March 15, 2016

Disclaimer: This paper is the product of professional research performed by staff of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review 

Commission, and was prepared at the request of the Commission to support its deliberations. Posting of the report to the Commission’s 

website is intended to promote greater public understanding of the issues addressed by the Commission in its ongoing assessment of U.S.-

China economic relations and their implications for U.S. security, as mandated by Public Law 106-398 and Public Law 113-291. However, 

the public release of this document does not necessarily imply an endorsement by the Commission, any individual Commissioner, or the 

Commission’s other professional staff, of the views or conclusions expressed in this staff research report.

China’s Efforts to Counter U.S. Forward 

Presence in the Asia Pacific

Author: Kristien Bergerson, Senior Policy Analyst, Security and Foreign Affairs
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................................3

Background: China’s Security Environment and Threat Perception..........................................................................3

Environment Shaping: Engagement, Coercion, and Alliance Splitting .....................................................................5

Current Challenges.....................................................................................................................................................8

Opportunities Prevent Erosion of U.S. Influence and Access in the Asia Pacific....................................................11

Endnotes...................................................................................................................................................................12
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 3 

Executive Summary

While China benefits from the security and stability the United States and U.S. allies bring to Asia, China is seeking 

to reduce the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) vulnerability to U.S. forces in the region should a conflict occur. 

China continues to build anti-access/area denial (A2/AD)*capabilities to deter or delay a U.S. military response to 

a conflict. Beijing also appears to be pursuing other options—including nonmilitary options prior to a conflict—

likely intended to erode the United States’ strategic position, freedom of action, and operational space. These other 

options are engagement, coercion, and alliance splitting:

 China engages states within the region through military-to-military exchanges to create leverage for 

applying pressure on U.S. allies and partners. 

 China uses economic engagement and economic coercion to attempt to shape the behavior of U.S. allies 

and partners Beijing considers instrumental to supporting U.S. presence and force projection capability 

within the U.S. Pacific Command’s area of responsibility.

 China conducts activities intended to drive a wedge between U.S. allies and partners to undermine the 

development of a unified, U.S.-led security architecture in the Asia Pacific, and hinder U.S. presence and 

force projection capability should a conflict occur.

Background: China’s Security Environment and Threat 

Perception

China’s Perceived Position in Asia: China is seeking to become the dominant power in Asia and a counter or 

balancing power to the presence of the United States in the Asia Pacific.1 China intends to achieve this goal by 

expanding its comprehensive national power during what Chinese leaders see as a “period of strategic opportunity,” 

which Beijing believes will allow China to better shape its security environment and defend its core interests.2

Chinese President and General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping articulated these efforts in his 

2014 foreign policy directive, which calls for a mix of soft and hard power to achieve Beijing’s foreign policy goals 

and address security challenges.† 3

China’s Security Challenges and Concerns: The most salient challenge‡to Chinese interests perceived by leaders 

in Beijing relates to sovereignty vis-à-vis Taiwan and in the East and South China seas. Should Chinese leaders 

decide to employ military force to address these sovereignty concerns, it would destabilize the region, put pressure 

on the United States to respond, and would affect American allies.

§

In planning military campaigns, the PLA has 

 

* According to the U.S. Department of Defense, “anti-access” actions are intended to slow the deployment of an adversary’s forces into a 

theater or cause them to operate at distances farther from the conflict than they would prefer. “Area denial” actions affect maneuvers within 

a theater, and are intended to impede an adversary’s operations within areas where friendly forces cannot or will not prevent access. China, 

however, uses the term “counterintervention,” reflecting its perception that such operations are reactive. U.S. Department of Defense, 

Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013, 2013, i, 32, 33. 

http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf; U.S. Department of Defense, Air-Sea Battle: Service Collaboration to 

Address Anti-Access & Area Denial Challenges, May 2013, 2. http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/ASB-ConceptImplementation-SummaryMay-2013.pdf.

† Timothy Heath, a senior international defense research analyst at the RAND Corporation, testified to the Commission that China’s 2015 

defense white paper provides insight into China’s “‘new requirements’ for the military to help build a ‘favorable strategic posture’ and 

‘guarantee the country’s peaceful development.’ It highlighted ... the need to better protect the country’s ‘growing strategic interests.’ To 

shape the international order, the paper outlined requirements to ‘actively expand military and security cooperation’ and ‘promote the 

establishment of a regional framework for security and cooperation.’” U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing 

on Developments in China’s Military Force Projection and Expeditionary Capabilities, written testimony of Timothy Heath, January 21, 

2016.

‡ China’s 2015 defense white paper outlines sovereignty challenges, a Taiwan contingency, space and cyberspace challenges, overseas 

contingencies, and separatism as major security concerns. Open Source Enterprise, “China Daily: China’s Military Strategy,” May 26, 

2015. ID: CHR2015052612653330.

§ The United States maintains five collective defense arrangements in the Asia Pacific which include the Agreement between the United 

States, Australia, and New Zealand (ANZUS); Philippine Treaty; Southeast Asia Treaty; Japanese Treaty; and the Republic of Korea 

Treaty. U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Collective Defense Arrangements.” http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 4 

adopted a series of contingency measures designed to counter potential military intervention in the region by the 

United States.4 Oriana Mastro, a professor at Georgetown University, argues that “Chinese official statements, 

white papers, and semi-official writings suggest China ... sees U.S. military presence [and its proximity to the 

Mainland] as a destabilizing factor in the region that threatens China’s ability to return to its rightful place of 

regional preeminence.”5 To illustrate Professor Mastro’s point, China’s 2015 defense white paper states that the 

United States is enhancing military alliances and presence in this region, meddling in South China Sea affairs, and 

maintaining “constant close-in air and sea surveillance and reconnaissance,” all of which negatively impact China’s 

perceived security.6

The reality of the situation is that because of its own assertive and aggressive actions, China has been the primary 

driver of instability in the region. One recent example of this is Beijing’s island-building campaign in the South 

China Sea, which has been widely criticized by the United States, the region, and the wider community.

7 Another 

example is the stationing of batteries of long-range surface to air missiles on Woody Island in the Paracel Island 

chain.8 The perceived threat to China from the U.S. and its allies is perhaps best summed up by Senior Captain Xu 

Qi, a PLA naval officer writing in an authoritative PLA military journal, stating that “China’s heartland faces the 

sea ... [and the] United States has deployed strong forces in the Western Pacific and has formed a system of military 

bases [in] the First and Second Island Chains* with a strategic posture involving Japan and South Korea as the 

northern anchors, Australia and the Philippines as the southern anchors, and with Guam positioned as the forward 

base.”9 He continues, “some maritime powers may employ long-range strike weapons to attack into the depths of 

China ... [and] precision attacks ... [from] beyond the first island chain ... threaten important political, economic, 

and military targets....”

10

Mitigating U.S. Presence in the Asia Pacific: Beijing’s concern about the U.S. military presence in the region and 

the ability of the United States to intervene in areas considered core interests have led China to pursue capabilities 

that would enable the PLA to deny U.S. intervention or to (complicate) U.S. intervention during a conflict should 

denial efforts fail. However, in addition to kinetic A2/AD capabilities, † Beijing also appears to be pursuing 

preemptive options well before a conflict, with the intention of eroding the United States’ strategic position, freedom 

of action, and operational space in the region.

11 The first edition of The Science of Military Strategy, published by 

the PLA Academy of Military Science in 2001,

‡

states that “war is not just a competition of military forces, but an 

overall contest of political, economic, diplomatic, cultural and other forces. The competitions in the nonmilitary 

fields such as politics, economy, diplomatic and culture coordinate directly or indirectly with military operations ...

[and] military operations cannot [achieve] ... victory without ...support of the ... nonmilitary field.”12 David Berteau, 

director of the National Security Program on Industry and Resources at the Center for Strategic and International 

Studies (CSIS), and Michael Green, senior vice president for Asia and Japan Chair at CSIS, note that 

“counterintervention [capabilities] are usually thought of in terms of A2/AD military capabilities ... but also include 

diplomatic, information, and economic sources of leverage against the U.S. political system and particularly weaker 

... states in order to complicate U.S. intervention in Taiwan, South China Sea, or other regional crises that could 

involve China.”13 Mr. Berteau and Mr. Green likewise note the “aim ... [is] weakening U.S. alignment with other 

states in the region and involv[ing] instruments that range from trade agreements and diplomacy to bribery and 

individual coercion.”14 Further, another CSIS report on the U.S. “rebalance” strategy asserts one of the methods 

 

* The first island chain refers to a line of islands running through the Kurile Islands, Japan and the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan, the Philippines, 

Borneo, and Natuna Besar. The second island chain is farther east, running through the Kurile Islands, Japan, the Bonin Islands, the Mariana 

Islands, and the Caroline Islands. PLA strategists and academics have long asserted the United States relies primarily on the first island 

chain and the second island chain to strategically ‘‘encircle’’ or ‘‘contain’’ China and prevent the PLA Navy from operating freely in the 

Western Pacific. Open Source Enterprise, ‘‘PRC Article Surveys China’s Naval Rivals, Challenges,’’ January 6, 2012. ID: 

CPP20120109671003; Bernard D. Cole, The Great Wall at Sea (Second Edition), Naval Institute Press, 2010, 174–176.

† Eric Heginbotham and Jacob Heim, a senior political scientist and an associate policy analyst, respectively, at the RAND Corporation, note 

that China’s A2/AD capabilities “would make it difficult for the United States to deploy to, and operate in, conflict areas. A large inventory 

of accurate ballistic and cruise missiles, a growing fleet of modern submarines, sophisticated air defense systems, as well as counterspace 

and electronic warfare capabilities, all combine to complicate U.S. intervention. Together with modern combat aircraft and surface ships, 

China can challenge U.S. military dominance at an increasing distance from the Chinese coast.” Eric Heginbotham and Jacob L. Heim, 

“Deterring without Dominance: Discouraging Chinese Adventurism under Austerity,” Washington Quarterly 38:1 (Spring 2015): 186. 

‡ The English-language edition of The Science of Military Strategy quoted is a translation of the 2001 first edition edited by Peng Guangqian 

and Yao Youzhi and published by the Military Science Publishing House in Beijing in 2005. 
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 5 

pursued by China to counter U.S. basing is maintaining a PLA strike capability to make U.S. “allies targets instead 

of sanctuaries, complicating the calculation for host governments....”

15

 

Environment Shaping: Engagement, Coercion, and Alliance 

Splitting

China is managing its security interests in the Asia Pacific through a combination of engagement, coercion, and 

alliance splitting. Beijing is using economic engagement and military-to-military cooperation to try to burnish its 

“peaceful rise/peaceful development”

*

image to create conditions that enhance its security environment.16 Beijing 

has been willing to use coercion to shape its security environment as well.17 Beijing employs coercion to—among 

other things—warn U.S. allies and partners against supporting the presence of U.S. forces. It employs alliance 

splitting to undermine the development of a unified, U.S.-led security architecture in the region and impede U.S. 

capabilities enabled by its alliance relationships.18 The aforementioned CSIS report on the “U.S. Force Posture 

Strategy in the Asia Pacific Region” describes how these efforts could significantly undermine U.S. freedom of 

action in the region: 

China is pursuing diplomatic, informational, military and economic instruments for countercontainment in 

peacetime and counterintervention in a crisis. Japan and Australia are probably least susceptible to 

Chinese coercion, but defections by any ally or partner could undermine efforts for dissuasion and possibly 

undermine operational planning as well. In the absence of crisis or contingency operations, a U.S. request 

to a partner nation for access, bases, or strategic flexibility with already deployed forces has the potential 

to cause visible public concern and even rejection, which could undermine U.S. shaping strategies within 

the region.19

The U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) similarly notes that “some countries, including [U.S.] allies, have 

raised doubts at times about their support for U.S. forces in a possible conflict between the United States and 

China,”

20 and Dr. Mastro notes China may seek to exploit “perceived weaknesses in political support and resolve 

of U.S. allies and friends, thereby keeping the United States out because countries will not allow it to base there.”

21

Engagement: China’s economic, diplomatic, and security cooperation with countries in the Asia Pacific have 

implications for U.S. influence. China is engaging countries the United States considers to be strategically important 

(i.e., for supporting military operations through economic and military-to-military cooperation) in an effort to 

complicate relationships between the United States and those strategically important countries.

 China uses economic engagement to achieve geostrategic and security objectives, and as Dr. Mastro notes, 

“Xi Jinping has also emphasized the importance of prioritizing the economic interests of countries that 

support Chinese core interests, even if it comes at a relative cost economically.”22 Senior Captain Xu 

illustrates the ways in which engagement with Asian countries has advanced China’s geostrategic interests, 

particularly in the maritime sphere: 

Through cooperation with nearby countries, during the 1990s, China constructed harbor 

wharves in the eastern Indian Ocean in Burma and cleared the Mekong waterways, in 

order to gain access to the sea in China’s southwest.... On the Makran seacoast of 

southwest Pakistan, China invested U.S. $1 billion to construct a deep water port at 

 

* Established in the 1990s, China’s “peaceful rise” strategy, which became “peaceful development,” emphasized Chinese modernization and 

sought to downplay fears of Chinese regional hegemonic ambitions, often referred to in Beijing as the “China threat theory.” Beijing continues 

to reassure its neighbors of China’s peaceful rise; however, Chinese actions to enforce its territorial and jurisdictional claims in the East and 

South China seas have resulted in contradiction between Beijing’s words and deeds. Robert G. Sutter, Michael E. Brown, and Timothy J. A. 

Adamson, “Balancing Acts: The U.S. Rebalance and Asia-Pacific Stability,” Elliot School of International Affairs, George Washington 

University, August 2013, 7. http://www2.gwu.edu/~sigur/assets/docs/BalancingActs_Compiled1.pdf; Ian Storey, “The South China Sea 

Dispute (Part 2): Friction to Remain the Status Quo,” Jamestown Foundation China Brief, June 21, 2013.

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=41053&%3BcHash=2f0805964a1826cd2f35d0fb

a8357517#.Vq9vuXnMsdU; and Yun Sun, “PacNet #25: China’s Peaceful Rise: Peace through strength?” Pacific Forum CSIS, March 31, 

2014. http://csis.org/files/publication/Pac1425.pdf.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 6 

Gwadar, in order to establish a trade and transport hub for Central Asian nations and 

simultaneously expand China’s geostrategic influence. For the past few years, China has 

provided aid to the South Pacific region and also strengthened economic and trade ties.... 

These achievements have all contributed to the development of China’s maritime 

geostrategic relationships.23

 China’s more recent “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” initiative also employs economic engagement—

primarily through infrastructure investment—to advance China’s broader geostrategic goals.24

 China uses diplomatic engagement to try to advance its strategic objectives as well. For example, in October 

2015, China hosted the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-China Defense Ministers’ 

Informal Meeting in addition to the Sixth Xiangshan Forum to improve defense ties and security 

relationships with Southeast Asian countries.

25 Additionally, during the Fourth Conference on Interaction 

and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA), President Xi proposed that CICA become a platform 

for security dialogue and cooperation for Asia, with China taking a leading role in exploring regional and 

Asian security partnership programs.

26

 China for several years* has conducted multilateral and bilateral exercises to build capacity to conduct 

multination humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) operations as well as to ease anxieties 

among China’s neighbors concerning the PLA’s growing capabilities and expanding missions.27 However, 

these exercises also support President Xi’s foreign policy by seeking to ease regional concerns while 

attempting to shape the international system and improve the security environment along China’s 

periphery.28 Many of China’s recent bilateral and multilateral military exercises have been with U.S. allies 

or partners, which might offer the PLA insight into U.S. equipment and training procedures, and provide 

an opportunity to work with and pursue closer ties with U.S. allies and partners. The following bilateral and 

multilateral exercises occurred in 2015: 

o Cobra Gold (January 2015): A combined U.S., Chinese, and Thai military engineer force built a 

school in Thailand.29

o ASEAN Regional Forum Disaster Relief Exercise (May 2015): This China- and Malaysia-led 

HA/DR exercise, which included the United States and 24 other participants, simulated a response 

to a typhoon striking Malaysia.30

o Khaan Quest (June 2015): China participated for the first time in the annual peacekeeping drill 

(this time including 25 countries) led by Mongolia and the United States.31

o Kowari (August–September 2015): The United States, China, and Australia conducted their 

second trilateral “Kowari” exercise, which included survival skill training near Darwin, Australia.32

o Tropic Twilight (August–October 2015): China, the United States, and the United Kingdom sent 

troops to participate in the New Zealand-led “Tropic Twilight” HA/DR response exercise, which 

involved infrastructure construction and upgrades for schools and clinics at outlying Cook Islands 

atolls.33

o Falcon Strike 2015 (November 2015): China sent six PLA Air Force Su-27 fighters along with 

the August 1st Aerobatic Team to Thailand to conduct its first joint air exercise and an air exhibition 

with the Royal Thai Air Force at Nakhon Ratchasima Air Base.34

Coercion: Beijing also uses coercion to shape China’s security environment. According to a Center for New 

American Security (CNAS) report coauthored by Patrick Cronin, a senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security 

Program at CNAS, “as China seeks to exercise further influence over its periphery – and in the process, effectively 

challenge the United States’ postwar dominance in security and governance over regional rules of the road – it is 

increasingly seeking to use coercive diplomacy.”35 China has used both veiled threats concerning the use of force 

 

* For a year review of bilateral and multilateral military exercises involving the PLA between 2008 and 2014,see U.S. Department of Defense, 

Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015, May 2015, 76–77. 

www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2015_China_Military_Power_Report.pdf. 
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 7 

as well as economic punishment in efforts to shape the behavior of countries on its periphery. For example, Beijing 

has employed punitive economic actions against Japan and the Philippines—both U.S. allies—following 

confrontations in 2010 between the Japanese Coast Guard and a Chinese fishing vessel in the East China Sea, and 

in 2012 between the Philippine Coast Guard and Chinese maritime law enforcement ships at Scarborough Reef in 

the South China Sea, both over illegal Chinese fishing activities.

36 In the case of Japan, China temporarily banned 

exports of rare earth elements to Japan, and in the case of the Philippines unofficially imposed import restrictions 

on Philippine bananas.37

China is likewise applying coercion through the implied threat of the use of force in its maritime disputes. While 

China currently is relying on civilian maritime law enforcement agencies to assert its claims in disputed seas, Beijing 

is also using the PLA Navy in a protective monitoring capacity for the China Coast Guard and maritime militia

units.

*38 In May 2014, this PLA Navy monitoring mission allowed China to use China Coast Guard and maritime 

militia ships to establish a security cordon around a China National Offshore Oil Corporation-owned exploratory 

hydrocarbon rig, Haiyang Shiyou 981, within Vietnam’s claimed exclusive economic zone†(EEZ) near the Paracel

Islands, claimed by both Vietnam and China, resulting in a standoff between the two countries.

39 In its 2015 annual 

report to Congress on China’s military, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) notes that when Vietnam attempted 

to assert its sovereignty claim, “Chinese paramilitary ships ... resorted to ramming and use of water cannons to deter 

Vietnamese ships and enforce the security cordons around the rig” with “PLA Navy ships support[ing] operations 

in ... [a monitoring] capacity and PLA fighters, helicopters, and reconnaissance aircraft patrol[ling] overhead.”40

The same report provides another example of Beijing’s coercive use of the PLA Navy in conjunction with the China 

Coast Guard to shape the security environment in the East China Sea, noting that China’s

enforcement of its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone ... against Japanese aircraft and ... 

maritime activity near the Senkaku Islands reflects Chinese efforts to normalize its presence near the islands 

and demonstrate its intent to defend its claims.... The PLA Navy primarily plays a deterrence role in China’s 

use of ‘low intensity coercion’ and refrains from becoming directly involved in territorial and maritime 

disputes to avoid escalation. Although the PLA Navy remains at a distance, its deployed surface combatants 

are ready to respond to a deteriorating security environment.41

Alliance Splitting: In addition to engagement and coercion, Beijing is engaging in attempts to split alliances and 

exploit seams in relationships between and among the United States and its partners and allies in the Asia Pacific 

to improve China’s security environment. Some of the most notable examples of China’s alliance splitting efforts 

are directed at South Korea, which finds itself torn between the promise of economic engagement with China and 

its security relationship with the United States which Han Suk-hee, a professor at Yonsei University in Seoul, notes 

“puts South Korea in a strategic dilemma between the United States and China.”42 Furthermore, Beijing seeks to 

exploit seams in relationships and has attempted to drive a wedge between Tokyo and Seoul, U.S. allies whose 

alignment on key security issues is crucial to the success of Washington’s security strategy in Northeast Asia. A

George Washington University (GWU) report coauthored by Robert Sutter, a professor at the Elliott School of 

International Affairs at GWU, assesses this friction between South Korea and Japan has “frustrated U.S. efforts to 

forge a coherent security policy in Northeast Asia. The two countries continue to clash over the disputed 

Dodko/Takeshima islands in the Sea of Japan, while rising nationalism in both countries threatens trilateral 

cooperation with the United States.”43 Evidence suggests China is also seeking to encourage the sentiment among 

some Australian strategists that Canberra must “choose” between the United States and China.44

 

* According to U.S. Naval War College professor Andrew Erickson and research fellow Conor Kennedy, China employs a “maritime militia, 

a dual hatted force of specially registered fishing vessels with fisherman soldier crews. Portions of these coastal militias are organized by 

local military and government officials along the nation’s many ports, providing China with small tactical units designed to execute specific 

missions in support of the country’s more professional military and maritime interests.’’ China’s maritime militias receive military training, 

including in the use of light weapons. China is training these maritime militias to support the activities of the PLA Navy and China’s 

maritime law enforcement forces in the South China Sea. Andrew S. Erickson and Conor M. Kennedy, ‘‘China’s Island Builders,’’ Foreign Affairs, 

April.9, 2015. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/east-asia/2015-04-09/china-s-island-builders; and Andrew Erickson and Conor Kennedy, ‘‘Meet the 

Chinese Maritime Militia Waging a ‘People’s War at Sea,’’’ China Real Time (Blog), March 31, 2015. http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/03/31/meetthe-chinese-maritime-militia-waging-a-peoples-war-at-sea/.

† A coastal state is entitled to an exclusive economic zone extending 200 nautical miles from its coastline within which that state can exercise 

exclusive sovereign rights and jurisdiction over living and nonliving resources, but not full sovereignty. UN Convention on the Law of the

Sea, “Part 5: Exclusive Economic Zone.” http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 8 

China’s Application of the “Three Warfares”

The activities noted above can all be viewed as complementary to China’s use of “three warfares” aimed at 

countering U.S. presence and influence in Asia prior to any potential kinetic conflict and putting China in a position 

to control and shape its security environment. Dr. Cronin testified to the Commission that the three warfares tactic 

is “decidedly an indirect approach when it comes to military defenses.”45 DOD’s 2011 annual report to Congress 

on China’s military states that in 2003, China’s leaders endorsed the three warfares concept, “reflecting China’s 

recognition that as a global actor, it will benefit from learning to effectively utilize the tools of public opinion, 

messaging, and influence.”46 The report goes on to note that “China likely hopes to employ these three concepts in 

unison, particularly during the early stages of a crisis, as they have a tendency to bolster one another.”47 

The components of the three warfares are as follows:

• Psychological warfare “seeks to undermine an enemy’s ability to conduct combat operations through operations 

aimed at deterring, shocking, and demoralizing enemy military personnel and supporting civilian populations.”48

Example: China’s espionage campaign against Taiwan could constitute, among other things, a form of 

psychological warfare. Aside from traditional reasons for espionage, China also seeks to weaken the morale of the 

Taiwan military. Each spy case uncovered and revealed by Taiwan has the potential to achieve psychological 

benefits for Beijing, creating an environment where China’s capture of Taiwan’s defense secrets could be perceived 

as an inevitability.49

• Media warfare “is aimed at influencing domestic and international public opinion to build support for China’s

military actions and dissuade an adversary from pursuing actions contrary to China’s interests.”50

Example: In September 2012, China took out a two page advertisement in the New York Times and the Washington 

Post titled “Diaou (Senkaku) Islands Belong to China” after the Government of Japan purchased three of the islands 

from a private owner. 51 The placement of the advertisements was probably intended to shape U.S. public 

perceptions concerning Beijing’s stance that the islands are China’s while increasing pressure on Tokyo.

• Legal warfare “uses international and domestic law to claim the legal high ground or assert Chinese interests. It 

can be employed to hamstring an adversary’s operational freedom and shape the operational space. Legal warfare 

is also intended to build international support and manage possible political repercussions of China’s military 

actions. China has attempted to employ legal warfare in the maritime domain and in international airspace in pursuit 

of a security buffer zone.”52

Example: China has employed legal warfare to attempt to restrict the activities of foreign ships and aircraft operating 

in or flying over China’s EEZ. While the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) entitles foreign military 

ships and aircraft to conduct freedom of navigation and overflight in the EEZ, China’s expansive and unusual 

interpretation of international law asserts the right to require foreign ships to obtain permission or provide 

notification before conducting innocent passage, though UNCLOS does not include such a provision. China’s 

efforts to reinterpret UNCLOS to the disadvantage of foreign militaries operating in its periphery is an example of 

an effort to use legal warfare.

Current Challenges 

Examples of China’s efforts to employ the aforementioned tools: 

Australia: As noted above, one of Beijing’s aims of engagement, particularly in the economic realm, with Canberra 

appears to be seeking to complicate the close relationship between the United States and Australia. Australia’s 

strong economic growth in recent years has been largely reliant on exports of raw materials to China.53 CRS suggests 

this could lead to “reticence to adopt policies that could anger China.”

54

China’s involvement in the development of Darwin Port illustrates this challenge. Landbridge Group, a Chinese 

company linked to the PLA, acquired a 99-year lease of the Australian port of Darwin in October 2015.

55 The 

announcement of the lease raised some security concerns within defense circles in both Australia and the United 

States, and could lead to a review regarding foreign investment practices and national security issues in Australia.56
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 9 

As the port is used by the Australian defense forces and also supports U.S. Marine Corps as a rotational training 

base, there is cause for concern about the potential vulnerability of Australian and U.S. troops to clandestine 

surveillance operations by China.

57

 

While China has pursued economic engagement with Australia, Beijing has occasionally opted to employ political 

coercion as well. Following the 2011 announcement that the United States would station U.S. Marines in northern 

Australia, a Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson reportedly said “Australia cannot play China for a 

fool,” and the People’s Daily English edition ran an article arguing that it is “impossible for China to remain 

detached no matter what Australia does to undermine its security. One thing is certain - if Australia uses its military 

bases to help the U.S. harm Chinese interests, then Australia itself will be caught in the crossfire.”

58

Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Guam is a critical location for the forward 

deployment of air, naval, missile defense, and ground forces for any contingency operation the United States may 

need to respond to within the Asia Pacific region.

* Furthermore, the U.S. military has shifted much of its aviation 

training to Guam, and will develop training areas in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI).59 Beijing is concerned the redeployment of U.S. troops to Guam and the development of a training range†

in the CNMI is directed against China.60 While Beijing is concerned about the U.S. military footprint, China’s 

tourism industry has been acquiring hotels and apartment buildings in Palau and hotel and casino development 

projects in Saipan, as well as establishing Chinese-operated tour organizations in the CNMI.61 There is some 

concern within the CNMI business community that the presence of U.S. military training on three of the islands in 

the chain could discourage investment by the Chinese-backed tourism-casino industry, as investors behind the 

casinos have indicated they may pull out if plans for the training range progress.62 This has resulted in the CNMI 

considering legal action to contest the Pentagon’s plan to develop the range.”63

Chinese investments in real estate in the CNMI and the presence of Chinese workers, tourists, or businesspeople

could provide cover for clandestine surveillance of U.S. facilities, training, logistics, or troop rotations. The United 

States can expect continued Chinese investments in the region if Beijing perceives that some amount of access, 

influence, and information acquisition is being achieved.

Okinawa: As with Guam, Beijing is likewise concerned about the U.S. force projection capability on Okinawa. 

However, China’s attempts to shape Japanese behavior through economic coercion have not been very successful. 

James Reilly, a senior lecturer in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of 

Sydney, notes that in response to Chinese “consumer boycotts and economic pressure, Japan has refused to back 

down over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands ... [and] strengthened its cooperation with other Asian neighbors, signed a 

fisheries accord with Taiwan, and secured statements of support from the United States.”64

Japanese press reporting indicates Chinese investors have acquired property near U.S. DOD facilities on Okinawa.65

China likely maintains a presence of intelligence officers and agitators to both collect intelligence against the U.S. 

military presence on the island and complicate aspects of the U.S.-Japan alliance by participating in anti-base 

activities. Fumio Ota, a retired Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force vice admiral and a former director of the Japan 

Defense Intelligence Headquarters, notes “China has ... supported Okinawa’s independence activities, which were 

developed by pro-Chinese Okinawans and probably Chinese ... agents as well.”66 Dr. Ota goes on to say that the 

Chinese press in September 2012 “reported the result of ... [a] 2006 referendum of Ryukyu citizens [that indicated] 

 

* For a range of air, naval, missile defense, ground, and logistical capabilities forward deployed to Guam, see Shirley A. Kan, “Guam: U.S. 

Defense Deployments,” U.S. Congressional Research Service, November 26, 2014, 2–3. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22570.pdf.

† Admiral Samuel Locklear in his prepared remarks before the House Armed Services Committee in April 2015 noted that the 

“Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ... Joint Military Training initiative (CJMT) is an important posture undertaking. CNMI 

remains strategically important as a forward and sovereign U.S. location with lease rights until 2033 and extendable to 2083. When the 

U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative moves approximately 4,700 U.S. Marines from Japan to Guam, the CJMT will enable this 

U.S. Marine force to train and maintain operational readiness. Specifically on the island of Tinian, the CJMT initiative will provide livefire ranges and training areas. The CJMT will optimize future training ranges for joint and combined exercises with allies and foreign 

forces. As a part of aviation resiliency initiatives, divert and alternate air fields are also being explored on the islands of Saipan and Tinian 

along with other locations in the broader Western Pacific.” House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, Hearing on U.S. Pacific 

Command Posture, written testimony of Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, April 15, 2015. 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20150415/103307/HHRG-114-AS00-Wstate-LocklearUSNS-20150415.pdf.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 10 

75 percent of them supported independence from Japan and reinstating free trade with China ... [when there] was 

in fact no referendum by Ryukyu citizens, and the vast majority of Okinawans want to be a part of Japan.”67

Aggressive Chinese activities intended to challenge Japan’s administration of the Senkaku Islands and statements 

by Chinese academics and military officials questioning the status of Okinawa as part of Japan probably will 

increase concerns about China’s long-term intentions in the region.

68 China will likely continue both espionage and 

agitation activities on Okinawa aimed at monitoring U.S. and Japanese force posture and seeking to complicate the 

U.S.-Japan alliance by attempting to facilitate resentment about the continuing U.S. military presence.

69

 

Philippines: Continued tensions between China and the Philippines over disputed territory in the South China Sea 

have strained relations between the two countries—particularly since the Scarborough Reef incident in 2012—and 

have resulted in a decline in Chinese economic investment in the Philippines.70 Furthermore, the Philippines has 

contested China’s claims in the South China Sea at the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, drawing 

additional Chinese ire.71 Chinese economic engagement with the Philippines for the purposes of shaping China’s 

security environment is likely to remain minimal, and coercion will almost certainly continue for the foreseeable 

future.72

Likely in response to China’s continued assertiveness in the South China Sea, the Philippine Supreme Court in 

January 2016 approved a defense cooperation deal with the United States that enables U.S. forces to deploy to up 

to eight bases and pre-position military equipment and supplies within the country.73 The decision will generate 

additional opportunities for the United States to assist the Philippines in modernizing its military forces, which have 

lagged behind other states in the region. The agreement to allow the U.S. military to use bases, the pending South 

China Sea arbitration decision in the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, potential joint Philippine-U.S. 

Navy patrols in the South China Sea, and closer political and military-to-military relations between the Philippines 

and Japan are likely to result in increased Chinese cyber intrusions, intelligence-gathering activities within the 

Philippines, and the potential for additional economic coercion.74 Furthermore, China could seek to restrict tourism 

to inflict economic damage and use media reporting to frame U.S.-Philippine naval patrols as destabilizing for the 

region as part of a three warfares campaign.75

South Korea: Seoul maintains a positive relationship with Beijing, and China has used economic integration to 

deepen the relationship between the two countries after China surpassed the United States as South Korea’s largest 

trading partner in 2004.76 Beijing and Seoul share similar security concerns about maritime territorial disputes with 

Tokyo, the growing capabilities of the Japanese Self Defense Force, and North Korea as a failed state.77 According 

to Andrew Nathan, a professor at Columbia University, and Andrew Scobell, a senior political scientist at the RAND 

Corporation, China is likely seeking to maintain stable relations with South Korea to “build trust, and eventually ... 

reassure the Koreans that they would not need American troops on their soil to feel secure.”78

Should Beijing become concerned about enhanced U.S.-South Korean security cooperation following North 

Korea’s latest nuclear and missile tests in January and February 2016 respectively,79 China may seek to use its 

economic leverage to pressure South Korea into reducing the American military presence on the Korean Peninsula. 

The aforementioned CNAS report notes the “Chinese investment on [South Korea’s] Jeju Island could, for instance, 

help turn the Korean political debate against building a major new naval base that would stand over one of the 

critical chokepoints for the Chinese fleet.”80 The United States’ potential deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude 

Area Defense (THAAD) system to South Korea offers another example. South Korean press indicates China is 

employing diplomatic pressure and may use economic pressure to deter Seoul from agreeing to the deployment of 

the system, which South Korean and U.S. advocates insist is directed at countering North Korean threats, but which 

China fears could be used against Chinese missile forces as well.81 At a press conference in January 2016, a Chinese 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson advised that Seoul should consider Chinese security interests.82

Thailand: The U.S. and Thai militaries traditionally have had a strong security relationship by virtue of the U.S.-

Thailand alliance, but the United States suspended security assistance to Thailand following its 2014 coup.83 While 

the U.S.-Thai alliance remains in place and Washington and Bangkok are mending relations after a period of tension, 

China’s security relations with Thailand are strengthening.84 Thailand maintains close economic, military, and 

diplomatic ties with China. The abovementioned GWU report notes “Thailand is central to China’s efforts to build 

roads, railways, power lines, and other means to integrate mainland Southeast Asia with China’s growing 

economy.”85 In February 2015, China and Thailand announced a five-year agreement to expand military-to-military
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 11 

cooperation; the PLA is also pursuing bilateral training with Thailand’s military.86 CRS notes that some analysts 

assert without renewed security assistance, “the U.S. may lose access to Thailand’s strategically located military 

facilities and ... China may become even more influential in the region.”87 Furthermore, China is likely to pursue 

bilateral training events and exercises to glean information about Thai knowledge of U.S. capabilities or possibly 

equipment.

New Zealand: China has strengthened relations with New Zealand through both economic and military-to-military 

engagement. New Zealand’s economic ties to China could create circumstances in which Wellington is sensitive to 

actions that might disturb the nation’s trade relationship with China.88 In 2013, China became New Zealand’s largest 

trading partner—overtaking Australia—and has conducted bilateral and multilateral exercises with the New 

Zealand military.89 While Wellington continues to pursue an independent foreign policy, there is some concern 

within New Zealand about China’s growing economic influence, particularly after the sale of New Zealand 

agricultural land by New Zealand agricultural conglomerate Crafar Farms in 2012 to Pengxin International Group 

Limited, a Shanghai-based company.90 The transaction generated some concern among politicians in New Zealand 

about the sale of land to foreign investors.91

Continued Alliance Splitting Activities: Beijing’s attempts to shape its security environment and limit U.S. force 

presence in Asia through engagement, coercion, and efforts to split the U.S. alliance structure have produced mixed 

results. While many U.S. allies and partners are supportive of the U.S. military presence in Asia, none are interested 

in being forced to choose between the United States and China.92 Furthermore, many of China’s efforts to improve 

its security environment through coercive or assertive behavior appear to be driving U.S. allies such as Japan, the 

Philippines, and Australia closer to the United States.93 This likely will result in the United States maintaining strong 

security relationships through trilateral cooperation with its allies in the Asia Pacific, particularly with the U.S.-

Japan-Australia and U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilaterals.94 Despite this, there is little indication Beijing will abandon 

its efforts to use engagement, coercion, and alliance splitting to complicate the U.S. military presence in the region. 

And although recent developments concerning Japan’s historical WWII legacy have improved relations between 

Tokyo and Seoul at the government-to-government level,95 Beijing may still seek to exploit several seams, including 

a maritime sovereignty dispute between Japan and South Korea and Seoul’s concern about the expanding missions 

of the Japanese Self Defense Force.

Opportunities to Prevent Erosion of U.S. Influence and Access in 

the Asia Pacific 

China’s efforts to erode U.S. influence in the Asia Pacific almost certainly will continue. The United States and its 

allies must be aware of these efforts and prepared to counter them. To address this ongoing challenge, actions the 

United States could take include the following: 

 Continue to bolster alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, and 

Thailand to ensure the United States retains base access and replenishment support for any operation in the 

Asia Pacific where U.S. forces are required to maintain peace and stability. 

 Pursue opportunities to partner with Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Vietnam to bolster support for U.S. 

political access and support for U.S. military presence in the region.

 Continue freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea to demonstrate clearly the U.S. 

commitment to ensuring freedom of maneuver in international waters. U.S. allies and partners are closely 

monitoring the United States’ response to China’s aggression in the South China Sea to gauge Washington’s

commitment to maintaining stability in the region.

 Explore options to improve the military-to-military relationship with Thailand and ensure the U.S.-Thai

military relationship remains stronger than Thailand’s military relationship with the PLA. Any such 

approach should be careful not to erode the established U.S. position concerning Thailand returning to 

civilian rule.

 Continue to work with Vietnam to expand maritime domain awareness and improve logistical support 

capabilities.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 12 

Endnotes

1 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on Developments in China’s Military Force Projection and 

Expeditionary Capabilities, written testimony of Timothy Heath, January 21, 2016; Michael Green et al., “Asia-Pacific Rebalance 2025: 

Capabilities, Presence, and Partnerships,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 2016, 13. 

http://csis.org/files/publication/160119_Green_AsiaPacificRebalance2025_Web_0.pdf; and Chin-Hao Huang, “China’s Soft Power in 

East Asia: A Quest for Status and Influence?” National Bureau of Asian Research, January, 2013, 4. 

http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/451/docs/Huang_FINAL_China_Soft_Power_and_Status.pdf.

2 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on Developments in China’s Military Force Projection and 

Expeditionary Capabilities, written testimony of Timothy Heath, January 21, 2016; Timothy R. Heath, China's New Governing Party 

Paradigm, Ashgate, 2014, 121; and Christopher K. Johnson et al., “Decoding China’s Emerging ‘Great Power’ Strategy in Asia,” Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, June 2014, 46–47.

3 U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 

2015, May 2015, 21. http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2015_China_Military_Power_Report.pdf; Christopher K. 

Johnson, “PLA’s Deeper Engagement in Military Drills Aligns with Xi’s Call for ‘Active Chinese Diplomacy,’” Center for Strategic and 

International Studies, March 3, 2015. http://amti.csis.org/plas-deeper-engagement-in-military-drills-aligns-with-xis-call-for-activechinese-diplomacy/.

4 Open Source Enterprise, “‘PRC Military Affairs Expert’ on Potential Return of the US Navy to Philippines Vis-a-Vis SCS,’” January 14, 

2016. ID: CHO2016011570073645; Michael Swaine, “Beyond American Predominance in the Western Pacific: The Need for a Stable 

U.S.-China Balance of Power,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 20, 2015, 3. http://www.chinausfocus.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/Swaine-US-CHINA.pdf; Chin-Hao Huang, “China’s Soft Power in East Asia: A Quest for Status and 

Influence?” National Bureau of Asian Research, January 2013, 5. 

http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/451/docs/Huang_FINAL_China_Soft_Power_and_Status.pdf; and Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew 

Scobell, China’s Search for Security, Columbia University Press, 2012, 93–99.

5 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on Developments in China’s Military Force Projection and 

Expeditionary Capabilities, written testimony of Oriana Skylar Mastro, January 21, 2016.

6 Open Source Enterprise, “China Daily: China’s Military Strategy,” May 26, 2015. ID: CHR2015052612653330.

7 Open Source Enterprise, “China Daily: China’s Military Strategy,” May 26, 2015. ID: CHR2015052612653330.

8 Aaron Mehta, “China's HQ-9 Missile Placement Underlines Pentagon Focus on A2/AD,” Defense News, February 19, 2016. 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/asia-pacific/2016/02/19/china-hq-9-missile-island-us-pentagon-a2adweapons/80572464/.

9 Xu Qi, “Maritime Geostrategy and the Development of the Chinese Navy in the 21st Century,” translated by Andrew S. Erickson and 

Lyle J. Goldstein, Naval War College Review (Autumn 2006): 56–57. https://usnwc.edu/getattachment/2e68a7da-601b-4e59-951d44ef56ecf949/Maritime-Geostrategy-and-the-Development-of-the-Ch.aspx.

10 Xu Qi, “Maritime Geostrategy and the Development of the Chinese Navy in the 21st Century,” translated by Andrew S. Erickson and 

Lyle J. Goldstein, Naval War College Review, (Autumn 2006): 61. https://usnwc.edu/getattachment/2e68a7da-601b-4e59-951d44ef56ecf949/Maritime-Geostrategy-and-the-Development-of-the-Ch.aspx.

11 Andrew Erickson and Timothy Heath, “China’s Turn toward Regional Restructuring, Counter-Intervention: A Review of Authoritative 

Sources,” Jamestown Foundation China Brief, November 16, 2015. 

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=44600&cHash=f9056724a61defdcb659bdb90da79

119#.VrTNpDbSn4g; U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on China and the Evolving Security Dynamics 

in East Asia, written testimony of Bonnie S. Glaser, March 13, 2014; and Peng Guangqian and Yao Youzhi, eds., The Science of 

Military Strategy, Military Science Publishing House, 2005, 467.

12 Peng Guangqian and Yao Youzhi, eds., The Science of Military Strategy, Military Science Publishing House, 2005, 471.

13 David J. Berteau and Michael J. Green, “U.S. Force Posture Strategy in the Asia Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, August 2012, 40. http://csis.org/files/publication/120814_FINAL_PACOM_optimized.pdf.

14 David J. Berteau and Michael J. Green, “U.S. Force Posture Strategy in the Asia Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, August 2012, 40. http://csis.org/files/publication/120814_FINAL_PACOM_optimized.pdf.

15 Michael Green et al., “Asia-Pacific Rebalance 2025: Capabilities, Presence, and Partnerships,” Center for Strategic and International 

Studies, January 20, 2016, 16. http://csis.org/event/asia-pacific-rebalance-2025-capabilities-presence-and-partnerships.

16 Alexander Sullivan and Andrew S. Erickson, “The Big Story behind China’s New Military Strategy,” Diplomat (Japan), June 5, 2015. 

http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/the-big-story-behind-chinas-new-military-strategy/; Shannon Tiezzi, “3 Goals of China’s Military 

Diplomacy,” Diplomat (Japan), January 30, 2015. http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/3-goals-of-chinas-military-diplomacy/.

17 James Reilly, “China’s Unilateral Sanctions,” Washington Quarterly 35:4 (Fall 2012): 131.

http://csis.org/files/publication/twq12FallReilly.pdf.

18 Open Source Enterprise, “ROK Daily: China Warns of Consequences Should South Korea Go Ahead with THAAD Deployment,” 

January 28, 2016. ID: KPR2016012901849749; Timothy Heath and Andrew S. Erickson, “Is China Pursuing Counter-Intervention?” 

Washington Quarterly 38:3 (Fall 2015): 145–146. 

https://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/twq.elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/TWQ_Fall2015_Heath-Erickson.pdf; Oriana Skylar Mastro, “Why 

Chinese Assertiveness Is Here to Stay,” Washington Quarterly 37:4 (Winter 2015): 158. 

https://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/twq.elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Mastro.pdf; and Robert G. Sutter, Michael E. Brown, and Timothy J. 

 
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 13 

 

A. Adamson, “Balancing Acts: The U.S. Rebalance and Asia-Pacific Stability,” Elliot School of International Affairs, George 

Washington University, August 2013, 21. http://www2.gwu.edu/~sigur/assets/docs/BalancingActs_Compiled1.pdf.

19 David J. Berteau and Michael J. Green, “U.S. Force Posture Strategy in the Asia Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, August 2012, 20. http://csis.org/files/publication/120814_FINAL_PACOM_optimized.pdf.

20 Shirley A. Kan, “Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments,” U.S. Congressional Research Service, November 26, 2014, 7.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22570.pdf.

21 Oriana Skylar Mastro, “Why Chinese Assertiveness Is Here to Stay,” Washington Quarterly 37:4 (Winter 2015): 157. 

https://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/twq.elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Mastro.pdf.

22 Oriana Skylar Mastro, “Why Chinese Assertiveness Is Here to Stay,” Washington Quarterly 37:4 (Winter 2015): 156. 

https://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/twq.elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Mastro.pdf.

23 Xu Qi, “Maritime Geostrategy and the Development of the Chinese Navy in the 21st Century,” translated by Andrew S. Erickson and 

Lyle J. Goldstein, Naval War College Review (Autumn 2006): 12. https://usnwc.edu/getattachment/2e68a7da-601b-4e59-951d44ef56ecf949/Maritime-Geostrategy-and-the-Development-of-the-Ch.aspx.

24 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on China’s Relations with Southeast Asia, written testimony of Robert 

Sutter, May 13, 2015;William Yale, “China’s Maritime Silk Road Gamble,” Diplomat (Japan), April 22, 2015. 

http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/chinas-maritime-silk-road-gamble/.

25 Prashanth Parameswaran, “China Reveals New Proposal to Boost Defense Ties with ASEAN,” Diplomat (Japan), October 17, 2015. 

http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/china-reveals-new-proposal-to-boost-defense-ties-with-asean/.

26 Chen Dongxiao, “China Aims to Set the Regional Cooperation Agenda,” East Asia Forum, July 28, 2015. 

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/07/28/china-aims-to-set-the-regional-cooperation-agenda/; Shannon Tiezzi, “At CICA, Xi Calls for 

New Regional Security Architecture,” Diplomat (Japan), May 22, 2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/at-cica-xi-calls-for-newregional-security-architecture/; and Open Source Enterprise, “JFJB Interviews PRC Academic Experts on 4th CICA Summit in 

Shanghai,” May 20, 2014. ID: CHL2014052214874225.

27 Gabriel Dominguez, “China’s RIMPAC Debut ‘Unlikely to Ease Tensions,’” Deutsche Welle (Germany), June 23, 2014. 

http://www.dw.com/en/chinas-rimpac-debut-unlikely-to-ease-tensions/a-17728939.

28 Michael Green et al., “Asia-Pacific Rebalance 2025: Capabilities, Presence, and Partnerships,” Center for Strategic and International 

Studies, January 2016, 13. http://csis.org/event/asia-pacific-rebalance-2025-capabilities-presence-and-partnerships; U.S. Department of 

Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015, May 2015, 

23. www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2015_China_Military_Power_Report.pdf; and Christopher K. Johnson, “PLA’s Deeper 

Engagement in Military Drills Aligns with Xi’s Call for ‘Active Chinese Diplomacy,’” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 

March 3, 2015. http://amti.csis.org/plas-deeper-engagement-in-military-drills-aligns-with-xis-call-for-active-chinese-diplomacy/.

29 James Marchetti, “Cobra Gold 15 Participants Welcomed with Open Arms, Build School, Hope for Future,” U.S. Defense Video and 

Imagery Distribution System, January 27, 2015. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/153878/cobra-gold-15-participants-welcomed-withopen-arms-build-school-hope-future#.VrjQ8XnMsdU.

30 Association of South East Asian Nations Regional Forum Disaster Relief Exercises 2015, “Direx 2015.” http://arfdirex2015.my/.

31 Alicia J. Campi, “Mongolian Military Trains with US Troops While Preparing for Exercises with Russia,” Jamestown Foundation 

Eurasia Daily Monitor, July 16, 2015. 

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=44169&no_cache=1#.VrjXAHnMsdU; Ankit Panda, “A First: China 

Sends Troops to US-Mongolia-Led Khaan Quest Exercise,” Diplomat (Japan), June 23, 2015. http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/a-firstchina-sends-troops-to-us-mongolia-led-khaan-quest-exercise/.

32 Open Source Enterprise, “Xinhua: China, Australia, U.S. to Begin Trilateral Military Exercise,” August 27, 2015. ID: 

CHR2015082740904980; Australian Army, Exercise Kowari Survival Phase Begins, August 20, 2015. http://www.army.gov.au/Ourwork/News-and-media/Exercise-Kowari-survival-training-begins.

33 Open Source Enterprise, “Xinhua: China’s PLA to Debut in New Zealand-Led Pacific Military Drill,” August 28, 2015. ID: 

CHR2015082828544397.

34 Open Source Enterprise, “Thailand: Thai-Chinese Air Games Called No Threat to ASEAN,” November 24, 2015. ID: 

SER2015112443826163.

35 Patrick M. Cronin et al., “Tailored Coercion: Competition and Risk in Maritime Asia,” Center for a New American Security, March 

2014, 9. http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_TailoredCoercion_report.pdf.

36 Ely Ratner, “Resident Power: Building a Politically Sustainable US Military Presence in Southeast Asia and Australia,” Center for New 

American Security, October 2013, 27. http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_ResidentPower_Ratner.pdf; Bonnie S. 

Glaser, “PacNet #46: China’s Coercive Economic Diplomacy—A New and Worrying Trend,” Pacific Forum CSIS, July 23, 2012.

http://csis.org/publication/pacnet-46-chinas-coercive-economic-diplomacy-new-and-worrying-trend.

37 Phillip C. Saunders, “China’s Rising Power, the U.S. Rebalance to Asia, and Implications for U.S.-China Relations,” Issues & Studies

50:3 (September 2014): 26. http://inss.ndu.edu/Portals/82/Documents/chinas-rising-power.pdf; Bonnie S. Glaser, “PacNet #46: China’s 

Coercive Economic Diplomacy—A New and Worrying Trend,” Pacific Forum CSIS, July 23, 2012. http://csis.org/publication/pacnet46-chinas-coercive-economic-diplomacy-new-and-worrying-trend.

38 U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 

2015, May 2015, 7. www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2015_China_Military_Power_Report.pdf; Paul H.B. Godwin and Alice 

L. Miller, “China’s Forbearance Has Limits: Chinese Threat and Retaliation Signaling and its Implications for a Sino-American Military 

Confrontation,” National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies, April 2013.

http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/china/ChinaPerspectives-6.pdf.

39 U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 

2015, May 2015, 7. www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2015_China_Military_Power_Report.pdf; Carl Thayer, “China’s Oil 
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 14 

 

Rig Gambit: South China Sea Game-Changer?” Diplomat (Japan), May 12, 2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/chinas-oil-rig-gambitsouth-china-sea-game-changer/.

40 U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 

2015, May 2015, 7. www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2015_China_Military_Power_Report.pdf.

41 U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 

2015, May 2015, 3. www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2015_China_Military_Power_Report.pdf.

42 Han Suk-hee, “South Korea Seeks to Balance Relations with China and the United States,” Council on Foreign Relations, November 

2012. http://www.cfr.org/south-korea/south-korea-seeks-balance-relations-china-united-states/p29447.

43 Robert G. Sutter, Michael E. Brown, and Timothy J. A. Adamson, “Balancing Acts: The U.S. Rebalance and Asia-Pacific Stability,” 

Elliot School of International Affairs, George Washington University, August 2013, 21.

44 Hugh White, “Australia's Choice,” Foreign Affairs, September 4, 2013. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/australia/2013-09-

04/australias-choice; Hugh White, “The China Choice: Why America Should Share Power,” Lowy Institute for International Policy, 

October 6, 2013. http://www.lowyinstitute.org/files/lowy_institute_extract_-_the_china_choice.pdf; Greg Austin, “Australia Hoses Down 

South China Sea Angst,” Diplomat (Japan), December 1, 2015. http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/australia-hoses-down-south-china-seaangst/.

45 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on China’s Relations with Southeast Asia, written testimony of Patrick 

Cronin, May 13, 2015.

46 U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 

2011, May 2011, 26. www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2011_CMPR_Final.pdf.

47 U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 

2011, May 2011, 26. www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2011_CMPR_Final.pdf.

48 Stefan Halper, “China: The Three Warfares,” University of Cambridge, May 2013. https://cryptome.org/2014/06/prc-three-wars.pdf; 

U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 

2011, May 2011, 26. www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2011_CMPR_Final.pdf.

49 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2015 Annual Report to Congress, November 2015, 515. 

http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/annual_reports/2015%20Annual%20Report%20to%20Congress.PDF.

50 Stefan Halper, “China: The Three Warfares,” University of Cambridge, May 2013. https://cryptome.org/2014/06/prc-three-wars.pdf; 

U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 

2011, May 2011, 26. www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2011_CMPR_Final.pdf.

51 Adam Taylor, “Check Out the Stunning Two-Page Ad China Took Out in the New York Times,” Business Insider, September 28, 2012. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-daily-ad-in-new-york-times-2012-9; Jennifer Saba, “China Takes Islands Dispute with Japan to 

Pages of U.S. Newspapers,” Reuters, September 28, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-japan-adsidUSBRE88S00O20120929.

52 Stefan Halper, “China: The Three Warfares,” University of Cambridge, May 2013. https://cryptome.org/2014/06/prc-three-wars.pdf; 

U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 

2011, May 2011, 26. www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2011_CMPR_Final.pdf.

53 Nick Goodway, “Australia’s Economic Growth Slows as Fears of the China Effect Mount,” Evening Standard (United Kingdom),

September 2, 2015. http://www.standard.co.uk/business/australias-economic-growth-slows-as-fears-of-the-china-effect-mounta2925751.html; Mark Thirlwell, “How Dependent Are Australian Exports on China? A New Research Note,” Australian Trade 

Commission, March 16, 2015. http://www.austrade.gov.au/News/Economics-at-Austrade/how-dependent-are-australian-exports-onchina.

54 Thomas Lum, Wayne M. Morrison, and Bruce Vaughn, “China’s “Soft Power” in Southeast Asia,” U.S. Congressional Research 

Service, January 4, 2008, 3. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34310.pdf.

55 Michael Forsythe, “Australia Defends Port’s Lease to Chinese Company with Military Ties,” New York Times, November 14, 2015. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/world/australia/darwin-port-australia-chinese-military.html?_r=0.

56 Paul Barnes et al., “Chinese Investment in the Port of Darwin: A Strategic Risk for Australia?” Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 

December 2015. https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/chinese-investment-in-the-port-of-darwin-a-strategic-risk-foraustralia/SI101_Chinese_investment_Darwin.pdf; Jason Scott, “China Spy Fears over Aussie Port Deal Are Absurd, Defense Says,” 

Bloomberg, December 14, 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-15/china-spy-fears-over-aussie-port-deal-areabsurd-defense-says; Lauren Dickey, “What Are the Chinese up to in Australia,” War on the Rocks, December 3, 2015. 

http://warontherocks.com/2015/12/what-are-the-chinese-up-to-in-australia/; Anthony Bergin, “We Need a New Approach on Foreign 

Investment and National Security,” Australian Strategic Policy Institute, November 17, 2015. http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/we-needa-new-approach-on-foreign-investment-and-national-security/; Geoff Hiscock, “China’s Port Deal Raises Strategic Questions Inside 

Australia,” U.S. News and World Report, October 29, 2015. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/29/chinas-port-deal-raisesstrategic-questions-inside-australia; and Chris Uhlmann and Jane Norman, “Senior Defense Official Raises Security Concerns over 

Darwin Port Lease to Chinese-Owned Company Landbridge,” ABC (Australia), October 15, 2015. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-

15/adf-concerned-over-darwin-port-sale-to-chinese-owned-company/6855182.

57 Jason Scott, “China Spy Fears over Aussie Port Deal Are Absurd, Defense Says,” Bloomberg, December 14, 2015. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-15/china-spy-fears-over-aussie-port-deal-are-absurd-defense-says; Lauren Dickey, 

“What Are the Chinese up to in Australia,” War on the Rocks, December 3, 2015. http://warontherocks.com/2015/12/what-are-thechinese-up-to-in-australia/; Geoff Hiscock, “China’s Port Deal Raises Strategic Questions Inside Australia,” U.S. News and World 

Report, October 29, 2015. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/29/chinas-port-deal-raises-strategic-questions-insideaustralia; and Steven Schubert and James Purtill, “US Marines Begin Arriving in Darwin in Fourth Rotation as Part of US ‘Pivot’ to the 
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 15 

 

Asia-Pacific,” ABC (Australia), May 18, 2015. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-13/us-marines-arrive-darwin-us-pivot-amidconcern-tensions-china/6387444.

58 Open Source Enterprise, “Asia Times: ‘BHP Billiton in Front Line as US Marines Take Darwin,’” November 21, 2011. ID: 

CPP20111123715068.

59 U.S. Department of Defense, Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy, August 2015, 22–23. 

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/NDAA%20A-P_Maritime_SecuritY_Strategy-08142015-1300-FINALFORMAT.PDF; 

Wyatt Olson, “Mariana Officials Bristle at US Military’s Live-Fire Plans for Pagan, Tinian,” Stars and Stripes, April 17, 2015. 

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/mariana-officials-bristle-at-us-military-s-live-fire-plans-for-pagan-tinian-1.340648; and Shirley A. 

Kan, “Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments,” U.S. Congressional Research Service, November 26, 2014, 6.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22570.pdf.

60 Shirley A. Kan, “Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments,” U.S. Congressional Research Service, November 26, 2014, 19–20. 

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22570.pdf; Wayne Mapp, “The New Zealand Paradox: Adjusting to the Change in Balance of Power 

in the Asia Pacific over the Next 20 Years,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2014, 66. 

http://csis.org/files/publication/140425_Mapp_NewZealandParadox_Web.pdf.

61 Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno, “China Impacts Guam, Saipan, Palau Economies,” Pacific Daily News (Guam), October 16, 2015. 

http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2015/10/16/china-impacts-guam-saipan-palau-economies/74036548/.

62 Adam Ashton, “Quietly, Guam Slated to Become a Massive New U.S. Military Base,” Saipan Tribune, November 24, 2015. 

http://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/quietly-guam-slated-to-become-a-massive-new-us-military-base/; Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno, 

“China Impacts Guam, Saipan, Palau Economies,” Pacific Daily News (Guam), October 16, 2015.

63 Adam Ashton, “Quietly, Guam Slated to Become a Massive New U.S. Military Base,” Saipan Tribune, November 24, 2015. 

http://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/quietly-guam-slated-to-become-a-massive-new-us-military-base/.

64 James Reilly, “China’s Economic Statecraft: Turning Wealth into Power,” Lowy Institute for International Policy, November 27, 2013. 

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/chinas-economic-statecraft-0.

65 Kuchikomi, “Okinawa’s Off-Base Housing May Suffer Infestation of Chinese Bugs,” Japan Today, March 8, 2013. 

http://www.japantoday.com/category/kuchikomi/view/okinawas-off-base-housing-may-suffer-infestation-of-chinese-bugs.

66 Fumio Ota, “Sun Tzu in Contemporary Chinese Strategy,” Joint Forces Quarterly, April 1, 2014, 78. 

http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-73/jfq-73_76-83_Ota.pdf.

67 Fumio Ota, “Sun Tzu in Contemporary Chinese Strategy,” Joint Forces Quarterly, April 1, 2014, 79–80. 

http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-73/jfq-73_76-83_Ota.pdf.

68 Travis J. Tritten and Chiyomi Sumida, “Protests on Okinawa Aren’t Always What They Appear to Be,” Stars and Stripes, May 23, 2013. 

http://www.stripes.com/news/protests-on-okinawa-aren-t-always-what-they-appear-to-be-1.222240.

69 Open Source Enterprise, “Japan: Okinawa Local TV 10 February -- Government Measures Not Reducing US Military Burden,” February 

10, 2016. ID: JPO2016021085499175; Prashanth Parameswaran, “Japan’s Defense Minister to Visit Philippines to Boost Security Ties,” 

Diplomat (Japan), January 8, 2016. http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/japans-defense-minister-to-visit-philippines-to-boost-security-ties/; 

Shannon Tiezzi, “Beyond Futenma: Okinawa and the US Base Conundrum,” Diplomat (Japan), November 4, 2015. 

http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/beyond-futenma-okinawa-and-the-us-base-conundrum/; and Jonathan Soble, “Okinawa Governor 

Freezes Work at U.S. Base,” New York Times, October 13, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/world/asia/japan-okinawaunited-states-marine-futenma-base.html.

70 Open Source Enterprise, “PRC Huanqiu Shibao Editorial Warns Philippines over Mentioning South China Sea at APEC,” November 12, 

2015. ID: CHO2015111656752968; Richard Javad Heydarian, “Time for the Philippines to Adjust its South China Sea Approach,” 

Diplomat (Japan), June 30, 2015. http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/time-for-the-philippines-to-adjust-its-south-china-sea-approach/.

71 Alex Calvo, “Manila, Beijing, and UNCLOS: A Test Case?” Asia Times (Hong Kong), September 3, 2013. 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-030913.html.

72 Nike Ching, “Philippines Offers Eight Military Bases to US,” Voice of America, January 14, 2016. 

http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/philippines-offering-us-eight-bases/3145998.html.

73 Open Source Enterprise, “Manila Times: Philippine Defense Chief Confirms US to Build Five Military Facilities in Various Areas under 

EDCA,” February 5, 2016. ID: SEO2016020513476146; Dan De Luce, “China Fears Bring the U.S. Military Back to the Philippines,” 

Foreign Policy, January 12, 2016. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/12/china-fears-bring-the-u-s-military-back-to-the-philippines/. 

74 Patricia Lourdes Viray, “Philippines Expecting Hague Ruling vs China by May,” Philippine Star, February 11, 2016. 

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/02/11/1551972/philippines-expecting-hague-ruling-vs-china-may; Agence France-Press, 

“Philippines Seeks Joint Patrols with US in South China Sea,” Defense News, January 14, 2016. 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/asia-pacific/2016/01/14/philippines-seeks-joint-patrols-us-south-chinasea/78795748/; Manuel Mogato, “Philippines Offers Eight Bases to U.S. under New Military deal,” Reuters, January 13, 2016. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-usa-bases-idUSKCN0UR17K20160113; and David Tweed, “China’s Cyber Spies Take to 

High Seas as Hack Attacks Spike,” Bloomberg, October 15, 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-15/chinese-cyberspies-fish-for-enemies-in-south-china-sea-dispute.

75 Peter Navarro, “China’s Non-Kinetic ‘Three Warfares’ Against America,” National Interest, January 5, 2016. 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-non-kinetic-three-warfares-against-america-14808.

76 Esther Pan, “South Korea’s Ties with China, Japan, and the U.S.: Defining a New Role in a Dangerous Neighborhood,” Council on 

Foreign Relations, February 8, 2006. http://www.cfr.org/world/south-koreas-ties-china-japan-us-defining-new-role-dangerousneighborhood/p9808; Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell, China’s Search for Security, Columbia University Press, 2012, 135–136.

77 Esther Pan, “South Korea’s Ties with China, Japan, and the U.S.: Defining a New Role in a Dangerous Neighborhood,” Council on 

Foreign Relations, February 8, 2006. http://www.cfr.org/world/south-koreas-ties-china-japan-us-defining-new-role-dangerousneighborhood/p9808; Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell, China’s Search for Security, Columbia University Press, 2012, 135–136.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 16 

 

78 Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell, China’s Search for Security, Columbia University Press, 2012, 136.

79 Choe Sang-hun, “North Korea Launches Rocket Seen as Cover for a Missile Test,” New York Times, February 6, 2016. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/world/asia/north-korea-moves-up-rocket-launching-plan.html; David E. Sanger and Choe Sanghun, “North Korea Says it has Detonated Its First Hydrogen Bomb,” New York Times, January 5, 2016. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/world/asia/north-korea-hydrogen-bomb-test.html?_r=0. 

80 Patrick M. Cronin et al., “Tailored Coercion: Competition and Risk in Maritime Asia,” Center for a New American Security, March 

2014, 10. http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_TailoredCoercion_report.pdf.

81 Open Source Enterprise, “ROK Editorial: Prudence on THAAD,” February 1, 2016. ID: KPR2016020146227230; Open Source 

Enterprise, “ROK Daily: Saenuri Party Moves Closer to Backing THAAD,” February 1, 2016. ID: KPR2016020201361798; and Open 

Source Enterprise, “ROK Editorial: Why South Korea Has to Say No to THAAD,” January 22, 2016. ID: KPR2016012264740690.

82 Open Source Enterprise, “Transcript of PRC FM Spokesman News Conference 29 Jan 2016,” January 29, 2016. ID: 

CHO2016012935705686.

83 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Relations with Thailand, November 6, 2015. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2814.htm; Emma ChanlettAvery, Ben Dolven, and Wil Mackey, “Thailand: Background and U.S. Relations,” U.S. Congressional Research Service, July 29, 2015.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32593.pdf.

84 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2015 Annual Report to Congress, November 2015, 473. 

http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/annual_reports/2015%20Annual%20Report%20to%20Congress.PDF.

85 Robert G. Sutter, Michael E. Brown, and Timothy J. A. Adamson, “Balancing Acts: The U.S. Rebalance and Asia-Pacific Stability,” 

Elliot School of International Affairs, George Washington University, August 2013, 24. 

http://www2.gwu.edu/~sigur/assets/docs/BalancingActs_Compiled1.pdf.

86 Wyatt Olson, “China Lurks as US Ties with Thailand Splinter, Military Experts Say,” Stars and Stripes, April 11, 2015. 

http://www.stripes.com/news/china-lurks-as-us-ties-with-thailand-splinter-military-experts-say-1.339510; Prashanth Parameswaran, 

“Did China Just Boost Military Ties with Thailand?” Diplomat (Japan), February 7, 2015. http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/did-chinajust-boost-military-ties-with-thailand/.

87 Emma Chanlett-Avery, Ben Dolven, and Wil Mackey, “Thailand: Background and U.S. Relations,” U.S. Congressional Research 

Service, July 29, 2015, 6. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32593.pdf.

88 Bruce Vaughn, “New Zealand: U.S. Security Cooperation and the U.S. Rebalancing to Asia Strategy,” U.S. Congressional Research 

Service, March 8, 2013, 9. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42993.pdf.

89 Ernest Z. Bower, “U.S.-New Zealand: Going to the Next Level,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 5, 2015. 

http://newzealand.csis.org/.

90 Isaac Davison, “Crafar Farms Buyers in New $70 Million Land Deal,” New Zealand Herald, August 1, 2014. 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11302623; U.S. Congressional Research Service, New Zealand: 

U.S. Security Cooperation and the U.S. Rebalancing to Asia Strategy, March 8, 2013, 10. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42993.pdf.

91 Rebecca Quilliam, “John Key Happy with Pengxin Lochinver Station Deal,” New Zealand Herald, August 4, 2014. 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11303617; Matt Nippert, “Key Defends Sale of Crafar Farms to 

Shanghai Pengxin,” National Business Review (New Zealand), January 27, 2012. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/key-defends-sale-crafarfarms-shanghai-pengxin-mn-108503.

92 Robert G. Sutter, Michael E. Brown, and Timothy J. A. Adamson, “Balancing Acts: The U.S. Rebalance and Asia-Pacific Stability,” 

Elliot School of International Affairs, George Washington University, August 2013, 2. 

http://www2.gwu.edu/~sigur/assets/docs/BalancingActs_Compiled1.pdf; David J. Berteau and Michael J. Green, “U.S. Force Posture 

Strategy in the Asia Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 2012, 19. 

http://csis.org/files/publication/120814_FINAL_PACOM_optimized.pdf.

93 Linda Jakobson and Rory Medcalf, “The Perception Gap: Reading China’s Maritime Strategic Objectives in Indo-Pacific Asia,” Lowy 

Institute for International Policy, June 2015, 12–13. http://www.lowyinstitute.org/files/the-perception-gap-reading-chinas-maritimestrategic-objectives-in-indo-pacific-asia.pdf; Oriana Skylar Mastro, “Why Chinese Assertiveness Is Here to Stay,” Washington 

Quarterly 37:4 (Winter 2015): 152. https://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/twq.elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Mastro.pdf.

94 David J. Berteau and Michael J. Green, “U.S. Force Posture Strategy in the Asia Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, August 2012, 18. http://csis.org/files/publication/120814_FINAL_PACOM_optimized.pdf.

95 Sam Kim and Maiko Takahashi, “Landmark Japan-South Korea Deal Backs Obama’s Asia Rebalance,” Bloomberg, December 29, 2015. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-28/landmark-japan-south-korea-accord-to-fuel-military-cooperation.