broad shared interests in maritime
security, the Department has developed a three-pronged
approach to maritime cooperation with India:
maintaining a shared vision on maritime security issues;
upgrading the bilateral maritime security partnership; andcollaborating to both build regional partner capacity andimprove regional maritime domain awareness.

First, the United States and India's shared vision for maritime security in the region is reflected in the January 2015
U.S.-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region. India and the United States affirmed
the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight throughout theregion, especially in the South China Sea. This Joint Strategic Vision and the September 2014 U.S.-India Joint
Statement also called on all parties to abide by international law, including the Law of the Sea Convention, to resolve
maritime disputes and to avoid the use, or threat of use, of force.
Second, the Department of Defense and the Indian Ministry of Defence are upgrading their bilateral maritime security
partnership, through growing bilateral exchanges between military personnel and by engaging in military exercises.
Recent visits to India by then-Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral Harry Harris and Secretary of the Navy
Ray Mabus have highlighted the importance of naval engagement to the overall defense relationship. To bolster
operational maritime cooperation, India has participated in the RIMPAC multilateral exercise, and the two sides
conduct the annual flagship naval exercise MALABAR. Since 2007, the JMSDF also have participated when the

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

29

exercise has taken place off of the Japanese coast and near Guam. The exercise has grown in complexity andimproved participating countries' abilities to operate together in a collaborative environment, and the Department is
supportive of including other partners on a regular basis, hoping to see the return of previous partners in future
iterations of the exercise. The Department is also actively working to support the Indian Navy through the Defense
Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI). The two sides agreed to enhance maritime technology cooperation, in part,by forming a working group to explore aircraft carrier technology sharing and design.
Finally, both the United States and India are active in building regional partner capacity and maritime domainawareness (MDA) in the region. Both countries are contributing to these goals individually with other partners, andare mutually contributing to counter-piracy efforts in the Indian Ocean. The Department will continue to seek
opportunities to consult with Indian counterparts about these efforts where possible. By doing so, the two countries
will bolster the shared vision laid out by their respective governments and contribute to overall peace and security inthe region.

[3] Reducing Risk
In addition to building maritime capabilities of allies and partners to deter and address regional threats, theDepartment is actively seeking to mitigate risk in maritime Asia. The Department is pursuing a two-pronged
approach to achieve this objective, one focusing on our bilateral relationship with China, and the other addressing
region-wide risk reduction measures. The combination of these two approaches will reduce the likelihood of
miscalculation and conflict, which would have a detrimental effect on the United States and the region.
China
China’s rise as a political, economic, and military actor is a defining characteristic of the 21st century; and we have abroad, complex relationship that has both elements of cooperation and competition. As a result, our defense
engagement strategy considers both elements. The Department pursues an objectives-based military-to-military
relationship with China that seeks to deepen cooperation in areas of mutual interest and to manage security
competition and friction in a way that supports overall stability. To reach these objectives, DoD pursues a defense
relationship with China based on three pillars and related efforts.
First, DoD pursues sustained
and substantive dialogue throughpolicyandseniorleaderengagement to develop common
views on the international
security environment and related
challenges.
Second, we areattempting to build concrete,
practical areas to develop thecapacity to cooperate in areas ofshared interest. Lastly, DoD isenhancingrisk
reductionmeasuresthroughfocusedactivities that seek to improve
operational safety and to develop
and institutionalize modalities

The Department is actively seeking to
mitigate risk in maritime Asia.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

30(such as the Defense Telephone Link) that can reduce the potential for accidents or miscalculations that could derail
the overall bilateral relationship.
In our bilateral discussions, we continue to express to China our concerns about its behavior in the East and South
China Seas, including restricting access to fishing grounds in disputed waters, engaging in provocative energy
exploration in other nations’ claimed exclusive economic zones, undertaking dramatic land reclamation activities on
disputed features, and unilaterally announcing an ADIZ in the East China Sea. China’s actions are having the effectof increasing uncertainty about its intentions, and this is shrinking space for diplomatic solutions to emerge. We
therefore continue to urge China to take active steps to build trust with its neighbors, including clarifying the scopeand nature of its maritime claims in accordance with the international law of the sea and committing reciprocally tohalt land reclamation, construction of new facilities, and further militarization of outposts it occupies if otherclaimants similarly commit themselves to do so.
Activities in the U.S.-China military-to-military relationship, conducted in accordance with National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2000, section 1201 and other relevant laws, contribute to maritime stability
through the promotion of broad-based acceptance and application of international law and standards. Since 2012, themilitary-to-military relationship has experienced positive momentum marked by a strengthening of the capacity tocooperate and assist in areas of international shared interest, and an increased, shared attention to risk management
and risk reduction, particularly in the maritime domain. In this time, there has been a reinvigoration of existing risk
reduction mechanisms, such as the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA), and the establishment of new
mechanisms such as the Rules of Behavior for Safety of Air and Maritime Encounters initiative and the Notificationof Major Military Activities initiative.
The MMCA, signed in 1998, is an agreement between the Department of Defense and the PRC Ministry of National
Defense that establishes a consultation mechanism on maritime safety issues. Though it experienced difficulties in its
early years, it now has been bolstered by a mutual commitment to invest in the mechanism, resulting in productive
and constructive talks on a range of operational safety issues to include those associated with search and rescue,
counter piracy, and humanitarian assistance and disaster response.
In 2014, then-Secretary Hagel and his Chinese counterpart signed a historic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
on Rules of Behavior for Safety of Air and Maritime Encounters. The MOU established a common understanding ofoperational procedures for when air and maritime vessels meet at sea, drawing from and reinforcing existing
international law and standards and managing risk by reducing the possibility of misunderstanding and misperception
between the militaries of the United States and China. To date, this MOU includes an annex for ship-to-ship
encounters. To augment this MOU, the Department of Defense has prioritized developing an annex on air-to-air
encounters by the end of 2015. Upon the conclusion of this final annex, bilateral consultations under the Rules of
Behavior MOU will be facilitated under the existing MMCA forum.
Other outcomes of military-to-military engagement as they pertain to maritime stability include: regularized bridge-tobridge communications between naval vessels; standardized use of the Western Pacific Naval Symposium’s CUES by
PLAN vessels; and greater cooperation and coordination in Gulf of Aden counter piracy operations, including
attendance at Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE) meetings.
Region-Wide Measures
Reaching agreement on bilateral risk reduction measures with China is necessary, but not sufficient. The Department
is also focused in the near term on encouraging the development of practical risk reduction and confidence-building
mechanisms across the entire Asia-Pacific maritime domain.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

31

The Department marked a significant milestone in this effort in April 2014 when member navies at the WPNS
adopted the CUES in Qingdao, China. The CUES provides standardized navigation and communication protocols
for use when ships and aircraft meet at sea, including a standardized set of language-independent communication
protocols to allow for communication between navies absent a common language.
The Department continues to seek regular opportunities for practical application of these protocols. In July 2014, a
U.S. Navy vessel was able to use CUES for the first time during an unplanned encounter with the PLAN. It has since
been used many times. Going forward, the Department is also exploring options to expand the use of CUES toinclude regional law enforcement vessels and Coast Guards. Given the growing use of maritime law enforcement
vessels to enforce disputed maritime claims, expansion of CUES to MLE vessels would be an important step in
reducing the risk of unintentional conflict.
We are also exploring a range of other risk
reduction measures at both the bilateral andmultilateral level, and actively supporting similar
efforts by our allies and partners. For example,
the Department is working to help ASEAN andother regional partners establish operationallevel hotlines to establish more reliable androutine crisis communication mechanisms that
help lower the risk of potential miscalculation orconflict.

The peaceful resolution ofmaritime disputes is essential, andmany countries are using, andabiding by, the various available
international legal mechanisms.

In the East China Sea, China and Japan are
exploring hotlines between the PLAN and theJapan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF). The Department supports Japan’s call for better diplomacy and crisis
management procedures in the East China Sea, and we encourage both Japan and China to implement their bilateral
maritime liaison mechanism. Japan and Taiwan have also taken positive steps towards reducing tensions by signing a
fisheries agreement in 2013 that formally outlines the rights for each claimant’s fishing fleets around the Senkaku
Islands, and the Philippines and Taiwan similarly have pursued a fisheries agreement.
In the South China Sea, Indonesia and Malaysia recently announced their intention to exchange maritime envoys in aneffort to increase mutual transparency. Similarly, a number of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
claimants are actively considering the establishment of bilateral hotlines in the South China Sea to help provide clear
channels of communication in the event of inadvertent crises.
The U.S. Government urges States to not implement unilateral actions that undermine regional stability and trust. In
November 2013, China announced the creation of an ADIZ in the East China Sea with coverage that overlapped the
Senkaku Islands and Japanese, South Korean, and Taiwan ADIZ, and that China professed to apply even to aircraft
not intending to enter Chinese national airspace. The uncoordinated way in which China announced an ADIZ overthe East China Sea, including over territory administered by other countries, was not conducive to fostering positiveand peaceful relations in maritime Asia. The United States has been clear that this type of action is destabilizing. The
United States does not recognize China’s declared ADIZ, and it will not change how the United States conducts
military operations in the region. The United States has consistently conveyed to Chinese authorities that any new
ADIZ over other disputed areas such as the South China Sea would be destabilizing and would be of deep concern to
the United States and to its regional neighbors.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

32

Taken together, these efforts to encourage the development of practical confidence-building and risk reduction
measures will help prevent maritime incidents and better manage them when they do occur.

[4] Building Regional Architecture and Supporting Rule of Law
As tensions in Asia rise and the security situation becomes more complex, there is a growing need for credible,
capable regional institutions that provide forums for frank discussion on difficult issues, facilitate practical multilateral
security cooperation, and build trust.
Engagement with regional institutions such as the East Asia Summit, ARF, and particularly the ASEAN Defense
Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus) provide the Department an opportunity to take active steps to highlight theimportance of peaceful resolution of disputes and emphasize the need for adherence to international rules andstandards. Within these venues, the Department is candid with regional counterparts in raising our concerns about
excessive maritime claims and the means through which they pursue them and their territorial claims. We also
consistently raise the importance of exercising restraint, building trust and transparency, and behaving responsibly at
sea and in the air.
ASEAN is an increasingly important DoD partner, and the Department is working to bolster its engagement with andsupport of ASEAN’s efforts to promote peace, stability, and prosperity in the region. DoD actively supports theADMM-Plus Experts Working Group (EWG) on Maritime Security, which seeks to facilitate information sharing,
establish best practices, and build standard maritime operating procedures among participating nations in order toreinforce norms of behavior and reduce the risk of conflict. For example, at the May 2015 Shangri-La Dialogue in
Singapore, the Secretary of Defense announced DoD’s commitment to deploy a technical advisor in support of
ASEAN’s maritime security efforts. In addition, the ADMM-Plus EWG on Maritime Security held a field training

As tensions in Asia rise and the security situation
becomes more complex, there is a growing needfor credible, capable regional institutions.

exercise in 2013, and it is planning to conduct a combined maritime security-counterterrorism field training exercise
next year. We also provide support to a range of complementary organizations such as the Expanded ASEAN
Maritime Forum, the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium, and the Western Pacific Naval Symposium. For example, the
USPACOM Amphibious Leaders Symposium (PALS), held for the first time in May 2015, brought together 23 PacificPartner Nations to collaborate on regional amphibious capability development and the cooperative use of amphibious
forces in disaster operations.
We are also leveraging informal opportunities to strengthen regional cooperation, such as the first U.S.-ASEAN
Defense Forum then-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel hosted in Hawaii in April 2014. This dialogue provided an
informal opportunity for candid discussion with our ASEAN counterparts about shared challenges in the maritime

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

33

domain and the need for greater information sharing among ASEAN States. Following these discussions, U.S. PacificCommand hosted a follow-on workshop in May 2015 to discuss possible models of information sharing andopportunities for greater maritime collaboration among the United States and ASEAN countries. Participants fromall ASEAN member countries recognized the significant threats that are now present in maritime Southeast Asia andidentified the need not only to pursue a framework that enhances maritime domain awareness – which would greatly
bolster their ability to tackle those threats – but also to share information between and among countries in the region.
Finally, the Department fully supports countries pursuing multilateral agreements and arrangements to enhance
security in maritime Asia. In 2002, ASEAN and China signed the DoC in an attempt to lower tensions in the region.
Although the DoC is not legally binding, the Department of Defense continues to support ongoing efforts toimplement the DoC, and for ASEAN and China to reach agreement on a meaningful CoC as part of a multifaceted
approach to lower tensions and prolong peace and stability in the region.

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENTThe Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT

34

The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy

35

CONCLUSIONThe Department is working to stay ahead of the evolving maritime security environment in the Asia-Pacificregion in order to ensure continued freedom of the seas, deter conflict and coercion, and promoteadherence to international law and standards.

From the Indian Ocean to Northeast Asia, we arestrengthening our military capability to promote stability and respond decisively to threats; enabling our network ofallies and partners to address challenges in the maritime areas of the region; leveraging military diplomacy to promotetrust, stability, and standards of behavior; and bolstering the ability of regional organizations to address sharedmaritime security concerns.

The Department is focused on ensuring that maritime Asia
remains open, free, and secure in the decades ahead.
ACHIEVING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT