string of Pearls:

meeting the challenge of china’s rising power

across the asian littoral

Christopher J. Pehrson

July 2006

This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, section 101. As such, it is in the 

public domain, and under the provisions of Title 17, United States Code, Section 105, it may not be copyrighted.

Visit our website for other free publication downloads

http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/

To rate this publication click here.
ii

*****

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of 

the Department of the Air Force, Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report 

is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.

*****

I would like to thank the many individuals who were instrumental in helping with this research project. My faculty 

advisor, Dr. Lawrence Grinter, provided the necessary guidance and vectors to keep me on task. My research sponsor, 

Lieutenant Colonel John Anderson, Joint Staff J5, Northeast Asia Division, provided insight to help focus this research and 

ensure its relevance to U.S. national security and defense policy. Additionally, I would like to recognize the invaluable 

assistance provided by Dr. Toshi Yoshihara and Dr. Xiaoming Zhang, faculty members at the Air War College. As true 

experts in Asian security and American foreign policy, they enhanced my education, challenged my assumptions, and 

provided relevant feedback and constructive criticism. Their oversight and inputs were invaluable, yet I remain solely 

responsible for any errors or omissions contained within this paper.

*****

Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. 

Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave, Carlisle, PA 17013-5244. 

*****

All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are available on the SSI Homepage for electronic dissemination. Hard 

copies of this report also may be ordered from our Homepage. SSI’s Homepage address is: www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.

army.mil.

*****

The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to update the national security community on 

the research of our analysts, recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. 

Each newsletter also provides a strategic commentary by one of our research analysts. If you are interested in receiving this 

newsletter, please subscribe on our homepage at www.Strategic Studies Institute.army.mil/newsletter/newsletter.cfm.

ISBN 1-58487-250-0
iii

PREFACE

 The U.S. Army War College, as well as the other senior service colleges, provides an excellent 

environment for selected military officers and government civilians to reflect and use their career 

experience to explore a wide range of strategic issues. To assure that the research developed by these 

students is available to Army and Department of Defense leaders, the Strategic Studies Institute 

publishes selected papers in its “Carlisle Papers in Security Strategy” Series.

ANTULIO J. ECHEVARRIA II

Director of Research

Strategic Studies Institute 
iv

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

CHRISTOPHER J. PEHRSON is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force currently assigned to the Air 

Staff at the Pentagon. He has served as a squadron commander and held a number of staff positions at 

the squadron, wing, and major command levels. He has over 3,200 flying hours, including 350 combat 

hours, as an EF‐111 Electronic Warfare Officer and C‐130 Instructor Aircraft Commander, and has 

participated in contingencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Indonesia. Colonel Pehrson is a graduate 

of Squadron Officer School, the Army Command and General Staff College, and the Air War College. 

He holds a B.S. degree from the University of Michigan, an M.S. degree from Boston University, an 

M.S. degree from the Air Force Institute of Technology, and a Master of Strategic Studies from Air 

University.
ABSTRACT

China’s rising maritime power is encountering American maritime power along the sea lines of 

communication (SLOCs) that connect China to vital energy resources in the Middle East and Africa. The 

“String of Pearls” describes the manifestation of China’s rising geopolitical influence through efforts to 

increase access to ports and airfields, develop special diplomatic relationships, and modernize military 

forces that extend from the South China Sea through the Strait of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean, and 

on to the Arabian Gulf. A question posed by the “String of Pearls” is the uncertainty of whether China’s 

growing influence is in accordance with Beijing’s stated policy of “peaceful development,” or if China 

one day will make a bid for regional primacy. This is a complex strategic situation that could determine 

the future direction of China’s relationship with the United States, as well as China’s relationship

with neighbors throughout the region. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the “String of Pearls” 

from within the context of the post-Cold War global security environment and propose informed 

recommendations for U.S. policy and strategy. Substantive, results-oriented engagement supported 

by pragmatic military hedging is the best strategy to influence and encourage China to participate in 

the international community as a responsible stakeholder. Bold leadership and prudent foresight will 

enable the United States and China to reap the rewards of strategic cooperation and avert the calamity 

of a hostile confrontation.



STRING OF PEARLS:

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF CHINA’S RISING POWER

ACROSS THE ASIAN LITTORAL

We have beheld in the ocean huge waves like mountains rising sky-high, and we have set eyes on barbarian 

regions hidden away beyond a blue of light vapors, while our sails, loftily unfurled, day and night continued their 

course like that of a star, traversing the savage waves as if we were treading a public thoroughfare.

Zheng He, “Admiral of the Western Seas”1

I. CHINA LOOKS SEAWARD: YESTERDAY AND TODAY

The year 2005 marked the 600th anniversary of China’s first experience as a maritime power. In 

1405, Emperor Yongle of the Ming Dynasty dispatched a “treasure fleet” of 62 ships under command 

of the explorer, Zheng He. Four of his ships were some of the largest wooden sailing vessels ever built, 

then or since, measuring over 400 feet long and 160 feet wide. Included in his fleet were specialized 

ships for transporting horses, ships designed to carry fresh water, supply ships, troop transports, and 

military vessels for defense. The fleet embarked into the open ocean with 27,800 men and thousands of 

tons of Chinese goods to trade during their voyage. By comparison, 87 years later in 1492, Columbus 

embarked on his fateful voyage with only 3 ships and 87 men. His flagship, the Santa Maria, was barely 

seaworthy at 75 feet long.2

Today, following centuries of Western maritime dominance that began with Columbus, a rising 

China is taking concrete steps to develop its maritime reach beyond China’s periphery. China’s dramatic 

rise poses complex challenges and opportunities for the United States, both globally and regionally. 

China’s growing interest and influence from the South China Sea through the Indian Ocean and on to 

the Arabian Gulf has been described as a “String of Pearls” approach that potentially could present the 

United States with complex regional challenges. The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of 

the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) evolving maritime power, analyze the “String of Pearls” in the 

context of China’s larger grand strategy, and propose informed recommendations for U.S. policy and 

programs to meet the potential challenges imposed by the “String of Pearls.”

Following this introduction, the second section defines the “String of Pearls,” explains the motivation 

behind it, and describes how it relates to China’s evolving national strategy. The author analyzes 

the “String of Pearls” in depth in Section III. He first assesses China’s grand strategy of “peaceful 

development” in the context of the global security environment and the implications for U.S. foreign 

policy. The section examines regional security challenges that the “String of Pearls” could present to the 

United States. Specific areas of concern include competition for regional influence, China’s relationship 

with rogue states, and how modernization efforts of the People’ Liberation Army (PLA), in particular 

the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) and PLA Navy (PLAN), affect the dynamics of the “String of Pearls.” 

The author reviews areas of convergence and divergence with respect to both Chinese and American 

national interests and then explores U.S. response options to meet the challenges of the “String of 

Pearls.” U.S. strategic options range from an optimistic approach of engagement to a pessimistic Cold 

War-era strategy of containment. Based on the foregoing analysis, the third section concludes with 

recommendations for a pragmatic U.S. strategy of substantive, results-oriented engagement towards 

China with military hedging as insurance.

Section IV makes broad recommendations for implementing this pragmatic strategy with respect 

to the military instrument of power. The author addresses the adequacy of U.S. global posture, to 

include maritime and aerospace forces. He questions U.S. force structure and laydown with respect 


to meeting the challenges of a rising China in the post-Cold War world order. Finally, he proposes 

recommendations with respect to regional security cooperation and military-to-military programs, 

including proposals for regional security cooperation and military-to-military programs with China.

This paper examines the “String of Pearls” as an evolving maritime component of China’s grand 

national strategy and proposes a corresponding U.S. strategy in the context of U.S.‐China relations in 

the global security environment. The “String of Pearls” is more than a naval or military strategy. It also 

is more than a regional strategy. It is a manifestation of China’s ambition to attain great power status 

and secure a self-determined, peaceful, and prosperous future. For the United States, a rising China 

presents great opportunity, but this opportunity is fraught with potential risks. With bold leadership 

and prudent foresight, the United States and China can reap the rewards of strategic cooperation and 

avert the calamity of a hostile confrontation.


II. China’s Emerging Maritime Strategy: The String of Pearls

Globally, China is increasingly active in striving for energy security in ways that portend direct competition for 

energy resources with the United States. This is producing a possibility of conflict between the two nations.

U.S.-China Commission, 2005 Report to Congress3

What Is the String of Pearls?

Each “pearl” in the “String of Pearls” is a nexus of Chinese geopolitical influence or military 

presence.4 Hainan Island, with recently upgraded military facilities, is a “pearl.” An upgraded airstrip 

on Woody Island, located in the Paracel archipelago 300 nautical miles east of Vietnam, is a “pearl.” A 

container shipping facility in Chittagong, Bangladesh, is a “pearl.” Construction of a deep water port 

in Sittwe, Myanmar, is a “pearl,” as is the construction of a navy base in Gwadar, Pakistan.5 Port and 

airfield construction projects, diplomatic ties, and force modernization form the essence of China’s 

“String of Pearls.” The “pearls” extend from the coast of mainland China through the littorals of the 

South China Sea, the Strait of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean, and on to the littorals of the Arabian 

Sea and Persian Gulf. China is building strategic relationships and developing a capability to establish 

a forward presence along the sea lines of communication (SLOCs) that connect China to the Middle 

East (see Figure 1).

The Nature of the Pearls. China’s development of these strategic geopolitical “pearls” has been 

nonconfrontational, with no evidence of imperial or neocolonial ambition. The development of the 

“String of Pearls” may not, in fact, be a strategy explicitly guided by China’s central government. 

Rather, it may be a convenient label applied by some in the United States to describe an element of 

China’s foreign policy. Washington’s perception of China’s de facto strategy may not be a view shared 


in Beijing, but the fact remains that economic benefits and diplomatic rhetoric have been an enticement 

for countries to facilitate China’s strategic ambitions in the region. The port facility at Gwadar, for 

example, is a win-win prospect for both China and Pakistan. The port at Karachi currently handles 90 

percent of Pakistan’s sea-borne trade, but because of its proximity to India, it is extremely vulnerable 

to blockade. This happened during the India-Pakistan War of 1971 and was threatened again during 

the Kargil conflict of 1999.6 Gwadar, a small fishing village which Pakistan identified as a potential 

port location in 1964 but lacked the means to develop, is 450 miles west of Karachi.7 A modern port at 

Gwadar would enhance Pakistan’s strategic depth along its coastline with respect to India. For China, 

the strategic value of Gwadar is its 240-mile distance from the Strait of Hormuz. China is facilitating 

development of Gwadar and paving the way for future access by funding a majority of the $1.2 billion 

project and providing the technical expertise of hundreds of engineers.8 Since construction began in 

2002, China has invested four times more than Pakistan and contributed an additional $200 million 

towards the building of a highway to connect Gwadar with Karachi. In August 2005, Chinese Premier 

Wen Jiabao visited Pakistan to commemorate completion of the first phase of the Gwadar project and 

the opening of the first 3 of 12 multiship berths.9

The Gwadar project has enhanced the strategic, diplomatic, and economic ties between Pakistan 

and China. Other countries are benefiting from China’s new strategy, as well. In November 2003, China 

signed an agreement with Cambodia to provide military equipment and training in exchange for the 

right of way to build a rail line from southern China to the Gulf of Thailand.10 China also has an 

ambitious $20 billion proposal to build a canal across Thailand’s Kra Isthmus which would enable 

ships to bypass the chokepoint at the Strait of Malacca.11 Although this plan is stalled due to Thailand’s 

noncommittal position and political opposition in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, it reveals the 

scope and scale of Chinese ambition for the “String of Pearls.”

Motivation Behind the String of Pearls.

China’s development, from its expanding economy and increased global influence to its growing 

military might and demand for energy, presents tremendous challenges to China’s leaders as they 

manage the turmoil of massive structural, technological, and social changes. The governing elites of 

China have three overarching concerns: regime survival, territorial integrity, and domestic stability.12

Regime survival is the foremost concern of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and party leadership 

is acutely aware that their success hinges upon the satisfaction of the Chinese people and the 

government’s ability to protect Chinese national interests. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end 

of the Cold War exposed communism as a bankrupt ideology with a flawed economic system. As the 

last remaining major communist state, China’s leaders have sought to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union 

and other Eastern European communist regimes by turning away from traditional Marxist-LeninistMaoist ideology and adopting a “socialist market economy,” a thinly-veiled euphemism for Chinesestyle capitalism.13 The CCP has maintained authoritarian control amid a sea change of economic and 

social reforms and, as long as reforms stay on track and the economy continues to thrive and resurgent 

nationalism remains manageable, expectations are that regime survival will not be threatened.

Since the end of the Cold War, China has made progress with respect to territorial integrity. Although 

the unification of Taiwan persists as a contentious issue and territorial disputes remain, such as a 

competing claim with Japan over sovereignty of the Diaoyutai (Senkaku) Islands, China successfully 

has stabilized and demilitarized its land borders in North and Central Asia.14 China is becoming more 

influential in Central Asia under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), whose 

member states consist of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, along with 

the observer members of India, Pakistan, Iran, and Mongolia.15 On the southwestern border, a longstanding territorial dispute with India over Chinese-controlled portions of Kashmir and northeastern 


India is showing signs of slow but pragmatic progress. During Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to 

China in 2003, India, for the first time, recognized China’s claims to Tibet and China reciprocated by 

recognizing India’s claim to the Himalayan state of Sikkim.16 Even with respect to Taiwan, Chinese 

policy attempts to balance the “stick” of diplomatic and military pressure with the “carrot” of mutually 

beneficial cross-strait economic ties.17 The demands of increased economic development are the driving 

forces behind China’s improved relations with her neighbors.

Successful economic development is perceived as key to China’s third area of strategic concern, 

domestic stability. China’s central government is focused inward, and primarily domestic politics drive 

China’s foreign and economic policies. Changes to the economic system and the decision to embrace 

globalization are causing major shifts in Chinese society. Disparities between booming coastal regions 

and poorly developed interior regions, effects of the information revolution, rampant corruption, and 

emerging class distinction due to economic stratification are but a few examples of the disruptive forces 

affecting the social fabric of China. These changes clash with the very nature of communist ideology 

and the authoritarian political system favored by Chinese elites and vested interest groups.18 Recent 

manifestations of social discontent include antigovernment demonstrations by peasants, protests by 

laid-off workers, and religious activism by groups such as the Falun Gong.19 Although repression has 

not been as intense as what occurred during the Tiananmen Square crackdown of June 1989, the regime 

is attentive to dissidence and prepared to use substantial coercive and persuasive power in response to 

social discontent. The regime’s priority and preoccupation due to the legacy of the Cultural Revolution 

and other periods of social unrest is to maintain domestic stability by fostering economic prosperity to 

satisfy the demands and expectations of the Chinese people.20

China’s largest strategic concerns—regime survival, territorial integrity, and domestic stability—

are inexorably linked to the economy. China’s greatest strength and its greatest vulnerability is the 

economy, and therefore it is the centerpiece of Chinese policy and strategy. To sustain economic 

growth, China must rely increasingly upon external sources of energy and raw materials. SLOCs are 

vitally important because most of China’s foreign trade is conducted by sea, and China has had little 

success in developing reliable oil or gas pipelines from Russia or Central Asia. Since energy provides 

the foundation of the economy, China’s economic policy depends on the success of its energy policy.21

Securing SLOCs for energy and raw materials supports China’s energy policy and is the principal 

motivation behind the “String of Pearls.” This is how and why the “String of Pearls” relates to China’s 

grand national strategy.

Quest for Energy. South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Hong Kong, and Singapore were dubbed “Asian 

Tigers” as they sustained rapid economic growth and industrialization from the 1960s through the 1990s. 

China’s rise in the 21st century, the rise of the “Asian Dragon,” has the potential to surpass greatly the 

growth of the “Asian Tigers.” Since the beginning of economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping, China 

has averaged an annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate of 9.4 percent. Since 1978, foreign 

trade has grown from a fraction of a percent of the world economy, or $20.6 billion, to over 4 percent, 

or $851 billion in 2005.22 China’s GDP is the world’s third largest at roughly 1/7th that of the United 

States, yet because of its population of 1.3 billion, on a per capita basis, China is ranked roughly 100th in 

the world and considered a low-income developing country.23 Many economists believe that with the 

latent potential of a rapidly emerging middle class, China has the potential to continue its impressive 

growth for many years to come.24

An ever-increasing demand for energy fuels China’s growth. The majority of China’s energy 

requirement, 70 percent, is currently met by coal—China is the world’s largest producer and consumer 

of coal.25 Twenty-five percent is met by oil, 3 percent by natural gas, and the remaining 2 percent by other 

energy sources, including nuclear and hydroelectric power.26 Although coal will remain preeminent, 

oil consumption is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 5.8 percent for the next 10 years.27

In 1985, China was East Asia’s largest petroleum exporter;28 in 1993, China became a net oil importer; 


and in 2004, China leapfrogged Japan to become the world’s second largest oil importer.29 Roughly 40 

percent of all new world oil demand is attributable to China’s rising energy needs.30 Secure access to 

foreign oil resources will be necessary both for continued economic growth and, because growth is the 

cornerstone of China’s domestic stability, for the survival of the Chinese Communist regime.31

Securing Sea Lines of Communication. The geopolitical strategy dubbed the “String of Pearls” is arising 

as foreign oil becomes a center of gravity critical to China’s energy needs. China’s energy acquisition 

efforts are expanding globally throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and the Americas.32

Table 1 lists sources of China’s crude oil imports by region and country. Note that over 70 percent 

of China’s oil imports come from the Middle East and Africa, all of which are transported by sea. 

Although China seeks to obtain secure supply lines and reduce dependence on a limited number of 

energy suppliers, sea transport from the Middle East and Africa will remain the primary mode of 

petroleum import for the foreseeable future. China has demonstrated a long-term commitment to these 

supply sources as evidenced by relationships with Middle Eastern and African oil exporters. Saudi 

Arabia is China’s largest crude oil supplier, and the Saudi national oil company, Aramco, is a 25 percent 

investor in China’s biggest refinery and petrochemical complex.33 China recently signed a 25-year oil 

and natural gas deal with Iran, its biggest ever, worth over $70 billion.34 In Africa, China has invested 

$3 billion to develop Sudan’s unexploited oil resources, including a 930-mile pipeline, a refinery, and a 

sea port.35

Region and Top

Three Suppliers Percentage of Total Supply

1994 1999 2001 2003 2004

Middle East 50.9 45.4

 Saudi Arabia * 6.8 14.6 16.7 14.0

 Oman 27.3 13.7 13.5 10.2 13.3

 Iran * 10.8 18.0 13.6 10.8

Africa 24.3 28.7

 Angola 3.0 7.9 6.3 11.1 13.2

 Sudan — — 8.3 6.9 4.7

 Congo — — * 3.7 3.9

Europe 9.6 12.9

 Russia — * 2.9 5.8 8.8

 Norway — 5.5 * 1.0 1.6

 United Kingdom — 6.0 * * *

Americas * 1.5

 Brazil — — — * 1.3

 Venezuela — — — * *

 Canada — — — — *

Asia-Pacific	 	 	 	 15.2	 11.5

 Vietnam 4.9 4.1 5.6 3.8 4.4

 Indonesia 38.3 10.8 4.4 3.7 2.8

 Malaysia * * * 2.2 1.4

Legend: “—“ no imports; “*” imports of less than 1 percent.

Table 1. China’s Oil Imports by Country of Origin.36


Presently, transport by sea is China’s most viable mode of energy supply. China has energy projects 

in Central Asia, such as an agreement to develop oil and gas fields in Kazakhstan and agreements 

to construct pipelines in Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan, among others, but the projects have proven 

expensive, logistically difficult, and complicated by inadequate infrastructure in western China.37

Central Asia also is plagued by regional instability which adds to the uncertainty of future development 

and long-term reliability. The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) negotiated a deal with 

the Russian oil giant, Yukos, in 2003, but the venture fell apart when the Russian government first 

dismantled Yukos and then accepted Japan’s higher bid on the project.38 For the foreseeable future, China 

will depend heavily on international sea-lanes, through the Strait of Malacca and other navigational 

chokepoints, to import oil from the Middle East and Africa.

Ni Lexiong, a professor of military studies at Shanghai Normal University and director of the 

Institute for War Culture and International Politics, is a strong proponent for the development of sea 

power to protect China’s SLOCs. Although he is not an official spokesman of the CCP or the PLA, he 

writes on matters of strategy and defense and proposes that China drastically increase its naval budget, 

discounting the “romantic” notion that international cooperation reliably can keep SLOCs open, and 

that China should not fear provoking a strong reaction to its naval buildup from the United States.39

Chinese strategists such as Ni consider access to the sea an indispensable condition and decisive factor 

for China’s rise. Vulnerability of SLOCs is perceived as a geopolitical risk because China’s current 

means of protecting these sea routes is extremely limited, as the chokepoint at the Strait of Malacca 

clearly illustrates. SLOCs connecting China with Africa and the Middle East pass through the Strait 

of Malacca, a narrow passage jointly administered by Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Ninetyfive percent of the oil used in China is transported by sea, and 80 percent of that is shipped through 

the strait.40 Shipping in the strait is extremely crowded, and it is a haven for pirates and terrorists. 

According to the International Maritime Bureau’s annual piracy report, 37 incidents occurred in the 

Malacca Strait in 2004, many of which “involved the crew being kidnapped for ransom” or “attacked 

by machine guns and rocket launchers.”41 Malacca is along China’s “seaborne oil lifeline,” but it is 

beyond the reach of the Chinese Navy.42 The Malacca Strait problem is a prime example of why China 

is pursuing the “String of Pearls” strategy.


III. STRATEGIC ANALYSIS

Dependence on overseas resources and energy supplies, especially oil and natural gas, is playing a role in shaping 

China’s strategy and policy. Such concerns factor heavily in Beijing’s relations with Angola, Central Asia, Indonesia, 

the Middle East (including Iran), Russia, Sudan, and Venezuela—to pursue long-term supply agreements—as 

well as its relations with countries that sit astride key geostrategic chokepoints—to secure passage. Beijing’s belief 

that it requires such special relationships in order to assure its energy access could shape its defense strategy and 

force planning in the future. Indicators of such a shift would include increased investment in a blue-water capable 

fleet and, potentially, a more activist military presence abroad.

The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China,

Department of Defense Annual Report to Congress, 200543

Strategic Context.

With an understanding of what the “String of Pearls” is, and how and why it is a manifestation of 

China’s development, we now turn to a multilevel analysis of the implications and repercussions of the 

“String of Pearls.” This analysis will first examine China’s grand strategy of “peaceful development” in 

the context of the global security environment and its implications for U.S. foreign policy. The security 

guaranteed by American primacy in Asia has enabled the United States to provide a public good for 

the region by facilitating freedom of navigation on the high seas. The question implicit in the “String 

of Pearls” is whether a rising China will continue to cede security guarantees to the United States or if 

China one day will make a bid for regional primacy. China’s efforts to develop the “String of Pearls” not 

only supports “peaceful development,” but also supports a hedging strategy if needed. By constantly 

assessing regional geopolitical developments as well as specific military challenges, the United States 

must remain vigilant for the indicators and warnings that will reveal the future direction of China’s 

policy and strategy. This section also assesses areas of convergent and divergent national interests to 

illustrate the complexity of U.S.-China relations and the various factors that affect the policies of both 

nations. Next, the analysis outlines U.S. policy options in response to the “String of Pearls” before 

turning to broad recommendations for the U.S. military in the final section.

China’s “Peaceful Development.” The United States can formulate an appropriate response to the 

geopolitical and military aspects of China’s “String of Pearls” only by understanding China’s grand 

strategy in the context of the global security environment. China’s increasing economic, diplomatic, and 

military power has attracted attention in recent years and begs the question, “How should the world, 

and especially the United States, respond to this emerging great power?” The Chinese government has 

identified three stages of planned development with a time horizon of 50 years. In the first stage, from 

2000 to 2010, China hopes to double GDP. The PRC is on track to meet this goal. In the second stage, 

ending in 2020, total GDP is to be doubled again such that GDP on a per capita basis is expected to 

be approximately $3,000. In the final stage, from 2020 to 2050, China expects to join the middle rung 

of advanced nations as a prosperous, democratic, and modernized socialist country.44 China will then 

claim to have succeeded in achieving a “peaceful development.”

According to Avery Goldstein, “peaceful development” was a strategy adopted by China beginning 

in the mid-1990s to enable economic growth and modernization, while mitigating the risk that other 

nations might perceive China as a threat.45 He proposed four factors to explain China’s approach. First 

was the realization by Chinese policymakers that a multipolar world was not going to emerge at the 

end of the Cold War. Beijing assumed that the United States would remain preeminent as the global 

hegemon in a unipolar world and, as such, China would be forced to operate in an environment where the 

United States could frustrate China’s ambitions.46 The second factor was acknowledgement of China’s 

weakness relative to the leading nations of the world. Despite China’s rapidly growing economic and 


military capabilities, it still lagged far behind in industrial capacity, modernization, and technology. 

This weakness was especially poignant as China witnessed American military dominance in Operation 

DESERT STORM and Kosovo, highlighting to the PLA how inferior its military capabilities were in 

relation to the United States and its allies.47 Third was nervousness about adverse international reaction 

to a rising China and the possibility of the United States adopting a Cold War-style containment policy 

toward China.48 And fourth, ongoing tension over Taiwan clarified for Beijing that the United States 

was committed to Taiwan’s security, and that a strong likelihood of U.S. intervention existed if China 

used force to press its sovereignty claim over the island. In the event of war over Taiwan, China would 

engage the United States with an outclassed military amid worldwide condemnation.49 These four 

factors had broad implications for the evolution of Chinese foreign and military policy.

As a relatively weak state, but one with growing power and global aspirations, China’s current foreign 

policy is designed to enhance the PRC’s reputation as a responsible and cooperative international actor. 

China seeks to reassure neighbors that her power is restrained and nonthreatening. Beijing’s response 

to the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s is touted as an example of this effort, as is China’s embrace 

of multilateralism such as participation in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its 

leading role in the SCO and the East Asia Summit.50 Another aspect of Chinese foreign policy has been a 

concerted effort to improve bilateral relations with the world’s major powers in order to reduce the risk 

of states joining in a united front to block China’s rise.51 China’s strategy of “peaceful development,” as 

such, would appear responsible and nonthreatening, raising few concerns in the international arena. 

One must recognize, however, that this is explicitly a transitional strategy, designed for the decades it 

will take for China to rise. If China successfully emerges as a great power, will it seek to participate in 

the international system as, to use Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick’s expression, a responsible 

stakeholder?52 Or, with economic clout and military muscle, will China become a disruptive, revisionist 

power determined to alter the international system to its advantage?53

China’s ultimate answer to those questions is not only uncertain, but simply cannot be known. 

Even if Chinese leaders are sincere in their peaceful intentions today, we cannot possibly know how 

the Chinese government will pursue its interests in decades to come, or how it will act in a changed 

international environment.54 Since 1998, China explicitly has articulated its desire for a multipolar 

world in its “new security concept,” implying that China would like America’s “unipolar moment” to 

end.55 Beijing’s “new security concept” is an indication of China’s dissatisfaction with the international 

system that emerged following the Cold War and was a direct reaction to policies and actions that China 

perceived as threatening, especially Washington’s strengthening of alliances with Japan, Australia, and 

other regional states.56 From a U.S. perspective, China’s “new security concept” is disconcerting in its 

anti-American rhetoric and call to exclude U.S. regional influence.57

If the areas of conflict between China and the United States are, in fact, manageable rather than 

intractable, then they both have a window of strategic opportunity to secure a peaceful and mutually 

beneficial coexistence. Deliberate, sensible policy over the course of the coming decades will provide 

both nations the opportunity to gauge progress and learn whether long-term accommodation is 

possible.58 Over time, China will learn whether the United States is willing to accept a more powerful 

China with global influence, and the United States will learn whether China is emerging as a responsible 

great power with which peaceful coexistence is possible without sacrificing American vital interests.59

Conflicting interests do not yet overwhelm the common interests in U.S.-China relations. Reviewing 

the potential challenges posed by the “String of Pearls” will help us understand how this strategy 

fits with China’s “peaceful development” and understand how it could be a measured and prudent 

hedging strategy or, conversely, the genesis of a bid for regional dominance.
10

Challenges Posed by the “String of Pearls.”

The “String of Pearls” presents a complex strategic situation with many facets. U.S. policymakers’ 

major concerns are the potential for competition with China for regional influence, China’s relationship 

with rogue states, and China’s military modernization. The collapse of the Soviet Union facilitated 

the growth of China’s influence and presence along the “String of Pearls” in the South China Sea, 

Indian Ocean, and Arabian Sea, by allowing Beijing greater strategic latitude. China’s growing regional 

influence is sparked not only by a strong economy, but also by strategic ambition and a sense of historical 

grievance. The collapse of the Soviet Union and withdrawal of Soviet forces from Mongolia removed 

pressure on China’s northern and western borders. To the south, Vietnam was deprived of support 

from its Soviet benefactor and forced to withdraw from Cambodia, which also relieved pressure on 

China. China also sought to relieve pressure from India by providing Pakistan with missile and nuclear 

weapons technologies.

Thus, with reduction of strategic pressure on its land borders, China is asserting claims in the East 

China and South China Seas, as well as exerting influence in the Indian Ocean. The Taiwan problem 

will be addressed later in this paper, but essentially this issue has ossified into a status quo because 

China is checked by U.S. security guarantees to Taiwan and Taiwan is pressured by the United States 

to refrain from making an outright declaration of independence. The maritime frontier beyond Taiwan, 

especially along the “String of Pearls,” is an area where China can make strategic advances to expand 

power and gain influence. This opportunity, coupled with the previously explained motives to secure 

maritime trade routes and energy supply routes along vital SLOCs, best explains the “String of Pearls” 

in its geopolitical context.

Competition for Regional Hegemony. As China rises in power and influence, the course of China’s 

development will be determined by its decision either to join fully the community of nations as a 

responsible stakeholder or, alternatively, a decision to play by its own rules. China’s diplomatic and 

economic activity is geared towards securing markets for exports, obtaining raw materials and energy 

resources, and enhancing its international stature. Simultaneously, China has exercised its diplomatic 

and economic instruments of national power to isolate Taiwan and reduce the regional influence 

of the United States. For example, in July 2005, President Hu signed a joint statement issued by the 

SCO calling for Washington to dismantle its air bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan that had been 

established to support the war in Afghanistan.60 Although the SCO was not adamant on the timetable 

for withdrawal, this pressure on the United States is just one example of a broader willingness by China 

to challenge U.S. influence in an area perceived as China’s backyard.61 Another example is the East Asia 

Summit (EAS), a new 16‐nation regional forum that purposely excluded participation of the United 

States. Russia was invited as an observer at the inaugural meeting in Kuala Lumpur last December, 

but no such invitation was extended to the United States. China has sought to use the new forum as 

a platform for its growing influence and as a counterpoint to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC) forum, where Washington is a key participant.62

China’s behavior in the SCO and EAS serve as counterpoints to Beijing’s claim that it is pursuing 

harmonious “peaceful development” with the United States. Other recent events also reveal the 

limitations of China’s moderation, positive outreach, and benign influence. During an official visit to 

Australia, a senior Chinese diplomat warned Canberra to refrain from siding with the United States in 

any military contingency involving Taiwan despite Australia’s ANZUS treaty commitments.63 China 

also pressured Singapore’s incoming prime minister to scrub plans for an official state visit to Taiwan.64

Sino-Japanese relations, historically very tense, worsened when a Chinese nuclear-powered submarine 

intruded into Japan’s territorial waters near a disputed gas field in November 2004.65 And a Chinese 

dispute with South Korea over the history of the Goguryeo Kingdom sparked strong nationalist 

responses in both countries.66
11

Despite these tensions, Chinese leaders have not placed severe demands on neighboring 

governments or pressured them to do things they would not otherwise be inclined to do. China is 

aware of the possibility that its growing stature could be construed as a threat to other countries in 

Asia, so a generally benign approach to gain influence is pursued through the use of investments, 

development packages, and diplomatic gestures.67 China’s behavior largely has been consistent with 

its policy and rhetoric. As a result, China, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center in June 

2005, is viewed more favorably in Asia than the United States is despite the authoritarian nature of 

its domestic politics.68 Such soft power, however, may not be decisive when crises arise which force 

governments to make difficult decisions.

The balance of power throughout the “String of Pearls” region has shifted and will continue to shift 

as China grows in strength and stature. Changes to this balance are primarily economic, diplomatic, and 

“soft power” changes. In a unipolar world, U.S. influence may seem to diminish as China’s influence 

grows, but regional states are not prohibited from maintaining favorable relations with both the United 

States and China. During the Cold War, or during any period of international tension, states typically 

aligned themselves with one side or another, fostering strong security relationships and creating blocs 

of allied nations. Presently, with the United States as the unquestionable military superpower, nations 

are discovering that they do not have to choose sides in the economic or diplomatic arena. Militarily, the 

entire region is dominated by the United States and will continue to be so dominated for the foreseeable 

future, presumably through the first half of the 21st century. As long as China does not pose a military 

threat and the United States is able to guarantee regional stability, nations are free to accommodate 

China’s economic and diplomatic rise to their benefit.

The United States should expect countries like Pakistan, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Vietnam to 

welcome overtures from China. Even America’s staunchest regional allies—Japan, South Korea, 

Australia, and the Philippines, for example—increasingly find it in their self-interest to improve ties 

with China. The United States also should expect occasional expressions of reticence over U.S. military 

presence throughout the region. This will not necessarily indicate a diminished friendship with America; 

rather it is a symptom of the perception that a peaceful region does not require U.S. military presence. 

This perception is a fallacy, however, since security is illusory. The United States can accommodate 

military sensitivities with a less visible presence or reduced footprint, but America cannot afford to 

abandon its military commitments in Asia. In the event China chose to pursue a more aggressive 

course, by seeking hegemony along the “String of Pearls,” the challenge to the United States could not 

be ignored. In the interim, even as nations delicately balance their relationships with United States and 

China in pursuit of their own self-interest, America needs to keep her alliances in good stead while 

encouraging China’s further participation in the international system as a responsible stakeholder.69

China’s Relationships with Rogue States. China’s approach to relations with states in the “String of 

Pearls” region appears to be amoral or value-neutral with regard to ideological or human rights concerns. 

China is focused on achieving practical strategic objectives and maintains favorable relations with 

“rogue states” that have histories and reputations of behavior objectionable to the world community—

weapons proliferators, human rights abusers, aggressive military postures, and supporters of terrorism, 

for example—without exerting influence to change aberrant policy or behavior.70 China’s engagement 

with rogue states such as Myanmar, Iran, and Sudan undermines attempts by the West to isolate or 

effect change in those regimes.71 At the EAS in December 2005, China dissented from fellow Southeast 

Asian nations’ intense censure of Myanmar and dismissed that country’s abhorrent human rights 

situation by stating it was an internal matter for Rangoon’s military rulers to decide.72 As part of Deputy 

Secretary Zoellick’s call for China to become a responsible stakeholder in the international system, he 

stated that China’s actions with respect to Iran’s nuclear program will reveal the seriousness of China’s 

commitment to nonproliferation.73 Deputy Secretary Zoellick conveyed to Beijing that the United States 
12

thinks of China as an equal and important member in the current international system and that China 

shares an interest in maintaining that system. In Sudan, where the CNPC controls more than 40 percent 

of oil production and China is the country’s largest trading partner, Beijing should have enough clout 

and influence to modify the behavior of a government that has given safe harbor to al-Qa’ida and other 

militants, and has been implicated in abetting the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region.74 Beijing 

could improve its international image by encouraging policy shifts in Khartoum, but so far has shown 

no inclination to do so.75

Washington would like for China to leverage its influence to effect positive change. If China fails 

to appreciate the benefits of such enlightened self-interest and continues to pursue short-sighted 

objectives, there will likely be destabilizing consequences. China is at a strategic crossroads and if 

Beijing does not assume the role of responsible stakeholder, then the United States may resort to 

pressuring China through actions ranging from unfavorable economic policies to overt calls for social 

and political change.76 If China remains recalcitrant or promulgates policy counter to U.S. interests, this 

will be a clear warning of pending economic, diplomatic, or even military confrontation between the 

United States and China.

China’s Military Modernization. The modernization of the PLA is a tangible manifestation of China’s 

growing national power. The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review cautions that, of the major and emerging 

great powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field 

disruptive military technologies that could, over time, offset traditional U.S. military advantages.77

Regardless of China’s intent today, powerful and modernized armed forces provide China with military 

capabilities that the United States must consider. With near-term focus on Taiwan, PLA modernization 

efforts appear to be aimed specifically at combating U.S. maritime forces that might be called to defend 

Taiwan and at denying the United States access to regional military bases in locations such as Japan 

and South Korea. Many of China’s new weapon systems are applicable to a range of operations beyond 

the Taiwan Strait. The expanding capability of China’s military power threatens not only Taiwan—and 

therefore the United States—but also challenges U.S. friends and allies throughout the Western Pacific, 

Southeast Asia, and South Asia.78 Unchecked or disproportionate, China’s military modernization 

could lead to a major reordering of the balance of power throughout the Pacific.

China began modernizing its armed forces and procuring sophisticated weapons after observing the 

overwhelming success and technological prowess of the U.S.-led coalition during the 1991 Persian Gulf 

War. This was signaled by the PLAAF’s purchase of 24 Su-27 advanced all-weather fighters from Russia 

in 1992, China’s first venture into fielding a first-rate air force. In 1993, China began the acquisition of 

advanced surface-to-air missiles, towed-array anti-submarine sonar, multiple-target torpedo control 

systems, nuclear submarine propulsion systems, and technology to improve the range of its undersealaunched cruise missiles.79 The Su-27s and these other military systems procured from Russia enhanced 

China’s power projection capability and heightened the threat to Taiwan.80 In 1999, China signed a 

contract with Russia for 40 Su‐30 ground attack aircraft and a contract for approximately 40 more was 

signed in 2001.81

In the 1990s, the PLAN expressed interest in acquiring aircraft carriers, and more recently military 

leadership has stated China’s intent to build aircraft carriers, true instruments of power projection. 

Rhetorical statements aside, there is no evidence of China’s furthering this ambition, either because 

of Chinese restraint and strategic forethought in accordance with the country’s overall “peaceful 

development’ strategy, or because the PLAN is not robust or mature enough to put a carrier to sea 

without incurring substantial risk.82 Deploying an aircraft carrier would not occur overnight, and the 

PLAN is certainly many years away from actually launching one. In 1994, China began modernizing its 

submarine fleet with the purchase of four Russian Kilo-class attack submarines, followed by a subsequent 

agreement to purchase eight more in 2002.83 China also has purchased four Sovremmeny-class destroyers 
13

equipped with the SS-N-22 advanced anti-ship cruise missile. These Kilo-class submarines and guidedmissile destroyers pose an acute threat to U.S. aircraft carriers and provide China with greater latitude 

to project power at sea than any previously possessed.84 Table 2 lists the major weapon systems that 

comprise China’s military modernization and the projected weapon system inventories of today and 

the year 2020.

Military Modernization of Inventory 2005 Inventory 2020

the People’s Liberation Army (estimated) (projected) Remarks

PLAN

Surface Combatants

 DDG Type 51 16 11 Soviet-built destroyer c.1970s

 DDG Type 52 (A, B, and C) 7 7 Soviet-built destroyer c.1980s

 DDG Sovremmeny-class 4 12 Russian-built destroyer c.1990s

Submarines

 SSAN (older models) ~40 ~40 Various Soviet-era older subs

 SSAN Kilo-class 4 10 Modern Russian attack submarine

Naval Aviation

 Su-30 Flanker 24 48 Naval attack variant of Su-27

PLAAF

Naval Aviation

 Attack

 JH-7 Jianhong — 200 FBC-1 produced as export variant

 Su-30 Flanker 76 76 Ground attack variant of Su-27

 Q-5 Fantan 300 300 Ground attack variant of the J-6

 Fighter

 J-11 115 200 Su-27SK produced under license

 Su-27UBK Flanker 35 40 Purchased from Russia

 J-10 48 see note* Based on Israeli Lavi fighter

 J-8 164 — Two engine MiG-21 derivative

 J-7 686 — MiG-21 derivative, retiring (?)

 J-6 350 — MiG-19 derivative, retired by 2006

 Bomber

 H-6 80 — Tu-16 derivative

 H-9 — ??? Speculated to be in development

 Tanker

 H-6U 10 10 Modified H-6, J-8 receiver only

 IL-78 — 8 Limited procurement from Russia

 Airlift

 IL-76 20 50 Airdrop capable

 Y-8 48 48 An-12 produced under license

 Y-7 100 100 An-24 produced under license

*Production projections for the J-10 vary from a low estimate of 300 aircraft to a high estimate of 1,200.

Table 2. China’s Military Modernization.85

Current assessments do not conclude that China poses a credible military threat to the United States, 

although the modernization trend is alarming to many observers. Since 1996, China has increased its 

defense spending by more than 10 percent in real terms in every year except 2003.86 Growth in China’s 

power projection capability will lead the United States and other nations to question China’s intentions 

and adjust their military postures accordingly. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned, “The 

rapid, nontransparent nature of [China’s] buildup contributes to uncertainty.”87 Speaking for the Bush 
14

administration, Deputy Secretary Zoellick called upon China to “openly explain its defense spending, 

intentions, doctrine, and military exercises to ease concerns about its rapid military buildup.”88 Beyond 

Taiwan, China’s evolving maritime power suggests that the PLAN is concerned with protecting SLOCs 

to keep open the “choke points” relevant to safeguarding trade and ensuring uninterrupted transport 

of energy resources.89 This is consistent with China’s expansion along the “String of Pearls,” however 

with the exception of “fishing trawlers” occasionally found mapping the ocean floor to facilitate 

submarine operations, the PLAN has yet to flex any “blue water” muscle.90 It may only be a matter of 

time, perhaps precipitated by a security or energy crisis, before China, bolstered by newly acquired 

ships with modern weapon systems, feels the need to deploy a military presence into the “String of 

Pearls” region.

China’s military modernization concerns the United States due to China’s lack of transparency 

and the uncertainty of not knowing what military capabilities China is pursuing. According to Henry 

Kissinger however, U.S. policy in Asia must not mesmerize itself with a Chinese military buildup.91

The PLA suffered decades of neglect while Beijing focused on China’s economic and internal reforms. 

Even at current high estimates, the Chinese military budget is less than 20 percent of American defense 

spending; and is only slightly ahead of “demilitarized” Japan’s defense budget. When considering the 

nations on its border, Chinese defense spending is far less than the combined military expenditures 

of Japan, India, and Russia.92 China must consider the risks and costs of the military dimension of its 

“String of Pearls” strategy. The perception of an aggressive military buildup likely would create a 

counterbalancing effect detrimental to Chinese interests. Even a limited forward military presence, to 

“show the flag,” or as a hedge in case U.S. security guarantees fall short, could conflict with China’s 

path to “peaceful development” and be counterproductive toward China’s achieving its larger national 

objectives.

For now, the strategic challenges posed by China for the United States are primarily political and 

economic. Although China’s military modernization and power projection capability severely lags the 

United States, the PLA’s existing military capability, when considered in the geopolitical context of 

East Asia, can pose major problems for American security interests.93 If the “String of Pearls” is a 

disguise for hegemony, then China will likely pursue a patient, deft, and subtle approach. The United 

States must maintain constant vigilance for the indicators and warnings of such intent, but dramatic 

changes in the balance of power will not occur overnight and certainly not at China’s current stage of 

development. China’s behavior should alarm Washington if the “String of Pearls” results in states being 

forced to distance themselves from the United States and gravitate towards China. China’s behavior 

with respect to rogue states also will reveal Beijing’s intentions in the region if China fails to act as a 

responsible stakeholder in the international system. Militarily, continued lack of transparency, pursuit 

of a “blue water” navy, procurement of weapon systems specifically designed to counter U.S. forces, or 

deployment of a forward military presence aimed at excluding U.S. access are some of the indicators 

and warnings that should alert Washington to nefarious intent behind the “String of Pearls.”

U.S. Strategic Options.

The “String of Pearls” can serve as a litmus test for the future course of U.S.-China relations. Of 

the areas where American and Chinese interests are interlinked, the issues relating to the “String of 

Pearls” are the most dynamic and immediate. This section of analysis will illustrate the complexity of 

the U.S.‐China relationship by reviewing areas of convergent and divergent national interests. Policy 

options range from optimistic to pessimistic, depending on assumptions regarding the nature of the 

U.S.-China relationship and the ultimate intent in Beijing for a China with great power status. China 

and the United States are at a crossroads and have a window of opportunity to determine the future 

security environment in Asia. Once the course is set, for better or worse, it will be difficult to change. 

How should the United States meet this challenge—politically, economically, and militarily? 
15

Areas of U.S.-China Convergence. A turning point in the Cold War was February 1972 when President 

Richard Nixon traveled to Beijing and began the process of normalizing diplomatic relations between 

the United States and China. A common interest in opposing the Soviet power that threatened both 

nations was the reason for this dramatic shift in the global balance. The two countries were willing 

to set aside differences over security issues, including contentious Taiwan, a problem that had twice 

brought them to the brink of war in the 1950s.94 From rapprochement until the collapse of the Soviet 

Union, China and the United States were allies of convenience, with little illusion of a true partnership 

on either side. Toward the end of the Cold War, and especially following China’s severe repression 

at Tiananmen Square in 1989, unresolved strategic tensions again resurfaced as China and the United 

States became strategic competitors in the new world order, albeit with strong incentives for continued 

peaceful coexistence.

Strongly linked economies with robust trade is the defining characteristic of the current U.S.-China 

relationship. According to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, China is the 

third largest U.S. trading partner, after Canada and Mexico, with combined two-way imports and 

exports exceeding $231 billion in 2004. This amounts to an almost five-fold increase in the decade 

since 1994.95 The United States is China’s largest trading partner, followed by Japan, South Korea, 

and Taiwan. The top four U.S. imports from China in the first half of 2005 were power generation 

equipment ($24.3 billion), consumer electronics ($21.6 billion), apparel ($8.3 billion), and furniture ($8.1 

billion).96 Top U.S. exports to China during the same period were power generation equipment ($3 

billion), electrical machinery ($2.8 billion), and aerospace equipment ($1.8 billion).97 Some issues and 

problems surround the trade relationship between the United States and China—such as a recent trade 

imbalance of $165 billion, China’s undervalued currency, trade subsidies, intellectual property rights 

issues, China’s influence on U.S. capital markets, and technology transfer—but despite these concerns, 

the economies of China and the United States are linked inexorably with net benefit to both nations.98

Besides their economies, China and the United States have important mutual security interests 

that provide opportunities for cooperation and strong incentives to manage and mitigate bilateral 

tension. Both China and the United States are exposed to the challenges of globalization and other 

transnational security concerns. Combating terrorism, maintaining freedom of navigation on the high 

seas, protecting the environment, and public health issues such as AIDS and Avian Flu are examples 

of such security interests. President George W. Bush, in the National Security Strategy (NSS), stated 

that our mutual interests can guide our cooperation on issues such as terrorism, proliferation, and 

energy security.99 Secretary Rumsfeld, during an October 2005 visit to China, stated that “in an era of 

increasing globalization, threats such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and infectious diseases—are 

transnational in nature, and require cooperative efforts.”100 Examples of U.S.-China cooperation are 

abundant. The Bush administration has approached the crisis posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons 

program in a consultative manner acceptable to China, publicly acknowledging China’s contributions 

in the Six Party Talks and boosting Beijing’s international prestige.101 China also has broadly supported 

the American Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) and avoided criticism of U.S. policy in Iraq. While the 

GWOT has enhanced reasons for cooperation and reduced confrontation, future developments in the 

GWOT could disadvantage the United States potentially, inducing China to probe U.S. weakness or, 

conversely, U.S. assertiveness potentially could alarm China and prompt resistance to U.S. policy.102

Areas of U.S.-China Divergence. More concerning, and perhaps more significant for the long-term 

health of the U.S.‐China relationship, are areas of divergent national interests. Although China and 

the United States share many congruent interests, there also are areas of friction. Next, we will review 

briefly a few of the troubling issues that define the global security relationship between the United 

States and China including Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, weapons proliferation, and trade policy. 

Although other issues, such as human rights, democratic reforms, and freedom of information are 

contentious, they are not as potentially destabilizing as the concerns addressed here.
16

The most dangerous tension involves the issue of Taiwan. The Taiwan problem is at the center 

of Chinese politics because no Chinese leader can afford to appear soft on reunification. Due to the 

nationalistic sentiment on the Mainland, the United States must not risk pushing Beijing into a corner 

over Taiwan’s sovereignty when China’s leaders and public opinion may not think or act “rationally.”103

U.S. policy remains focused on seeing a peaceful resolution of cross-strait differences in a manner 

that is acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.104 Forceful reunification of Taiwan, 

something the mainland has not renounced, is an untenable solution for the United States. Although 

acknowledging China’s claim to Taiwan, the United States is committed to its long-standing security 

guarantees to Taiwan in order to deter overt Chinese aggression. Washington will not permit China 

to determine who rules Taiwan, but neither will it permit Taiwan to declare outright independence 

and instigate war between the United States and China. Hence the United States maintains the “One 

China” policy first outlined in the Shanghai Communiqué following President Nixon’s opening of 

China in February 1972.

Apart from Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula is another potential source of conflict. Beginning in the 

mid-1990s, China began to participate actively in international efforts to reach a solution to the Korean 

impasse and supported public efforts to find ways to curtail proliferation of North Korea’s nuclear 

program.105 Given the slow progress of the recent Six Party Talks, primarily due the intransigence and 

lack of reciprocity from Pyongyang, containment will likely continue to be the U.S. policy towards 

North Korea. America’s strategic interest on the Korean Peninsula is regional stability, especially with 

respect to the security of Japan and potential disruption of economic activity in the region. The United 

States is willing to serve as the security guarantor for Japan because a demilitarized Japan reduces angst 

in East Asia and sets conditions for economies to thrive in the region. U.S. policy is vulnerable because 

America’s military presence on the peninsula depends on Seoul’s acquiescence. Partly as a consequence 

of South Korea’s “sunshine policy” towards North Korea and resultant pan-Korean nationalism, antiAmerican and anti-Japanese sentiment are rising on the peninsula.106 In December 2002, Roh Moohyung was elected President of South Korea after stating during his election campaign that, in the 

event North Korea and the United States went to war, South Korea should remain neutral.107

Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula are frequently areas of high tension, but also areas where slow 

deliberate strategic maneuvering occurs. Another area of broad strategic concern for the United 

States is China’s involvement with weapons proliferation. China’s proliferation practices are wideranging, and Beijing continues to provide equipment and technology, including dual-use equipment 

and technology related to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems, to rogue 

states such as Iran.108 Chinese assistance helped Pakistan develop nuclear weapons as a strategic 

counterweight against India but subsequently A. Q. Khan, the head of Pakistan’s nuclear program, 

engaged in widespread proliferation. He sold nuclear technology to Iran and allegedly provided Libya 

with plans to build a nuclear weapon of Chinese design.109 The U.S. policy toward Chinese proliferation 

is two-pronged—official dialogue with the Chinese government and aggressive sanctions on Chinese 

companies that proliferate. Sixty-two such sanctions were imposed during the first term of the Bush 

administration (2001-04).110 Deputy Secretary Zoellick called upon China to police proliferation through 

export controls on sensitive technologies and pursue tough legal punishment for violators.111 China’s 

record is not encouraging, but Washington wants to convince Beijing that working with the United 

States to halt the proliferation of WMD and their delivery systems is in the best interest of both nations. 

Otherwise proliferation could undermine the benign security environment and healthy international 

economy that China needs for successful development.112

Trade between the United States and China continues to expand at a rapid pace and can be a winwin venture for both nations. In the early years of its market reforms, China was perceived by U.S. 

business as a land of opportunity for investment and for the lucrative potential of a huge consumer 
17

market. Today, however, anxiety is growing in the U.S. business community due to worries about 

China’s undervalued currency, extensive government subsidies, weak intellectual property protection, 

and repressive labor practices.113 Because China is in violation of agreements and reforms promised in 

order to obtain admission into the World Trade Organization (WTO), a highly skewed bilateral trade 

relationship exists between the United States and China. This economic relationship is marked by a 

soaring U.S. trade deficit and a weakening competitive position for many U.S. firms.114 Unlike the free 

trade philosophy of the WTO, China’s economic policies are designed to serve its domestic market and 

enhance its ability to thrive as a manufacturer of export goods. Deputy Secretary Zoellick labeled China 

as mercantilist due to its protectionist stance and opaque economic policies. He warned that the United 

States will not be able to sustain an open international economic system—or domestic U.S. support for 

such a free trade system—without greater cooperation from China as a responsible stakeholder in the 

international economic system.115 President Bush, in the NSS, called upon China to make important 

contributions to global prosperity and ensure its own prosperity for the long term by relying more on 

domestic demand and less on global trade imbalances to drive its economic growth.116 Although not a 

direct military threat to security, an unbalanced or failed economic relationship between China and the 

United States could be just as destabilizing, with grave repercussions to the national security of both 

nations.

In the context of the “String of Pearls,” multiple strategic options present themselves to both nations. 

Since we cannot truly know China’s strategic intent or future policy, we must focus on options available 

to the United States to shape and influence both the security environment and China’s policy options. 

China also must be afforded the opportunity to gauge U.S. policy and intentions in the region. Current 

policy debate in Washington is wide ranging, varying from optimistic strategies of cooperation to 

hard line, confrontational strategies of containment. The two poles of U.S. strategic options, optimistic 

and pessimistic, will be reviewed next, followed by a recommendation for the United States to pursue 

a substantive and results-oriented pragmatic strategy of engaging China, drawing China into the 

international community, and maintaining U.S. diplomatic, economic, and military leadership in the 

region.

Optimistic Approaches. For the present, China’s “peaceful development” seems generally benign 

and advantageous. One optimistic approach for the United States would be to maintain economic 

relationships in Asia but reduce America’s military presence as China and other regional states assume 

responsibility for their own security. This “neo-isolationist” approach would benefit the United States 

in the short term by reducing the burden of security commitments.117 America would reap a “peace 

dividend” as the United States reduced its costly military commitment to the region. This approach 

is flawed primarily because the strategic interests of the United States, as a nation whose security is 

based on maritime power, are best served by continued forward deployment and enduring alliances 

in Europe and Asia.118 Isolationism is the most dangerous choice for a maritime power, as Churchill 

understood in World War II, because it concedes all initiative to one’s enemy or, in this instance, one’s 

potential enemy.

Another optimistic approach assumes that the United States and China can reach a strategic 

accommodation in Asia. The assumption is that Asia can become “bipolar,” with the United States 

acting as a maritime power and China as a continental power.119 This geopolitical division presumably 

would reinforce stability and regional security. This theory also is flawed because history does not 

suggest that such geopolitical asymmetries necessarily mitigate conflict. During the Cold War, the 

United States was a maritime power and the Soviet Union was a continental power, yet America could 

not tolerate Soviet domination of Eurasia.120 Similarly, the security interests of the United States could 

not permit Chinese hegemony over Asia.

Other optimistic theories have been put forth as potential solutions to resolve strategic tension in 

Asia. One popular theory is that economic interdependence will prevent war. East Asia is a region 
18

of economic interdependence, but so, too, was Europe in 1914. It is a fallacy to believe that economic 

interdependence can guarantee security. It also is a fallacy to assume that democracy is a panacea. 

Japan has the most mature democracy in Asia, yet tensions with South Korea actually increased as antiJapanese nationalism rose on the Peninsula with the emergence of a vibrant South Korean democracy. 

Indonesia also pursued democracy after the ouster of President Suharto in 1998, yet instability persists 

under a weak central government. A third fallacy is to assume that multilateralism and institutionalism 

can resolve great power tensions. The United Nations (UN), ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), 

APEC, EAS, and other forums enhance the “stickiness” that can ameliorate tension but of themselves, 

they are not enough. Limitations of institutions and the “international community” become apparent 

when national self-interests are in conflict.

Hard Line Containment. There are no guarantees that China will respond favorably to any U.S. strategy, 

and prudence may suggest to “prepare for the worst” and that it is “better to be safe than sorry.”121 Is it 

perhaps better to take a hard line towards China and contain it while it is still relatively weak? Is now 

the time to keep China down before she can make a bid for regional hegemony? Foreign policy realists, 

citing history and political theory, argue that inevitably China will challenge American primacy and 

that it is a question of “when” and not “if” the U.S.-China relationship will become adversarial or 

worse.122

Problems with a hard line approach are three-fold. First, it would undermine U.S. interests 

since China would reciprocate hostility towards the United States and not cooperate on the many 

economic, environmental, and security issues that are crucial to future success and stability in Asia and 

elsewhere.123 Second, a containment policy towards China would be exceedingly difficult and expensive 

to implement. Containment likely would fail to isolate China since the ideological and economic walls 

that made containment of the Soviet Union possible do not exist. It also does not follow that containment 

of China would benefit the United States, which would likely have few followers in Asia or across the 

globe.124 Countries whose economies are strongly linked to China likely would act in their self-interest 

and continue their trade relationships with China. Third, and most practical, alarmist calls to deal with 

a possibly dangerous China overstate the risks of simply watching and waiting, responding as China 

acts, and adjusting U.S. strategy as events warrant. The United States possesses great advantages over 

China, both in hard and soft power. China will not emerge as a great power overnight, and it has yet to 

overcome daunting political and domestic obstacles. America holds all of the high cards—we must be 

careful not to play our strong hand poorly.125

A Pragmatic Approach. Paradoxically, the best strategy for achieving long-term security in Asia is for 

the United States to maintain strong ties with all the powers of Asia, including China.126 These ties should 

be bilateral and multilateral; diplomatic, economic, and military. Economically and diplomatically, this 

implies a level playing field where the United States must compete on its own merits. Militarily, the 

United States must bear the cost of maintaining superior military power to guarantee security and serve 

as a hedge against a possible future China threat. This does not mean that the United States must bear 

this burden unilaterally; on the contrary, it is in the interest of the United States to partner with allies 

whose military capabilities complement our maritime power. The majority of nations will perceive 

their relationship with the United States in terms of their own self-interests. In the event of tension 

between the United States and China, or between the United States and any power, they likely will seek 

to avoid choosing sides if their interests are not at stake.127 Similarly, strong diplomatic, economic, and 

military ties with the United States will induce nations to participate in a multilateral system rather 

than adopt an anti-American position based on external pressure or Asian nationalism.128

Presently, China appears determined to reduce tension with the United States and pursue common 

interests in ways compatible with U.S. leadership and with regard to regional security, stability, and 

prosperity. This is in concordance with U.S. policy and should be supported by the United States.129
19

China’s neighbors also are committed to a peaceful and cooperative approach towards China and 

would not welcome U.S. efforts to derail China’s development. As China develops, U.S. strategy should 

seek to maintain America’s dominant role as the regional security guarantor and as economic partner 

of choice.

In the “String of Pearls” region, U.S. efforts should be aimed at broadening and deepening American 

influence in ways that have wide appeal among the various regional states. U.S. economic and security 

leadership provides a good foundation for such efforts.130 Key partners for securing the SLOCs from 

the Middle East to Asia are Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. These 

nations are identified explicitly as U.S. key friends and allies in the NSS, but our partnerships should 

be expanded to include India, Pakistan, and Vietnam.131 Security in the Strait of Malacca is essential for 

the region and especially for China, Japan, South Korea, and other nations dependent on the smooth 

and efficient transit of cargo and energy supplies.132 The United States should take a special interest 

in the Malacca Strait, working together with China, Japan, Thailand, and the countries administering 

the strait, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. U.S. participation is an opportunity to build trust and 

confidence by partnering with allies to counter piracy, prevent terrorism, and ensure freedom of 

navigation through this vital sea lane. India, another rising power in the “String of Pearls” region, 

should also be a priority for U.S. efforts. The United States and India share ever closer common interests 

regarding opposition to radical extremism, nuclear nonproliferation, and integrity of ASEAN.133 A 

stronger relationship between the United States and India need not assume an anti-Chinese character, 

nor should it prevent India and China from improving their bilateral relations.

The test of China’s intentions will be whether its growing power and influence will be used to 

exclude the United States from the “String of Pearls” region or whether it will partner with the United 

States and other nations in cooperative efforts, assuming a role as a “responsible stakeholder.” The 

United States must engage with China, not only economically and diplomatically, but also militarily, 

to help China deal with the many difficulties it will encounter during its development. At the same 

time, the United States must invigorate bilateral and multilateral relationships throughout Asia and 

the “String of Pearls” region to ensure there are no doubts about U.S. commitment and resolve.134

These relationships will facilitate a constructive bilateral relationship with China; neutralize a potential 

“China threat”; and benefit the peace, security, and prosperity of the entire region.

The next and final section of this paper will explore the military instrument of power as it contributes 

to the overall strategy of the United States with respect to China and the “String of Pearls.” Resolving 

tensions, mitigating risks, and working towards long-term security are primarily diplomatic and 

economic initiatives. Underpinning the diplomatic efforts and economic relationship, however, is the 

security guarantee provided by American military power. The U.S. military protects U.S. interests and 

enhances stability throughout the region. The question for American military strategists is, “How can 

the military instrument of power best support the strategic interests of the United States considering 

what we now know about the ‘String of Pearls’ in the context of U.S.‐China relations?”
20

IV. THE U.S. MILITARY AND THE STRING OF PEARLS

Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at 

maintaining a low profile; never claim leadership; make some contributions.

Deng Xiaoping, The “24 Character” Strategy135

Leveraging U.S. Military Power.

Analysis of the “String of Pearls” in the previous section revealed that the challenges surrounding 

this issue are primarily diplomatic and economic. Underpinning and enabling the diplomatic and 

economic policies of the United States, however, is the military instrument of national power. No 

dimension of national power can be considered in a vacuum—the diplomatic, economic, and military 

instruments of power must work in concert to achieve U.S. national objectives. The “String of Pearls” is 

a geopolitical issue that demands a comprehensive national policy with respect to U.S.-China relations 

and U.S. interests in the region. It is beyond the scope of this paper to formulate a military strategy to 

support such a national policy, but broad implications for the military do follow from the foregoing 

analysis. 

The NSS defines East Asia as a region of great opportunity and lingering tensions. The United 

States, as a Pacific Rim nation, has vital security interests in the region and is committed to stability 

and prosperity through sustained engagement.136 The overarching regional security objectives outlined 

in the NSS are freedom, prosperity, and security. The tremendous strength and influence of the U.S. 

military can be leveraged to uphold four essential themes that support these objectives: protecting the 

commons, guaranteeing regional security, hedging against a possible China threat, and drawing China 

into the community of nations as a responsible stakeholder.137 Following is a brief overview of these 

themes with respect to the “String of Pearls” and general recommendations for leveraging the military 

to support U.S. national objectives in the region.

Protecting the Commons. The U.S. ability to project power is unrivaled, particularly at sea. U.S. Naval 

power is charged with peacetime management of the “blue water” high seas. Since World War II, 

America has enabled much of Asia’s free trade by guaranteeing freedom of navigation throughout Asia’s 

major SLOCs. No nation, including China, has the capacity to assume the responsibility of protecting 

the commons or the means to usurp the U.S. Navy in this role. American warships have a combined 

displacement of 2.86 million tons whereas the PLAN’s combined fleet has a displacement of only 263 

thousand tons.138 Of the world’s 34 aircraft carriers, 24 are U.S. Navy vessels, while China possesses 

none.139 This traditional “blue water” navy, centered on the aircraft carrier, is one of America’s greatest 

military strengths. In the post-Cold War security environment, although a necessary component, the 

“blue water” navy is not sufficient in and of itself to protect the commons and ensure freedom of 

navigation throughout the Asian SLOCs.

Threats such as piracy and terrorism in the Strait of Malacca also demand a littoral, or “brown 

water,” navy capable of supporting small unit operations in coastal regions. Combating terrorist 

organizations such as Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines or extremists groups in Indonesia or 

Malaysia will require an agile, responsive littoral navy that can support and sustain special operations 

forces. The U.S. Navy currently has a limited capability in this regard but not sufficiently adequate to 

defeat asymmetric threats decisively or to instill confidence in regional allies. This navy will require 

small vessels such as the littoral combat ship (LCS), a project under joint development by LockheedMartin and General Dynamics. The 400-foot LCS is designed to operate in shallow water, will travel 

very fast (up to 40 knots), and have a range of over 3,500 nautical miles.140 Considering the possibility 

that the visible presence and footprint of U.S. forces in Asia could be reduced, the littoral navy will 
21

require a carefully considered basing plan, as well as logistical support from the “blue water” navy. 

A home port at Guam, with logistical support from Diego Garcia or another location with immediate 

access to the Indian Ocean, would be an ideal deployment of the littoral navy to support the “String of 

Pearls” region.

Air forces will also have a role in protecting the commons. Global Hawk or other intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets can greatly assist monitoring and observation of commercial 

and military activity along SLOCs. Persistent, 24-hour observation of the Malacca Strait, perhaps by 

Global Hawk jointly operated in collaboration with regional allies or partners, would complement 

maritime situational awareness and policing of the strait. This ISR endeavor would be feasible today 

through a joint partnership with Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, the three nations responsible 

for administering the strait. Such a joint military initiative would build trust and confidence, while 

simultaneously enforcing freedom of navigation and rule of law. Beyond protection of the commons, 

the U.S. military also has broader responsibility to set the conditions for security in the Asia-Pacific 

Region.

America’s Role as Security Guarantor. As a maritime power, the United States cannot afford to 

relinquish its role as security guarantor in the “String of Pearls” region or any other area of strategic 

interest in Asia. The traditional “blue water” navy previously discussed is a major component of 

America’s contribution to regional security. The “blue water” navy provides the United States the 

ability to project power from the sea, as demonstrated by the United States Navy’s offshore bombing 

and cruise missile strikes conducted during recent combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Other 

key components contributing to regional security are the forward presence of U.S. ground and air 

forces in Japan, South Korea, and Guam. As U.S. forces in Japan and South Korea are decreased due to 

political considerations, this reduction must continue to be balanced with sufficient military capability 

at Guam, Diego Garcia, or other locations to enable implementation of U.S. regional strategy. President 

Bush, in reference to the transformation of the U.S. military, stated that changes in Northeast Asia have 

led to a restructuring of U.S. military presence while simultaneously improving our capabilities in the 

region.141 Since regional naval and air power presence is a crucial enabler for U.S. military credibility, 

this should also be the U.S. policy in the “String of Pearls” region.

The United States must maintain and enhance its ability to overcome the tyranny of distance in 

the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) region. The continental United States (CONUS)‐based global 

strike capability must remain viable, and the defense transportation system and logistics infrastructure 

must remain robust enough to support power projection into Asia and the “String of Pearls” region. 

The United States also should continue to pursue its theater missile defense programs and extend 

the umbrella of protection to any state threatened by a rogue actor with ballistic missile capability. 

Effectively guaranteeing security requires more than raw American military power, it also requires 

positive relationships with friends and allies to share military burdens and facilitate access for the U.S. 

military to operate in the region.

PACOM is the regional agent of the U.S. military responsible for implementing military strategy 

and policy in Asia. PACOM, through its Theater Security Cooperation Plan (TSCP), must foster good 

relations with allies and seek positive engagement with neutral and adversarial states to influence and 

shape the security environment. In November 2005, PACOM deployed forces from Japan, Hawaii, and 

Guam to Kalaikunda Air Station in India for the exercise Cope India 2006.142 This was a perfect example 

of the type of proactive military engagement the United States must pursue to enhance collective peace 

and stability in the region. It built trust, demonstrated commitment, and increased the interoperability 

between U.S. forces and a key regional partner.

Combined training and exercises should focus on areas of practical application such as ensuring 

freedom of navigation, counterterrorism, and disaster relief. Whether responding to acute crises such as 

an earthquake in Pakistan or events affecting large geographic areas such as the December 2004 tsunami 
22

disaster, the U.S. military should have existing relationships such that regional allies can integrate and 

contribute to relief operations. Exercises should be designed and tailored to match the contributions 

each participant can provide realistically. Bangladesh and Indonesia could join the United States in an 

exercise to plan and execute relief operations, enhancing their ability to contribute as a future relief 

provider and also their ability to integrate as beneficiary of a relief operation, should such a situation 

arise. To exercise freedom of navigation assurance, Japan, for example, could participate in out-ofarea exercises with its specialized antisubmarine and minesweeping capabilities. If other nations are 

concerned about Japan projecting military power beyond its immediate border, they should be included 

in the exercise and work side by side with the Japanese to assuage their anxiety. 

Unrivaled American military capability and U.S.-supported theater security cooperation efforts 

are the means for the United States to guarantee security in the “String of Pearls” region and Asia in 

general. A strong military posture and healthy security relationships will hedge against a possible 

challenge from China should Beijing attempt to dominate the “String of Pearls” region.

Hedging Against the China Threat. U.S. diplomatic and economic policy is backed up by military 

power, but how do policymakers know that their overarching strategy towards China is not misguided? 

If Washington assumes China is striving for regional hegemony and responds with an aggressive 

military posture, it could cause China to respond in kind, fostering a vicious cycle of military buildup 

and counterbalancing measures. A confrontation could become a self-fulfilling prophecy if the United 

States fails to gauge China’s intent accurately and inadvertently sends the wrong diplomatic, economic, 

or military signals. The first step, therefore, in hedging against a possible threat from China is accurate 

strategic intelligence. The intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities of national assets 

and the Department of Defense (DoD) are vital to this strategic intelligence effort. The United States 

would be negligent and irresponsible were it not to aggressively monitor and continually assess China 

during its “peaceful development.”

Understanding China and determining Beijing’s intent is a multipronged, multidisciplinary effort. 

Open source information, national technical means, and human intelligence are resources that must be 

included in this effort. Diplomatically, the United States should continue to insist on transparency and 

reciprocity with respect to the PLA and China’s national security strategy. China experts who speak 

the language and understand the culture should be embedded within DoD and fully integrated into 

analysis and assessment efforts.

Operational and tactical intelligence capabilities also must be enhanced within the U.S. military. 

Stealthy and deep-looking ISR platforms, including stealthy watercraft to patrol the littorals, are critical 

capabilities necessary for obtaining such operational and tactical intelligence.143 The United States must 

remain vigilant by employing aggressive but nonconfrontational ISR, reviewing and assessing China’s 

capabilities and intent, and institutionalizing a formalized process to review and adjust U.S. strategy 

and policy towards China. The strategic objective of the United States should be to integrate China 

peacefully into the global security environment as a responsible stakeholder without recourse to costly 

military coercion.

Engagement: Drawing China into the Community of Nations. The U.S. military can help foster the 

trust, transparency, and stability necessary to facilitate China’s “peaceful rise.” The U.S. Congress, the 

President, the Secretary of Defense, and PACOM’s TSCP should fully endorse and support militaryto-military engagement with China. The PLA should be invited to observe and participate in U.S. 

and combined military exercises to train for missions such as humanitarian relief, search and rescue, 

maritime patrol, antipiracy, and counterterrorism. Such interaction will establish relationships, enhance 

communication, reduce misunderstanding, and build trust. The United States should encourage 

engagement at high and low echelons, realizing that bringing the PLA together with the United States 

and its allies will be a slow and deliberate process.
23

Although several U.S. government agencies have been more proactive than DoD in dealing with 

China, the military has tremendous resources to forge meaningful and long-lasting relationships. 

Washington should extend an invitation to Beijing for PLA officers to attend war colleges and other 

professional military education opportunities in the United States. The PLA should reciprocate by 

inviting U.S. military officers to its military education programs. Exchanges should extend to all 

government agencies capable of addressing issues and challenges common to both countries. A ChinaU.S. Coast Guard exchange could address organized crime or drug trafficking in the “String of Pearls” 

region; a China-National Institutes of Health exchange could address Avian Flu or other health-related 

security issues. The U.S. military has the physical presence and resources to engage effectively and 

positively with China. This latent capability of the U.S. military must be leveraged to take advantage of 

opportunities that will foster a positive security environment for the benefit of the United States, China, 

Asia, and the world community.

The NSS is correct in stating that international initiatives and institutions can assist in the spread 

of freedom, prosperity, and regional security in East Asia.144 Engaging China also includes multilateral 

engagement in existing institutions such as the APEC forum and the ARF. The U.S. military also can 

set the conditions for the success of new security arrangements, such as the U.S.-ASEAN Enhanced 

Partnership or the Six Party Talks, to address common and regional security challenges. U.S. strategy 

should be to foster a multilateral institutional framework that includes China, but also a framework 

built upon a solid foundation of sound bilateral relations with key states in the region.145

China Looks Seaward: Tomorrow.

When the explorer Zheng He embarked with his “treasure fleet” for the glory of China 600 years 

ago, he encountered nothing but wind and waves as he voyaged across empty oceans. Today, the 

seas are no longer empty, and, as China develops its capabilities to venture beyond its shores, it is 

increasingly likely to encounter U.S. maritime presence. China’s growing interests and influence 

along the “String of Pearls,” primarily driven by the need to secure energy resources and trade routes, 

present a complex strategic situation that could impact the future direction of China’s relationship 

with the United States, as well as China’s relationship with neighbors throughout the region. Whether 

China will sail with the wind and become a responsible stakeholder in the international system, or 

sail against the wind and seek to upset the existing world order is the potential question posed by the 

“String of Pearls.” Attaining strategic cooperation is a difficult challenge that will require leadership, 

wisdom, understanding, and restraint in both Washington and Beijing. The United States, through its 

diplomacy, economic policies, and military strategy has an unprecedented opportunity to shape and 

influence China’s future direction. Overcoming the potential challenges posed by the “String of Pearls” 

and the successful integration of China as a responsible stakeholder in the international system are 

necessary for the future prosperity and security of states in the region and across the globe.
24

ENDNOTES

1. Louise Levathes, When China Ruled the Seas, The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433, Oxford: Oxford University 

Press, 1996, p. 75.

2. Ibid., pp. 75-86.

3. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2005 Report to Congress, Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 2005, p. 171.

4. The phrase “String of Pearls” was first used to describe China’s emerging maritime strategy in a report titled “Energy 

Futures in Asia” by defense contractor, Booz-Allen-Hamilton. This report was commissioned in 2005 by the U.S. Department 

of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment.

5.“U.S. Is Threatened By ‘Aggressive Chinese Sea’ Power,” Al Jazeera, September 14, 2005, n.p.

6. Sudha Ramachandran, “China’s Pearl in Pakistan’s Water,” Asia Times Online, March 17, 2005.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Bruce Vaughn, “China-Southeast Asia Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications for the United States,” CRS Report 

for Congress, February 8, 2005, p. 24.

11. “String of Pearls: Military Plan to Protect China’s Oil,” Agence France Presse, January 18, 2005.

12. Robert G. Sutter, China’s Rise in Asia, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, p. 64.

13. Ibid., p. 65.

14. Ibid., pp. 136, 253.

15. “SCO: A New Power Center Developing,” Strategic Forecasting, October 28, 2005.

16. Pramit Mitra and Alex LeFevre, “India and China: Rivals or Partners?” South Asia Monitor, March 5, 2005.

17. Sutter, p. 209.

18. Ibid., p. 56.

19. Ibid.

20. Cheng Bijian, “China’s ‘Peaceful Rise’ to Great Power Status,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005, pp. 18-19.

21. 2005 Report to Congress, p. 166.

22. Cheng, p. 19.

23. Ibid.

24. China’s future growth is not guaranteed since there are many challenges such as coastal-inland disparities, urbanrural income disparities, supply of energy and raw materials, corruption, and environmental concerns, to name a few 

issues, which could upset China’s development.

25. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2004 Report to Congress, Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 2004, p. 154.

26. 2005 Report to Congress, p. 166.

27. Ibid.

28. David Zweig and Bi Jianhai, “China’s Global Hunt for Energy,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005, p. 25.

29. Jonathan E. Sinton, et al., Evaluation of China’s Energy Strategy Options, Berkeley, CA: China Energy Group, Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, May 2005, p. 13.

30. 2005 Report to Congress, p. 164.

31. Zweig, pp. 25-26.

32. 2005 Report to Congress, p. 164.

33. Ibid., testimony of Gal Luft, p. 168.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.
25

36. Data in Table 1 compiled from 2004 Report to Congress, p. 157; and Zweig, p. 28.

37. Sutter, p. 250.

38. Zweig, p. 29.

39. Ni Lexiong, “Sea Power and China’s Development,” People’s Liberation Daily, April 17, 2005.

40. Liu Jiangping and Feng Xianhui, “Going Global: Dialogue Spanning 600 Years,” Beijing Liaowang in Chinese, July 11, 

2005, pp. 14-15; Nayan Chandra, “Crouching Tiger, Swimming Dragon,” New York Times, April 11, 2005, p. A19.

41. Ioannis Gatsiounis, “Pirates Mock Malacca Strait Security,” Asia Times Online, April 9, 2005.

42. Liu, p. 16.

43. DoD, Annual Report to Congress: The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 2005, p. 10.

44. Cheng, pp. 23-24.

45. Avery Goldstein, Rising to the Challenge: China’s Grand Strategy and International Security, Stanford, CA: Stanford 

University Press, 2005, pp. 12-13.

46. Avery Goldstein, “China’s Grand Strategy and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Research Institute, September 27, 

2005, n.p.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Goldstein, Rising to the Challenge, pp. 121-123.

51. Goldstein, “China’s Grand Strategy and U.S. Foreign Policy.”

52. Robert B. Zoellick, “Whither China: From Membership to Responsibility?” Remarks to the National Committee on 

U.S.-China Relations, September 21, 2005, n.p.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid.

55. “China’s Position Paper on the New Security Concept,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, July 

31, 2002, n.p.

56. David M. Finkelstein, “China’s New Concept of Security,” GlobalSecurity.org, n.p.

57. Ibid.

58. Goldstein, Rising to the Challenge, p. 219.

59. Goldstein, “China’s Grand Strategy and U.S. Foreign Policy.”

60. “Central Asia and China’s Monroe Doctrine,” AsiaInt Political & Strategic Review, July 2005, p. 6.

61. “Kyrgyzstan: A Regional Alliance Threatens Washington’s Influence,” Strategic Forecasting, July 11, 2005.

62. Seth Mydans, “New Group for Asian Century Shuns U.S.,” International Herald Tribune, December 12, 2005.

63. Robert G. Sutter, “China’s Rise in Asia: Bumps in the Road and Unanswered Questions,” PacNet Newsletter, No. 12, 

March 17, 2005.

64. Ibid.

65. Ibid.

66. Ibid.

67. 2005 Report to Congress, p. 145.

68. Ding Xinghao and Yu Bin, “Bush-Hu Summit: Beyond Formalities,” PacNet Newsletter, No. 38C, September 2, 2005.

69. Robyn Lim, The Geopolitics of East Asia: The Search for Equilibrium, New York: Routledge, 2003, p. 169.

70. 2005 Report to Congress, p. 145.

71. Chietigj Bajpaee, “India, China Locked in Energy Game,” Asia Times Online, March 17, 2005.

72. “China Says Human Rights in Myanmar an Internal Issue,” Agence France Presse, December 14, 2005, n.p.

73. Zoellick, n.p.
26

74. “China’s Obsession with the Zoellick Speech,” Strategic Forecasting, November 8, 2005, n.p.

75. Ibid., n.p.

76. Ibid., n.p.

77. DoD, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 6, 2006, p. 29.

78. 2005 Report to Congress, p. 133.

79. Lim, p. 152.

80. Ibid., p. 151.

81. Kenneth Allen, “Reforms in the PLA Air Force,” China Brief, Vol. V, Issue 15, July 5, 2005, p. 3.

82. Thomas M. Kane, Chinese Grand Strategy and Maritime Power, London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2002, p. 90.

83. Lim, p. 152.

84. Ibid.

85. Data in Table 2 compiled from the Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: The Military Power of the People’s 

Republic of China, Washington, DC, 2005, p. 44; Jane’s Information Group, September 28, 2005, n.p.; and GlobalSecurity.org, 

John Pike, ed., September 28, 2005, n.p.

86. DoD, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, p. 29.

87. Donald H. Rumsfeld, address to Academy of Military Sciences, Beijing, October 20, 2005.

88. Glenn Kessler, “U.S. Says China Must Address Its Intentions: How Its Power Will Be Used Is of Concern,” Washington 

Post, September 22, 2005, p. A-16.

89. Giuseppe Anzera, “The Modernization of the Chinese Navy,” Power and Interest News Report, September 12, 2005, 

n.p.

90. Chandra, p. A19.

91. Henry A. Kissinger, “China Shifts Centre of Gravity,” The Australian, June 13, 2005, n.p.

92. Ibid.

93. Thomas J. Christensen, “Posing Problems Without Catching Up: China’s Rise and Challenges for U.S. Security 

Policy,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4, Spring 2001, p. 7.

94. Lim, p. 115.

95. 2005 Report to Congress, p. 25; “China Economic Statistics and Analysis,” The United States-China Business Council.

96. Ibid.

97. Ibid.

98. 2005 Report to Congress, pp. 36-42.

99. George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, March 16, 2006, p. 40.

100. Donald Rumsfeld, address to the Central Party School, Beijing, China, October 19, 2005.

101. Sutter, China’s Rise in Asia, p. 97.

102. Ibid, p. 99.

103. Lim, p. 170.

104. Sean McCormack, “Daily Press Briefing,” U.S. Department of State, February 7, 2006.

105. Goldstein, Rising to the Challenge, p. 122.

106. Lim, p. 171.

107. Ibid.

108. 2005 Report to Congress, p. 153.

109. Ibid., p. 154.

110. 2005 Report to Congress, testimony of former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, 

John Bolton, p. 158.

111. Zoellick, n.p.
27

112. Ibid.

113. 2005 Report to Congress, p. 2.

114. Ibid., p. 3.

115. Zoellick, n.p.

116. Bush, The National Security Strategy, p. 41.

117. Lim, p. 168.

118. Ibid.

119. Ibid., p. 169.

120. Ibid.

121. Goldstein, “China’s Grand Strategy and U.S. Foreign Policy,” n.p.

122. Richard Haass, “What to Do About China,” U.S. News and World Report, June 20, 2005, n.p.

123. Goldstein, “China’s Grand Strategy and U.S. Foreign Policy,” n.p.

124. Kissinger, n.p.

125. Goldstein, “China’s Grand Strategy and U.S. Foreign Policy,” n.p.

126. Kissinger, n.p.

127. Ibid.

128. Ibid.

129. Sutter, China’s Rise in Asia, p. 277.

130. Ibid., p. 278.

131. Bush, The National Security Strategy, p. 41.

132. Barry Desker, “Protecting the Malacca Strait,” PacNet Newsletter, No. 11, March 16, 2005, n.p.

133. Kissinger, n.p.

134. Brad Glosserman and Bonnie Glaser, “A New Relationship for the U.S. and China?,” PacNet Newsletter, No. 31A, 

August 2, 2005, n.p.

135. DoD, Annual Report to Congress: The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 2005, p. 11.

136. Bush, The National Security Strategy, p. 40.

137. Commons are the international waterways, airways, and other medium reserved for public use by the international 

community. The commons typically are recognized as such in international treaties, and no nation asserts sovereignty over 

the commons.

138. Robert D. Kaplan, “How We Would Fight China,” The Atlantic Monthly, June 2005, n.p.

139. Ibid.

140. Ibid.

141. George W. Bush, “Making America Secure by Transforming Our Military,” White House Fact Sheet, August 16, 2004, 

n.p.

142. “U.S., Indian Airmen Take Next Step in Growing Relationship,” Air Force Print News, November 8, 2005, n.p.

143. Kaplan, n.p.

144. Bush, The National Security Strategy, p. 40.

145. Ibid.
28

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Ken. “Reforms in the PLA Air Force,” China Brief, Vol. V, Issue 15, July 5, 2005, p. 3. On line. Internet, November 8, 

2005. Available from www.jamestown.org/images/pdf/cb_005_015.pdf.

Anzera, Giuseppe. “The Modernization of the Chinese Navy,” Power and Interest News Report, September 12, 2005, n.p. On 

line. Internet November 10, 2005. Available from www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_printable&report_id=364&language_

id=1.

Bajpaee, Chietigj. “India, China Locked in Energy Game,” Asia Times Online, March 17, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, August 

30, 2005. Available from atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/GC17Dk01.html.

Bush, George W. “Making America Secure by Transforming Our Military,” White House Fact Sheet, August 16, 2004. On line. 

Internet, February 9 2006. Available from www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/print/20040816-5.html.

Bush, George W. “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” March 16, 2006. On line. Internet, April 

20, 2006. Available from www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf.

“Central Asia and China’s Monroe Doctrine,” AsiaInt Political & Strategic Review, July 2005, pp. 6-9.

Chanda, Nayan. “Crouching Tiger, Swimming Dragon,” New York Times, April 11, 2005, p. A19.

“China Economic Statistics and Analysis,” The United States-China Business Council, n.p. On line. Internet, October 10, 2005. 

Available from uschina.org/china-statistics.html.

“China Says Human Rights in Myanmar an Internal Issue,” Agence France Presse, December 14, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, 

January 15, 2006. Available from www.burmanet.org/ news/2005/12/14/agence-france-presse-china-says-human-rights-inmyanmar-an-internal-issue/.

 “China’s Obsession with the Zoellick Speech,” Strategic Forecasting, November 8, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, November 19, 

2005. Available from www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=258235.

“China’s Position Paper on the New Security Concept,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, July 31, 

2002, n.p. On line. Internet, January 28, 2006. Available at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg/gjs/gjzzyhy/2612/2614/t15319.

htm.

Christensen, Thomas J. “Posing Problems Without Catching Up: China’s Rise and Problems for U.S. Security Policy,” 

International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4, Spring 2001, pp. 5-40.

Desker, Barry. “Protecting the Malacca Strait,” PacNet Newsletter, No. 11, March 16, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, October 10, 

2005. Available from www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pac0511.pdf.

Ding, Xinghao and Yu Bin. “Bush-Hu Summit: Beyond Formalities,” PacNet Newsletter, No. 38C, September 2, 2005, n.p. On 

line. Internet, October 10, 2005. Available from www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pac0538c.pdf.

Finkelstein, David M. “China’s New Concept of Security,” GlobalSecurity.org, n.p. On line. Internet, February 3, 2006. 

Available from www.globalsecurity.org/military/ library/report/2003/pla-china_transition_14_ch10.htm.

Gatsiounis, Ioannis. “Pirates Mock Malacca Strait Security,” Asia Times Online, April 9, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, November 

5 2005. Available from www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GD09Ae02.html.

Glosserman, Brad and Bonnie Glaser. “A New Relationship for the United States and China?,” PacNet Newsletter, No. 31A, 

August 2, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, October 10, 2005. Available from www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pac0531A.pdf.

Goldstein, Avery. “China’s Grand Strategy and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Research Institute, September 27, 2005, 

n.p. On line. Internet, September 28, 2005. Available from www.fpri.org/enotes/20050927.asia.goldstein.chinagrandstrategy.

html.
29

Goldstein, Avery. Rising to the Challenge: China’s Grand Strategy and International Security. Stanford, CA: Stanford University 

Press, 2005.

Goldstein, Lyle. “China’s Subs Lead the Way,” United States Naval Institute: Proceedings, Vol. 129, Issue 3, March 2003, pp. 

58-63.

Haass, Richard N. “What To Do About China” U.S. News and World Report, 20 June 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, November 

8, 2005. Available from www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050620/20chinaessay.htm.

Jane’s Information Group. “Sentinel Security Assessment—China and Northeast Asia: Air Forces.” On line. Internet, 

September 28, 2005. Available from www8.janes.com/ search/documentview.do?docid=/content1/janesdata/sent/cnasu/

chins100.htm.

Kane, Thomas M. Chinese Grand Strategy and Maritime Power. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2002.

Kaplan, Robert D. “How We Would Fight China,” The Atlantic Monthly, June 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, November 8, 2005. 

Available from www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200506/kaplan.

Kessler, Glenn. “U.S. Says China Must Address Its Intentions: How Its Power Will Be Used Is of Concern,” Washington Post, 

September 22, 2005, p. A-16.

Kissinger, Henry A. “China Shifts Centre of Gravity,” The Australian, June 13, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, November 10, 

2005. Available from www.taiwansecurity.org/News/2005/AS-130605.htm.

“Kyrgyzstan: A Regional Alliance Threatens Washington’s Influence,” Strategic Forecasting, July 11, 2005, n.p. On line. 

Internet, August 7, 2005. Available from www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=251519.

Levathes, Louise. When China Ruled the Seas, The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433. Oxford: Oxford University 

Press, 1996.

Lim, Robyn. The Geopolitics of East Asia: The Search for Equilibrium. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Liu, Jiangping and Feng Xianhui. “Going Global: Dialogue Spanning 600 Years,” Beijing Liaowang in Chinese, No. 28, July 

11, 2005, pp. 14-19.

McCormack, Sean. “Daily Press Briefing,” U.S. Department of State, February 7, 2006. On line. Internet, February 9, 2006. 

Available from www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/60618.htm.

Mitra, Pramit and Alex LeFevre. “India and China: Rivals or Partners?,” South Asia Monitor, March 5, 2005, n.p. On line. 

Internet, October 10, 2005. Available from www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/march_05_india-china_monitor.pdf.

Mydans, Seth. “New Group for Asian Century Shuns U.S.,” International Herald Tribune, December 12, 2005, n.p. On line. 

Internet, January 24, 2006. Available from www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/12/news/summit.php.

Ni Lexiong. “Sea Power and China’s Development,” People’s Liberation Daily, April 17, 2005.

Pike, John, ed. “Military/World/China/CMC/PLA,” GlobalSecurity.org, n.p. On line. Internet, September 28, 2005. Available 

from www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/.

Ramachandran, Sudha. “China’s Pearl in Pakistan’s Water,” Asia Times Online, March 17, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, August 

30, 2005. Available from www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC04Df06.html.

Rumsfeld, Donald H. Address to the Academy of Military Sciences as prepared for delivery by Secretary of Defense Donald 

H. Rumsfeld, Beijing, China, October 20, 2005. Available from www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2005/sp20051020-secdef2041.

html.

Rumsfeld, Donald H. Address to the Central Party School as prepared for delivery by Secretary of Defense Donald H. 

Rumsfeld, Beijing, China, October 19, 2005. Available from www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2005/sp20051019-secdef2042.

html.
30

“SCO: A New Power Center Developing,” Strategic Forecasting, 28 October 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, November 19, 2005. 

Available from www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=257797.

Sinton, Jonathan E., Rachel E. Stern, Nathaniel T. Aden, and Mark D. Levine, eds. Evaluation of China’s Energy Strategy 

Options. Berkeley, CA: China Energy Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, May 2005.

Skanderup, Jane. “Building Cooperation Among the U.S., Japan, and China,” PacNet Newsletter, No. 49, November 10, 2005, 

n.p. On line. Internet, November 12, 2005. Available from www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pac0549.pdf.

“String of Pearls,” The Economist, November 18,2004, n.p. On line. Internet, August 30, 2005. Available from www.economist.

com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3403188.

“String of Pearls: Military Plan to Protect China’s Oil,” Agence France Presse, January 18, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, August 

20, 2005. Available from www.spacewar.com/2005/050118111727.edxbwxn8.html.

Sutter, Robert G. “China’s Rise in Asia: Bumps in the Road and Unanswered Questions,” PacNet Newsletter, No. 12, March 

17, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, October 10, 2005. Available from www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pac0512.pdf.

Sutter, Robert G. China’s Rise in Asia: Promises and Perils. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.

“U.S., Indian Airmen Take Next Step in Growing Relationship,” Air Force Print News, November 8, 2005, n.p. On line. 

Internet, November 10, 2005. Available from www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123012827.

“U.S. is Threatened by “Aggressive Chinese Sea’ Power,” Al Jazeera, September 14, 2005, n.p. On line. Internet, November 5 

2005. Available from www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=259.

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. 2004 Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, June 2004.

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. 2005 Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, November 2005.

U.S. Department of Defense. Office of the Secretary of Defense. Annual Report to Congress: The Military Power of the People’s 

Republic of China. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005.

U.S. Department of Defense. Office of the Secretary of Defense. Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, February 6, 2006.

Vaughn, Bruce. “China-Southeast Asia Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications for the United States,” CRS Report for 

Congress, February 8, 2005. On line. Internet, February 9, 2006. Available from www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32688.pdf.

Zheng, Bijian. “China’s “Peaceful Rise’ to Great Power Status,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 5, September/October 2005, pp. 

18-24.

Zoellick, Robert B. “Whither China: From Membership to Responsibility?” Remarks to the National Committee on U.S.-

China Relations, New York, September 21, 2005. Available from www.state.gov/s/d/rem/53682.htm.

Zweig, David and Bi Jianhai. “China’s Global Hunt for Energy,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 5, September/October 2005, 

pp. 25-38.