Vol. 3, No. 3

Fall 2020
JIPAThe Journal of

Indo-Pacific Affairs

Chief of Staff, US Air Force

Gen Charles Q. Brown, Jr., USAF

Chief of Space Operations, US Space Force

Gen John W. Raymond, USSF

Commander, Air Education and Training Command

Lt Gen Marshall B. Webb, USAF

Commander and President, Air University

Lt Gen James B. Hecker, USAF

Director, Air University Academic Services

Dr. Mehmed Ali

Director, Air University Press

Maj Richard T. Harrison, USAF

Chief of Professional Journals

Maj Richard T. Harrison, USAF

Editorial Staff

Dr. Ernest Gunasekara-Rockwell, Editor

Luyang Yuan, Editorial Assistant

Daniel M. Armstrong, Illustrator

Megan N. Hoehn, Print Specialist

Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs (JIPA)

600 Chennault Circle

Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6010

e-mail: JIPA@au.af.edu

Visit Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs online at https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/.

ISSN 2576-5361 (Print) ISSN 2576-537X (Online)

Published by the Air University Press, The Journal of Indo–Pacific Affairs ( JIPA) is a professional journal of the Department 

of the Air Force and a forum for worldwide dialogue regarding the Indo–Pacific region, spanning from the west coasts of 

the Americas to the eastern shores of Africa and covering much of Asia and all of Oceania. The journal fosters intellectual 

and professional development for members of the Air and Space Forces and the world’s other English-speaking militaries 

and informs decision makers and academicians around the globe.

Articles submitted to the journal must be unclassified, nonsensitive, and releasable to the public. Features represent fully 

researched, thoroughly documented, and peer-reviewed scholarly articles 5,000 to 6,000 words in length. Views articles 

are shorter than Features—3,000 to 5,000 words—typically expressing well-thought-out and developed opinions about 

regional topics. The Commentary section offers a forum about current subjects of interest. These short posts are 1,500 to 

2,500 words in length. Submit all manuscripts to JIPA@au.af.edu.

The views and opinions expressed or implied in JIPA are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the 

official sanction of the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, Air Education and Training Command, 

Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government.

https://www.af.mil/ https://www.aetc.af.mil/ https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/
VOL. 3 NO. 3 FALL 2020

FEATURES

3 India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

Dr. Jagannath P. Panda

22 All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

Japan and Russia’s Territorial Dispute

Dr. David Sacko

Micah Winkley

43 Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

The Uncertainty and Survival of a 

People’s National Aspirations

Zeus Hans Mendez

VIEWS

62 Fresh Whole Blood for the Near-Peer and Immature 

Theater Conflict

Closing a Critical Gap

Lt Col Alex P. Keller IV, MD, USAF

Maj Ryan G. Garrison, DHA, USAF

Col James E. Powell, USAF, retired

72 India’s Deterrence Goldilocks Dilemma in South Asia

Geoffrey Brown

85 Untapped Potential between India and Japan in the Indo-Pacific

Pursuing International Military Education

Vindu Mai Chotani

Dr. Shutaro Sano

BOOK REVIEW

94 India and Nuclear Asia: Forces, Doctrine, and Dangers

by Yogesh Joshi and Frank O’Donnell

The China India Rivalry in the Globalization Era

ed. T.V. Paul

Reviewed by Chris Giuliano
DIGITAL - ONLY FEATURES

97 The United States and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific 

after COVID-19

Kyle Ferrier

112 Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

A Collective Action Problem

Dr. Stephen Burgess

DIGITAL - ONLY VIEW

135 Building the Next Generation of Chinese Military Leaders

Roderick Lee

DIGITAL - ONLY COMMENTARY

146 India’s Indian Ocean Region Strategy

Priyanjoli Ghosh

DIGITAL - ONLY CADET PERSPECTIVE

151 Avoiding Thucydides’ Trap in the Western Pacific through 

the Air Domain

Cadet Colonel Grant T. Willis
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 3

FEATURE

India, the Blue Dot Network, 

and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

Dr. Jagannath P. Panda

Abstract

A debate on moving away from alignments and inching toward alliances is beginning to figure prominently in the Indian foreign policy outlook. The COVID-19 

pandemic has given rise to an upsurge of anti-China rhetoric internationally; this 

has only increased due to continued aggressive posturing by China on land and 

maritime territories. After the Galwan border clash, New Delhi, too, is reviewing 

its “China Connect” and “power-partner” parity with Beijing. Hence, India has 

started looking into other sustainable non-Chinese alliance frameworks, including 

the Blue Dot Network (BDN), a multilateral Indo-Pacific initiative comprising 

the United States (US), Japan, and Australia. Aimed at improving standards of 

infrastructure investment and hailed as a counter initiative to China’s ambitious 

Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the BDN could mark the beginning of a new 

“economic alliance” for India in the Indo-Pacific. This article argues that India’s 

prospective inclusion in the BDN is a geostrategic necessity that can pave the way 

for alternative global supply chain networks and quality infrastructure promotion 

in Asia and beyond as well as allow New Delhi to enhance its long-desired objective of forming a “continental connect” through a “Quad Plus” network.

Introduction

The global geopolitical narrative is becoming increasingly anti-China post the 

outbreak of COVID-19, which was first identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The backlash is primarily focused on Beijing’s initial mishandling of the 

novel coronavirus crisis and suppression of the flow of information about the 

disease. In May 2020, several member nations of the World Health Organization 

(WHO), including India, called for an independent probe into the origins of the 

virus.1 Additionally, US president Donald Trump has been openly attacking 

China for spreading the pandemic, and various global citizen groups and “some 

governments want to sue Beijing for damages and reparations.”2

For India, the military clash in the Galwan Valley in the Himalayan territory of 

Ladakh, on 15 June 2020, has only amplified this anti-China view and given it a 

nationalist trend. Following this incident, boycotting Chinese apps and goods, 

reviewing engagements with China as a “developmental partner,” and aligning 
4 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Panda

more with the United States and US alliance partners in the Indo-Pacific have 

emerged as trending story lines in India. Trump’s plans to include India in the 

expanded G7 (Group of Seven), New Delhi’s new “Comprehensive Strategic” 

partnership with Australia, and the United Kingdom’s offer to include India in 

the new D-10 alliance, a prospective grouping of 10 democracies including South 

Korea, Australia, and the G7 nations that aims to counter China’s monopoly on 

5G technology, all highlight India’s importance as a regional and global power in 

the evolving structure of the Indo-Pacific. Indian foreign minister S. Jaishankar’s 

statement that the Galwan border incident will have “a serious impact on the bilateral relationship”3

 indicates that India is set to review its China policy and 

perhaps transform it significantly.

To state briefly, over the last one and half decade or so, India’s relations with 

China have been primed on a “power-partner” contention.4 Even though the 

“China threat” phenomenon was on the rise at the beginning of the twenty-first 

century, India decided to perceive China more as a multilateral partner within the 

rubrics of emerging powers narrative. For instance, when Prime Minister Atal 

Bihari Vajpayee visited Beijing in 2003, he acknowledged China as a “rising economic power,” envisioning “comprehensive” bilateral ties in the years to come.5

The intent of such a partnership was to gain economic advantage, both within and 

outside the Bretton Woods institutions, without India worrying too much about 

the authoritarian rise of China in world affairs and the threat posed by a rising 

Chinese military to India’s security.6 India’s affiliation with China in the BRICS 

(Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) association of five major emerging 

national economies, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the 

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was primarily a culmination of this 

process. In other words, a partnership with China in multilateral forums was a 

conscious Indian stance to balance Beijing’s rising threat as a military power while 

aiming to take advantage in its association with China as an emerging economic 

partner. The Galwan border incident will have a serious impact on this established 

twenty-first-century Indian policy stance that started in 2003, as India already 

seems to be moving away from its partnership inclination with China, aiming to 

align more and more with the United States.7

In this increasing alignment toward Washington, India’s strategic consonance 

with the United States has become more Indo-Pacific–centric, which will perhaps 

transcend from the economic to the strategic-security spheres in the region. A 

good sign is that the US–India understanding is not only gearing for an alternative 

supply chain network in the post-COVID period but also about to likely expand 

maritime-military cooperation (via Malabar) with a fourth partner, namely Australia, thereby strengthening the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) process 
India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 5

in the Indo-Pacific, along with Japan. However, it remains to be seen to what extent India will depart from its existing China policy in the post-Galwan period. 

There is no dearth of opportunities and challenges, which will test New Delhi’s 

foreign policy resolve to forge a strategic alliance that would be commensurate 

with its economic, maritime, and security mandate in the Indo-Pacific region. The 

BDN, a multistakeholder initiative launched by the United States, Japan, and Australia, which primarily aims to advance an economic alliance framework for quality 

infrastructure promotion in the Indo-Pacific, is one such opportunity for India.

India has largely positioned itself as an anti-BRI nation. Rather than endorsing 

a US-led anti-China narrative, however, New Delhi has promoted a policy of “engagement with equilibrium” with Beijing.8

 Post-Galwan, this narrative can see 

change with an inclination to behave as an anti-China nation, motivating New 

Delhi to become a part of alliance frameworks with partner nations and join initiatives like the BDN. During President Trump’s maiden visit to New Delhi in February 2020, India and the United States discussed the prospects of the BDN;9

however, India refrained from making any commitment to join. New Delhi’s official stance is that “there is a certain level of convergence when we talk about ideas 

. . . but the initiative is a new one, we need a little bit of time to examine it, to study 

it and to revert on this issue,”10 which indicates India’s inclination to join the network. The recent G7 invitation from Trump has certainly raised the prospects of 

India joining the BDN. The BDN is promoted as an exclusive program that is 

widely perceived as an initiative to challenge China’s unilateral and nontransparent 

infrastructure investment and financing pattern in the Indo-Pacific, which Xi Jinping’s BRI promotes.11 Via the Indo-Pacific Business Forum (IPBF),12 the BDN 

intends to bring government, private sector, and civil society together through 

stronger trade and economic ties, as well as foster finance, investment, and technological cooperation.13

Given the rising anti-China narrative across the globe, the scope for promoting 

the BDN as an alternative to the BRI has risen tremendously. So will India, an 

Indo-Pacific partner of the United States and a member of the Quad process (the 

United States, Japan, and Australia being the other members)14 consider joining 

the BDN in the near future? This article aims to examine these prospects in conjunction with the transformation that is taking place in Indian foreign policy.

Blue Dot Network, Belt and Road Initiative, and India

Building and financing quality infrastructure has been a matter of significant 

debate among the United States and other like-minded countries, such as India 

and Australia, particularly in light of the expanding BRI in the Indo-Pacific. The 

BDN, which was initially proposed at the 35th Association of Southeast Asian 
6 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Panda

Nations (ASEAN) summit in Thailand, is an international certification program to 

promote quality infrastructure with a focus on transparency and sustainability—on 

expediting quality infrastructure in the lower- and middle-income countries particularly. Thus, the BDN aims to set a “standard of excellence” against the rising 

debt traps and cheap infrastructure that boosts quantitative and nontransparent 

aspects. In other words, the BDN envisions promoting a transparent and sustainable infrastructural environment as a strategic retaliation to Beijing’s BRI. BDN’s 

main feature is that it follows a project-based investment approach rather than the 

country-based engagement that the BRI conducts, which has promoted debt traps.

Besides, the network, which was launched by the US Trade and Development 

Agency (USTDA), the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and 

the Japan Bank for International Cooperation ( JBIC),15 draws its basis of cooperation on the G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment, the G7 

Charlevoix Commitment on Innovation Financing for Development, and the 

Equator Principles—focusing on transparency and universality ahead of any form 

of unilateral mechanism.16 Such commitment allows the BDN to endorse the 

“free and open” Indo-Pacific essence that the Quad countries advocate. Further, 

with the recent expansion of the Quad process that included countries such as 

New Zealand, South Korea, Brazil, Israel, and Vietnam as new members, a conjectural alliance called “Quad Plus” has been created. This expanded strategic 

consultative framework points to the rapid creation of alignment structures in the 

Indo-Pacific that do not necessarily conform to a US-led alliance structure.17

India joining the BDN would emerge as a critical factor, given New Delhi’s 

opposition to the BRI.18 By joining the BDN, India will be inching much closer 

toward an alliance framework, moving away from alignment structures it has followed until now in its China, and global, policies.19 Since 2013, India has been 

firm in its stand to not endorse the BRI on the grounds that the initiative not only 

overlooks “sovereignty and territorial integrity” of other countries but also ignores 

universally guided norms that ensure “openness” and “equality” in the region.20

Moreover, under the pretext of its principal slogan, “Community of Shared Future 

of Humanity,”21 the BRI is China’s nationalist geo-economic strategy. India has 

displayed its resolute stance by not participating in the two BRI forums held in 

Beijing in May 2017 and April 2019.22

Since its inception, the BRI has posed multiple challenges for India. First, as an 

initiative primarily aimed to enlarge China’s strategic networks throughout the 

neighborhood, the BRI has constrained India’s strategic choices across the immediate and extended neighborhood. New Delhi cannot match Beijing’s financial 

clout, which the latter uses to offer advanced connectivity as well as infrastructural 

development in the region. The initial reported capital of 40 billion USD in 2014 
India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 7

has been key to Beijing’s Silk Road diplomacy, which seems to have only increased 

in the process.23 More importantly, Beijing has emerged as a greater trading partner with most of India’s neighbors in South and Southeast Asia and the Indian 

Ocean Region (IOR).

Second, India is concerned that the BRI investments in the region are slowly 

changing the status quo by interfering in a country’s sovereignty and territorial 

integrity, for example, in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), where China is violating India’s historical claims by building the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. 

The same has also been noticed in the case of the South China Sea, where Beijing 

seems to be emerging as an assertive and revisionist maritime colonial power with 

massive military-maritime infrastructure build-up so as to change the existing status quo. China’s approach aims to create a strategic divide among the claimant 

countries, particularly after the landmark Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) 

ruling on the dispute between the Philippines and China, which denied China’s 

“historic” claims in the region. In this regard, with the US government releasing its 

official “position” on the SCS on 13 July 2020 that deems Chinese claims “completely unlawful,” the scope to build US–India SCS synergy has increased.24

Third, the BRI’s Maritime Silk Road component that controls port financing 

and establishment, as well as builds commercial points and maritime assets, poses 

future strategic risks for India in the IOR. In other words, India’s major concerns 

include rising instances of unpayable debt load in the BRI beneficiary countries—

in effect, worries about an impending debt crisis in region—and Beijing’s growing 

assertive posture owing to its military-commercial infrastructure construction 

activities: e.g., building ports and new naval bases.

Nonetheless, as mentioned earlier, Beijing’s “charm offensive” strategy of pursuing a stronger public diplomacy through project financing across the IndoPacific region has constrained India’s strategic choices significantly.25 However, 

due to the lack of an effective international coalition against the BRI, thus far, 

India’s firm opposition has held little relevance. The relevant question, therefore, 

is: can the BDN, which is increasingly being regarded as a balance to China’s 

nontransparent investment outreach, act as such a coalition?

India’s Indo-Pacific Outreach—the BDN Advantage

Under the aegis of its Act East Policy, India has revamped and restructured 

its Asia ties and Indo-Pacific outreach. Indian initiatives like Sagarmala, Project 

Mausam, the Cotton Route, and Security and Growth for All in the Region 

(SAGAR) can provide collaborative opportunities. Some of their key aspects 

are as follows:
8 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Panda

1. Sagarmala (a Hindi term that literally translates as “ocean necklace”) is 

India’s ambitious port development initiative. As part of the project, a 

National Perspective Plan (NPP) was released at the National Maritime 

Summit 2016; the NPP aims at revitalizing 7,500 km of India’s coastline; 

14,500 km of navigable waterways; and its maritime sector.26

2. Under Project Mausam, the aim is to study monsoon patterns in order to 

better connect Indian Ocean littoral nations by building on cultural connections to empower maritime livelihoods.27

3. The revival of India’s Cotton Route initiative comes as a low-key counter to 

China’s Silk Route and aims at improving India’s ties with Central Asian 

nations (major producers of cotton) by not only building “dialogue and coordination” between them but also reviving ancient routes of cotton trade.28

4. SAGAR highlights India’s vision for the Indo-Pacific, and it is not an 

anti-China initiative. The program underscores India’s Indo-Pacific engagements by promoting the Indian Navy’s ties with nations of the region 

and beyond.29

These four initiatives cover infrastructural, cultural, trade, and security factors 

of India’s Indo-Pacific and broader Asiatic ambitions. Among these neighborhood policy frameworks, India’s port development programs and other maritime 

initiatives in the IOR are of utmost importance,30 and this is where the BDN 

could be of strategic advantage to India. The (re)introduction of these aforementioned maritime initiatives is aimed at reestablishing the bygone structural connections between India’s export-import supply chain networks in the IOR.31 India 

has identified a total of 577 commercial coastal projects between 2015–2035 for 

port modernization and development, port-linked industrialization, connectivity 

promotion, and community-based development.32 Linking some of these initiatives with the BDN is bound to exemplify India’s strategic standing in the IOR.

Furthermore, India’s Indo-Pacific outlook, as emphasized by External Affairs 

Minister S. Jaishankar in 2019, is “for something” rather than “against someone.”33

The spirit of SAGAR is inward-looking, and its policies look oceanward. The 

free-and-open spirit resonates with other like-minded partners—the Quad 

members—and focuses on how countries together can progress faster through an 

inclusive rather than an exclusive policy. Yet, a practical implementation of these 

ideas or an actualization of such policy prophecy necessitates capital investment, 

capacity building, and a consultative-cooperative mode of practice that a proposition like the BDN could shape. In the post-Galwan framework and post-COVID 

world order, India’s Indo-Pacific inclusivity approach will also see a more nuanced 

and guided China angle that is both welcoming and wary.
India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 9

The rise of an assertive China, the eastward trajectory of global economic and 

geopolitical centers, the onset of the “Asian Century,” and a dwindling US presence in the East at present form the crux of strategic transitioning in the international order. These factors, coupled with national security interests and internal 

developments, have allowed India to enhance its presence, both on land and sea, 

in its strategic neighborhood as well as the world. About 95 percent of India’s 

total trade by volume and over 65 percent in terms of value is transported via the 

sea; hence, the maritime zone is a strategic priority.34 The United States’ growing 

focus on the Indo-Pacific and Asia, coupled with India’s active efforts to create 

new opportunities for mutual growth and development in the region, provides 

convergence opportunities between like-minded nations. The Trump administration, in its 2017 National Security Strategy, while putting “America First,” named 

India “a leading global power and stronger strategic and defense partner.”35 Prime 

Minister Narendra Modi, too, had highlighted in his address before the US Congress in 2016 that “a strong India-U.S. partnership can anchor peace, prosperity 

and stability from Asia to Africa and from Indian Ocean to the Pacific.”36

Connectivity promotion and infrastructure diplomacy have emerged as key features of India’s neighborhood diplomacy. Making use of its strategic location, India 

is currently expanding its tactical wings through its Act East Policy, Link West 

Policy, and SAGAR program. India’s acceptance and endorsement of the Quad 

Plus narrative also points to New Delhi’s growing embrace of Washington’s worldview and policy overtures. Sharing the common aim to defend the liberal world 

order, the Quad has found new like-minded partners in South Korea, New Zealand, and Vietnam—all strongly connected to China economically and with largescale infrastructural needs of their own. The BDN, too, has the same primary policy 

ambit of free and rules-based world order. Thus, if India decides to join the network, it will pave the way for a Quad Plus inclusion, as a growing synergy between 

the nations seems to be actualizing amid the COVID-19 pandemic. India’s decision to join will hold important significance in maintaining status security for the 

United States, promote India’s own net-security provider role as an Indo-Pacific 

power, and check China’s rise as a revisionist power. In this regard, BDN is critical 

to the US Indo-Pacific strategy vis-à-vis China and the BRI.

The United States needs a strong and stable India to further America’s Chinacontainment strategy, and India’s domestic economic stability and strength will 

develop only with successful implementation of its projects. Sagarmala can proceed much faster and stronger with US investments. The project involves largescale infrastructural spending, ranging up to 70,000 crore INR, with a thrust on 

port-led infrastructure development.37 One of the primary goals of this initiative 

is to reduce logistics costs and make India more competitive in the global market: 
10 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Panda

India’s current logistics costs are almost thrice that of China’s.38 Meanwhile, Project Mausam has the potential of serving as a major technology cooperation opportunity for the United States and India.

India’s Cotton Route connectivity initiative with Central Asian nations has 

been facing the brunt of the ongoing US–China trade war, as international cotton markets have suffered severe losses. Further, the existing US–India trade 

tensions are not providing any impetus to economic growth either. Nonetheless, 

India is a major defense and strategic partner of the United States, and SAGAR 

is already receiving positive results with exercises like Tiger Triumph. Therefore, 

a more nuanced cooperative partnership that converges strategic and domestic 

initiatives can provide more complementarity to budding US–India ties. India 

must tap into potential cooperative engagement with the United States via initiatives like the BDN. With Japan and Australia as partners, BDN offers a readyto-use platform for heightened cooperation across the region by building on the 

Quad strategic forum as well.

The BDN aims to function on a regional partnership model; implementation 

of this model has already seen entry into India via investments in education and a 

training project for procurement workers in Maharashtra.39 Being nondependent 

on taxpayers’ money, the US International Development Finance Corporation 

has, with Congressional approval, managed to raise 60 billion USD for the project 

at present. Though the BDN is still not clear about its long-term strategic intent, 

it is, however, safe to assume that the primary focus is going to be increasing the 

US presence in the Indo-Pacific region. India has much to gain from the initiative: most importantly, even though Beijing, being aware of the implications of 

the BDN, has been criticizing it for being anti-China—for the moment that is all 

China can do. Beijing cannot oppose, at least on principle, private investments in 

the region. It is here that India must find its leeway in the post–COVID-19 order 

to sell New Delhi’s strategic presence in the BDN as an anti-BRI, a prodevelopment, and a leading economic recovery power, especially in a world that 

will be facing the reverberations of this health pandemic for a long time. Also, 

with animosity between Beijing and New Delhi growing post-Galwan, India’s 

ties with its Quad partners take on more importance than before.

A Coalition of “Like-mindedness”—India’s Choice

The BDN has certainly raised the possibility of an international coalition of 

like-minded countries ready to question, and possibly engage in a counter-capacity 

building exercise, the controversial BRI. The scope of the BDN is exclusive: to 

offer an alternate platform on quality and sustainable infrastructure while creating 

strategic awareness over the unilateral, nontransparent, and colonialist aspects of 
India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 11

the BRI. The BDN aims to “grade infrastructure financing through a certification 

process” that is compliant with international standards.40 The objectives are twofold: improving transparency, quality, and legitimacy for infrastructure financing 

and development, while raising questions on unilateral and nontransparent financing patterns that the BRI encourages in region. Thus, as also mentioned 

above, the scheme becomes significant for a range of middle-income countries, 

including India, seeking infrastructure development financing, especially those 

that are skeptical of Chinese funding overtures.

The BDN addresses India’s concerns about the BRI in the region. The BRI 

exhibits China’s revisionist approach in the Indo-Pacific: Beijing has transitioned 

from a “neo-mercantilist power”41 to a “neo-imperialist power.”42 These concerns 

compliment the broader strategic apprehensions of the Quad too—as a neoimperialist power, China exercises political command through economic leverage, 

transitioning from the low-profile risk-averse choices that a neo-mercantilist 

power would generally exhibit.43 Arguably as the richest government in modern 

history, China’s more than 3 trillion USD foreign reserves44 allow it to pursue a 

strategy of “charm offensive” through impressive project financing strategies that 

India can hardly rival. Unsustainable practices, nontransparent financing, and 

stronger political contacts in the region have further complicated India’s choices. 

Thus, China’s neo-imperialist power base in India’s backyard might encourage 

New Delhi to consider joining the BDN in the post-COVID period.

More than this, India choosing to join the BDN will imply a move toward 

improving quality infrastructure and connectivity beyond domestic needs. As an 

Indo-Pacific initiative, the BDN aims to grade infrastructure financing across the 

Indo-Pacific through a ratings system of international standards.45 By implementing a certification process, it will ensure transparency and confidence among economically weaker countries. As an emerging economy and a rising Indo-Pacific 

power, India’s quest for quality infrastructure domestically and search for finance 

to promote its connectivity network across the immediate and extended neighborhood might make the BDN a natural choice.

A partaking in the BDN would imply a strategic modification in India’s IndoPacific narrative. For long, New Delhi’s policy drew on its SAGAR vision,46 which 

emphasizes inclusiveness, without engaging in a “power containment” strategy. In 

fact, the India–China chronicle suggests that India’s approach to China was always based on a case-by-case model; for example, India, as a founding member 

along with China, fully accepted the establishment of the AIIB for infrastructure 

financing and connectivity promotion in the region.

Perhaps India’s post-Galwan China policy will decidedly change this process: 

China will no longer be seen as a partner, economic or otherwise. The new policy 
12 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Panda

will likely focus on today’s realities, putting India’s security and sovereignty interests above other benefits. India will also not hesitate to resort to a confrontational 

measure, if needed. Thus, India’s foreign policy will actively pursue alignments with 

new partners, those who can potentially facilitate its emergence as an Indo-Pacific 

power. Hence, the US strategic frameworks like Quad Plus and BDN will take a 

primary place in the foreign policy overtures of New Delhi in times to come.47

By endorsing the Quad Plus ambit, India seems to be embracing the US worldview. Washington has reciprocated by involving India in the newly expanded G7. 

The Galwan incident can be expected to further build this synergy with the United 

States, which is “closely monitoring” the situation between India and China. In 

such a scenario, the BDN allows India to create an “economic alliance exercise” 

poised to shape the post-COVID world order, which is expected to exact a heavy 

price on international trade and supply chain networks.48

The BDN is a strategic launch that focuses on the US interests in the IndoPacific. It is meant to strengthen the US alliances and security partnerships across 

the region that have roots in the “China containment” policy. Moreover, it is 

similar to the other US initiatives in the region, such as Digital Connectivity and 

Cybersecurity Partnership (DCCP), Infrastructure Transaction and Assistant 

Network (ITAN), Asia Enhancing Development and Growth through Energy 

(Asia EDGE), and the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act of 2018.49 Accentuated indirectly by these other US initiatives, BDN will seek to strengthen a conjoined US attempt at rebuilding American presence in the Indo-Pacific.

For long, the US “carrot-and-stick” policy (primarily implemented for Iran)50—

a combination of US diplomacy and economic and military prowess that was 

implemented mainly during the Barack Obama administration—was unable to 

totally dissuade Beijing from challenging the former’s security order. Rather, massive Chinese adventurism through the BRI has challenged US supremacy in the 

Indo-Pacific. The Trump administration’s initiatives such as the BDN, the DCCP, 

ITAN, Asia EDGE, and the BUILD Act, therefore, intend to not only challenge 

Chinese adventurism in the Indo-Pacific but also strengthen Washington’s strategic outreach. To this effect, the United States would prefer an “India plus BDN” 

framework. This would also enhance the Quad’s “sphere of influence” in the subregions of the Indo-Pacific, namely Southeast Asia, South Asia, and the IOR, 

where Beijing has emerged as the number one trading partner, much to the credit 

of its BRI diplomacy.

The BDN is the first multistakeholder, multilateral project in the Indo-Pacific 

advocated by the United States, and Indian presence in the network is vital for 

Washington. US Indo-Pacific strategies largely focus around India as a strategic 
India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 13

partner; the South Asia office of the US Agency for International Development 

(USAID) functions out of New Delhi and is responsible for the implementation 

of ASIA Edge and ITAN in the region. In addition, the United States considers 

the Quad members as central to its Indo-Pacific strategy; Washington’s Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (ARIA) of 2018 regards the grouping as “vital to address 

the pressing security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region.” While India is cautious about its role in the Quad, Indian presence in the BDN will go a long way 

in strengthening the US’s Quad ambition.

“India Plus BDN” Strengthens the Quad Process

India’s prospect of joining the BDN has substantially grown following its recent 

Ladakh standoff with China. It will rest on whether India finds strategic consonance in its partnerships with the United States, Japan, and Australia in an age of 

Quad Plus. An “India plus BDN” will not only strengthen the Quad process but 

also trilateral frameworks like India–Australia–Japan, US–India–Australia, and 

US–India–Japan, providing a much-needed economic synergy boost in postCOVID ties. Nevertheless, a prospective India plus BDN setup is primarily dependent upon the India–US partnership.

The United States has accorded a special standing to India as a partner in its 

“Free and Open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP) strategy, as also in its energy and defense 

sectors. For example, Asia EDGE has strengthened India–US energy cooperation. USAID under Asia EDGE is working with India to promote New Delhi’s 

energy mission for providing “Power for All,” targeting 175 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2022 and modernization of the large energy sector.51 India’s involvement in the BDN might encourage a much more serious energy-specific 

cooperation across the Indo-Pacific, especially considering the growing relevance 

of the sea lines of communication.

Also, a cooperation framework like the BDN will allow India to address the 

urgency borne out of China’s increasing military-maritime-commercial footprint 

in the IOR. For instance, China’s warship presence in the IOR during the Maldives political crisis in 2018 signaled Beijing’s growing ambitions.52 Earlier, in 

2017, Maldives had signed a free trade agreement with China as part of the 

Maritime Silk Road.53 Moreover, in September 2019, Chinese vessels entered the 

Indian exclusive economic zone near the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which 

was perceived as a strategic challenge to Indian maritime superiority.54

A stronger regional partnership with Japan could be another motivating factor 

for India joining the BDN. Tokyo’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Vision has a 

stronger anti-China perspective, apart from other national security imperatives in 

the maritime domain.55 China’s charm-offensive economic strategy and maritime 
14 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Panda

coercive diplomacy have increasingly constrained Japan’s strategic choices across 

Asia. Japan’s infrastructure investment is witnessing a growing contest from BRI 

investments in Southeast Asia.56 China has not only replaced Tokyo as the top 

development financier in Southeast Asia but is also seeking to overthrow Japan in 

providing better “quality infrastructure.” The large-scale Chinese economy, which 

currently is roughly two-and-a half times the size of the Japanese economy, high 

military expenditure, and increasing infrastructure investment packages to Southeast Asia have compelled Japan to look for new partners through the Expanded 

Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (EPQI). Therefore, Japan needs reliable 

partnerships, both within and outside the region, and India’s Act East Policy 

emerges as a natural partner to the EPQI. The BDN comes in handy in this regard; 

India’s decision to join will only strengthen Japan’s strategic forte in the region.

Further, this changing distribution of wealth, influence, and power in the region could also be a strong motivating factor for India to consider joining the 

BDN. Japan is a long-term economic investor in India, having emerged as the 

third-largest investor.57 For India, the benefits will be wider access to Japanese 

technologies and infrastructural projects, which enjoy a high reputation of ensuring transparency and quality products. Also, at a time when India’s domestic infrastructure needs massive upgrading, a partnership with Japan under the framework of the BDN will be to India’s advantage. Moreover, such a partnership could 

aid in scuttling the prospects of China’s BRI in the region. In the post-Galwan 

period when India is reviewing Chinese investments in the country, this partnership looks even more promising.

More importantly, in India’s consideration, Tokyo’s FOIP is primarily aimed at 

securitizing Japan’s strategic interests and assets in the Indo-Pacific. Japan’s involvement in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), 

Comprehensive Partnership of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and 

Japan-European Union Economic Partnership Agreement are still not enough to 

replace the strong consumer market that Beijing has built over the years and the 

large manufacturing powerhouse of Chinese industries.58 China is Japan’s top 

import and export destination; hence, a continued engagement is vital. At the 

same time, Japan’s involvement in the BDN is an attempt to gradually break away 

from this overdependence, which has been made starkly evident post the COVID 

effect on the global supply chains. The BDN provides a West-centered counter to 

China’s BRI but does not espouse an outwardly China-containment policy. Tadashi Maeda, governor of the JBIC, has said that the BDN draws on “the promotion of quality infrastructure investment committed by G20 countries.”59 Hence, 

Japan aims to expand a quality infrastructural campaign through the BDN while 

pursuing a China-disentanglement strategy with its Quad partners. Finally, for 
India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 15

the two countries, India joining the BDN would further reinforce the bilateral 

India–Japan resolve to expedite the process of developing industrial corridors 

across the Indo-Pacific (e.g. “Platform for Japan-India Business Cooperation in 

Asia-Africa Region”).60

Likewise, for Canberra, participation in the BDN strengthens its “Pacific Setup” program, which is aimed at augmenting Australia’s stature in the regional and 

global order.61 A greater desire for India and Australia to work together in the 

region as custodians of the liberal order has been visible through the latter’s announcement of the new South Asia Regional Infrastructure Connectivity 

(SARIC) initiative, which would support regional economic connectivity along 

with quality infrastructure in South Asia through a 25 million USD investment 

over four years.62 Moreover, Australia is looking toward India and other potential 

partners to boost infrastructure in the Pacific Islands through developmental 

projects as part of Canberra’s Pacific Set-up initiative, especially amid the increasing Chinese footprint in the region. Nevertheless, infrastructural cooperation 

between India and Australia remains at a nascent stage, and the India plus BDN 

could transform the bilateral ties into a developmental partnership.

Of late, Canberra has been showing greater signs of caution regarding China’s 

grand infrastructural initiative, particularly in response to the BRI’s autarkic governance, project transparency, amorphous rules for the dispute mediation, and 

increasing instances of debt-trap diplomacy in the Pacific Ocean region. Six Pacific governments are currently in debt to China: Fiji, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, 

Tonga, Cook Islands, and Vanuatu.63 It is against the backdrop of China’s opaque 

developmental projects that Australia has introduced its new debt-financing initiatives as part of its broader Pacific Step-up, besides spearheading the BDN. 

Australia reiterated these reservations in its foreign policy white paper in 2017, 

which noted China’s intent to use economic power and infrastructural projects to 

meet strategic ends.64 Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull further echoed 

the sentiments in his statement in October 2017, in which he propounded that 

Canberra would be engaging in “specific projects and investments rather than 

engaging in generalities.”65

At the same time, Australia is one of the founding members of the China-led 

AIIB.66 In fact, Australia is the sixth largest shareholder in the AIIB,67 having 

contributed 738 million USD to the organization over the last five years. In other 

words, Australia’s China policy has been similar to India’s: both perceived the 

AIIB as a plausible model for a China-led multilateral initiative that promotes 

rules-based operations, transparency in lending practices, and an accountable and 

differentiated governance model, unlike the BRI. This complementarity between 

the Indian and Australian developmental approaches could be fortified through 
16 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Panda

the BDN. The envisioned infrastructural initiatives could be a promising platform 

for them to enhance their respective influence in the region.

Further, moving investments out of China in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, which has highlighted extreme dependence on China-based supply chains, 

is a difficult task for nations that cannot afford relocation costs.68 Investing in 

infrastructure needs instead, which allows boost in domestic growth and, in turn, 

creates prudent locations for industrial growth, is a far more feasible angle. The 

BDN can help in improving the “ease of doing business” ranking, making infrastructural promotion far more feasible for nations like Vietnam, South Korea, 

Japan, and India, all are part of the Quad Plus process, which are looking to attract 

large-scale investments but have more stringent policies.

Summing Up

India is still rightly weighing its options as far as joining the BDN is concerned: 

Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla has stated that despite convergence on 

the BDN, important foreign policy decisions require due process.69 While the 

BRI is a national security and sovereignty threat to India, Trump’s “America 

First”70 policy and the US–India trade concerns are no simplistic ordeals either.71

India and the United States first need a common minimum program that outlines 

their mutually shared priorities on China and its BRI upon which the New Delhi 

and Washington can hash out their differences.

India must keep in mind that the growing tensions between the United States 

and China are unlikely to disappear soon. In the post-COVID world, Washington and Beijing are likely to maintain their mutually confrontational stances. 

Graham Allison, in his recent Foreign Policy article, talks about the increasing 

chances of the two falling into the “Thucydides trap.”72 India, as an emerging 

power in the Indo-Pacific, must walk a fine line and must not adopt a blatant 

anti-China approach. At the same time, India must not appear to snub the United 

States by rejecting the BDN outright. As has been discussed already, the BDN 

needs to be considered carefully, as it offers several regional benefits that are strategically significant to India.

The BDN will help strengthen ties with all the Quad members: Japan and 

Australia were disappointed by India’s withdrawal from the RCEP; the BDN has 

reignited those hopes. Moreover, as a multistakeholder initiative, the BDN would 

not only be able to involve important regional powers under the same umbrella 

but also improve their bilateral ties. Such a developed-developing coalition that 

aims to counter Chinese aggressiveness in the region has immense potential in 

this imaginary Asian Century.
India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 17

The BDN will also strengthen third-country cooperation, especially in supply 

chain and value networks. India and the United States have mutually agreed to 

include third-country cooperation as part of their strategic convergence in the 

Indo-Pacific: in February 2020, the leaders of the two nations talked about cooperation in third countries through a new partnership between USAID and India’s 

Development Partnership Administration.73 Earlier, in 2019, they signed the 

First Amendment to the Statement of Guiding Principles (SGP) on Triangular 

Cooperation for Global Development;74 and the second US-India 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue envisioned further cooperation in new areas via joint-judicial workshops between third-country partners.75

The Quad alliance can transform into one of the most dynamic economic and 

strategic Indo-Pacific partnerships of the post-COVID times. The Quad Plus 

grouping should for now though focus on recoveries from the COVID-induced 

economic setbacks, while formulating ways toward achieving economic selfsufficiency. For example, members should consider eliminating trade and investment barriers and invest in strategic initiatives like the BDN.76 As Xi Jinping’s 

China comes under greater global scrutiny in the post-COVID era—the BRI in 

particular has attracted controversy because of debt-ridden nations unable to pay 

off loans in these financially difficult times—the United States, Japan, and Australia must utilize this opportunity to strengthen the BDN. They must carefully induce India to join and also extend the invitation to the new Quad Plus countries.

India must see the BDN as an extension of the Quad (as also the Quad Plus 

now) that has allowed New Delhi to create a “continental connect” and “corridor 

of communication.”77 It should therefore actively pursue engagements with nonChina friendly countries, such as Japan, Australia, and the United States. India 

has to become more self-reliant and less dependent on China-led global supply 

chain mechanisms. Joining the BDN is a step in the right direction toward creating alternative supply chain and value mechanisms, boosting infrastructure investments, and protecting national interests in the wake of a resurgent and 

hyper-aggressive China. 

Dr. Jagannath P. Panda

Dr. Panda is a research fellow and center coordinator for East Asia at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence 

Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), New Delhi, India. He is the series editor for Routledge Studies on Think Asia. Dr. 

Panda is an expert on China and Indo-Pacific security with a primary focus on East Asia: China, Japan, and the 

Korean Peninsula. He is the author of India-China Relations: Politics of Resources, Identity and Authority in a Multipolar 

World Order (Routledge, 2017) and China’s Path to Power: Party, Military and the Politics of State Transition (Pentagon 

Press, 2010). He has edited many books. Most recently, he has published the edited volumes Scaling India-Japan Cooperation in Indo-Pacific and Beyond 2025: Connectivity, Corridors and Contours (KW Publishing Ltd., 2019) and The Korean Peninsula and Indo-Pacific Power Politics: Status Security at Stake (Routledge: 2020).
18 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Panda

Notes

1. “WHO Agrees to Calls from Countries for an Independent Virus Probe,” Wire, 19 May 

2020, https://thewire.in/.

2. Steven Erlanger, “Global Backlash Builds against China over Coronavirus,” New York Times, 

3 May 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/.

3. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “Phone Call between External Affairs 

Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar and Foreign Minister of China, H.E. Mr. Wang Yi,” 17 June 2020, 

https://www.mea.gov.in/.

4. Jagannath P. Panda, “China as a Revisionist Power in Indo-Pacific and India’s Perception: A 

Power-Partner Contention,” Journal of Contemporary China, 19 May 2020, doi: 10.1080/10670564

.2020.1766906.

5. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “Statement by Prime Minister Shri Atal 

Bihari Vajpayee on His departure for People’s Republic of China,” 22 June 2003. Also see, Atal 

Bihari Vajpayee, “India & China: Challenges and Opportunities in the IT Sector,” speech by the 

Indian Prime Minister, 26 June 2003.

6. Jagannath P. Panda, “Asian Equilibrium: India’s Overture to China,” in India and China in 

Asia: Between Equilibrium and Equations, ed. Jagannath P. Panda (New Delhi: Routledge, 2019), 

43–64.

7. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India , “Declaration on Principles for Relations and Comprehensive Cooperation between the Republic of India and the People’s Republic 

of China,” 23 June 2003, https://www.mea.gov.in/.

8. In a pragmatic manner aimed at bringing about a “parity of power,” India’s China policy has 

maintained a narrative of nationalist trends within the country by supporting economic engagement with equilibrium. Read, Jagannath Panda, “Narendra Modi’s China policy: between pragmatism and power parity”, Journal of Asian Public Policy, 31 March 2016, doi: 10.1080/17516234.

2016.1165334.

9. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “Joint Statement: Vision and Principles 

for India–U.S. Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership,” 25 February 2020, https://mea.gov.in/.

10. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “Transcript of Special Media Briefing 

by Foreign Secretary (February 25, 2020),” 26 February 2020, https://mea.gov.in/ .

11. Mercy A. Cuo, “Blue Dot Network: The Belt and Road Alternative: Insights from Matthew P. Goodman,” Diplomat, 7 April 2020, https://thediplomat.com/.

12. US Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), “Indo-Pacific Business Forum,” Bangkok–Nonthaburi, Thailand, 4 November 2019, https://www.indopacificbusinessforum.com/.

13. US Department of State, “Blue Dot Network,” accessed 3 July 2020, https://www.state.gov/.

14. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “Question No. 2411 Features of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue,” Unstarred Question, Rajya Sabha, 3 July 2019, https://mea.gov.in/.

15. USTDA, https://ustda.gov; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government, at https://www.dfat.gov.au; Japan Bank for International Cooperation, https://www

.jbic.go.jp/en/.

16. US Department of States, “Blue Dot Network.”

17. Jagannath Panda, “India and the ‘Quad Plus’ Dialogue,” Royal United Services Institute 

(RUSI) Commentary, 12 June 2020, https://rusi.org/.

18. “The ‘Blue Dot Network’ and India,” OBOReurope, 29 February 2020, https://www.obor 

europe.com/.
India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 19

19. Jagannath Panda, “Alignment Minus Alliance: India’s China Quandary on Alternative Institution Building,” Georgetown Journal of Asian Affairs, 2015, https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/.

20. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “Official Spokesperson’s Response to 

a Query on Participation of India in OBOR/BRI Forum,” 13 May 2017, https://mea.gov.in/; 

and Unstarred Question, Lok Sabha, “Question No.849 One Belt and One Road Initiative,” 26 

June 2019, https://mea.gov.in/.

21. Xinhua, “Commentary: Building a Community with Shared Future for Mankind Key to 

Maintaining Peace, Prosperity in Asia-Pacific,” Xinhuanet, 2 June 2019, http://www.xinhuanet.com/.

22. Ministry of External Affairs, “Official Spokesperson’s Response”; “Question No. 849.”

23. “Silk Road Fund,” accessed 5 July 2020, http://www.silkroadfund.com.cn/.

24. US Department of State, Government of the United States of America, “U.S. Position on 

Maritime Claims in the South China Sea,” 13 July 2020, https://www.state.gov/.

25. Tony Tai-Ting Liu, “Public Diplomacy: China’s Newest Charm Offensive,” E-International 

Relations, 30 December 2018, https://www.e-ir.info/.

26. Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, “Background,” accessed 5 July 2020, www

.sagarmala.gov.in/.

27. Ministry of Culture, Government of India, “Project Mausam,” accessed 5 July 2020, http://

www.indiaculture.nic.in/.

28. Iftikhar Gilani, “Cotton Route to Counter China’s Silk route,” DNA, 13 December 2016, 

https://www.dnaindia.com/.

29. “SAGAR Stands for Security and Growth for All in the Region: PM Modi at International 

Fleet Review in Vishakhapatnam,” Narendra Modi, 7 November 2016, https://www.narendramodi.in/.

30. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “Statement by Foreign Secretary in 

Victoria ( January 27, 2018),” 27 January 2018, https://www.mea.gov.in/.

31. Ibid.; Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “External Affairs Minister’s Address at International Conference on ‘India and Indian Ocean: Renewing the Maritime Trade and 

Civilizational Linkages’ in Bhubaneswar,” 20 March 2015, https://mea.gov.in/.

32. Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, “How Many Projects Are Envisaged to be 

Taken Up under the Sagarmala Programme? What Is the Current Status of Projects Identified 

under Sagarmala?,” SAGARMALA, 11 October 2018, http://sagarmala.gov.in/.

33. US Department of State, “Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo and Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar at a Press Availability,” remarks to the press, 26 June 2019, https://

www.state.gov/.

34. Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, Annual Report 2019–20, accessed July 7, 2020, 

http://shipmin.gov.in/.

35. White House, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, December 2017, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/.

36. Narendra Modi, “A Strong India-U.S. Partnership Can Anchor Peace, Prosperity & Stability across the World: PM Modi,” 8 June 2016, https://www.narendramodi.in/.

37. “Sagarmala project: Government to spend Rs 70,000 crore on 12 major ports, says Nitin 

Gadkari,” Economic Times, 16 October 2015, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.

38. Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, “Concept and Objectives,” SAGARMALA, 

accessed 8 July 2020, http://sagarmala.gov.in/.

39. US Embassy and Consulates in India, “USTDA partners with the State of Maharashtra, 

India to promote value-based procurement,” 24 April 2018, https://in.usembassy.gov/.
20 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Panda

40. US Department of States, “Blue Dot Network.”

41. Peter Pham, “Why Do All Roads Lead to China?,” Forbes, 20 March 2018, https://www

.forbes.com/.

42. Richard E. Caroll, “The Rise of Chinese Neo-Imperialism,” International Policy Digest, 5 

December 2019, https://intpolicydigest.org/.

43. Mikael Wigell, “Conceptualizing Regional Powers’ Geoeconomic Strategies: NeoImperialism, Neo-Mercantilism, Hegemony, and Liberal Institutionalism,” Asia Europe Journal, 

no. 14 (2016): 135–151, https://link.springer.com/.

44. Huizhong Wu and Hallie Gu, “China’s September Forex Reserves Fall to $3.092 Trillion,” 

Reuters, 6 October 2019, https://in.reuters.com/.

45. India’s might draws its motivation to join BDN due to its double offer of improving transparency, quality, and legitimacy for infrastructure financing while questioning the BRI’s financing 

patterns across the Indo-Pacific, i.e., by encouraging the weaker economies to lessen their reliance 

on Chinese funding.

46. Ministry of External Affairs: Government of India, “Address by External Affairs Minister 

at the 2nd Indian Ocean Conference (August 31, 2017),” 31 August 2017, https://mea.gov.in/.

47. Jagannath Panda, “India’s China Policy Signals a Shift Post-Galwan,” India Inc., 28 June 

2020, https://indiaincgroup.com/.

48. Jagannath Panda, “Will India Pivot towards the US after Galwan?,” 9DASHLINE, 19 June 

2020, https://www.9dashline.com/.

49. US Department of State, “A FREE AND OPEN INDO-PACIFIC,” 4 November 2019, 

https://www.state.gov/.

50. Roger Hardy, “Barack Obama Applies Carrot and Stick to Iran,” BBC News, 21 September 

2010, https://www.bbc.com/; and Christopher Condon and Angela Greiling Keane, “Obama 

Treads Fine Line with Carrot-and-Stick Approach on Iran,” Bloomberg, 18 January 2016, https://

www.bloomberg.com/.

51. USAID, “Partnership for Energy Access and Security – India and South Asia,” accessed 5 

July 2020, https://www.usaid.gov/.

52. “Chinese Warships Enter East Indian Ocean amid Maldives Tensions,” Reuters, 20 February 2018, https://www.reuters.com/.

53. “Maldives Signs FTA with China, Endorses MSR Project,” Economic Times, 8 December 

2017, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.

54. Liu Zhen, “Chinese Research Vessel Expelled by Indian Warship for Operating near Andaman and Nicobar Islands,” South China Morning Post, 4 December 2019, https://www.scmp.com/.

55. Tsuneo “Nabe” Watanabe, “Japan’s Rationale for the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy,” 

Sasakawa Peace Foundation, 30 October 2019, https://www.spf.org/.

56. Nyshka Chandran, “Japan, Not China, May Be Winning Asia’s Infrastructure Investment 

Contest,” CNBC, 23 January 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/.

57. Sobia Khan, “Japanese Investors Flock to India’s Realty Market,” Economic Times, 12 February 2020, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.

58. Stephen R. Nagy, “Japan’s Precarious Indo-Pacific Balance,” Japan Times, 14 November 

2019, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/.

59. Chris Devonshire-Ellis, “What Is the ‘Blue Dot’ Infrastructure Network?,” Silk Road Briefing, 19 November 2019, https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/.
India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 21

60. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “India-Japan Vision Statement,” 29 

October 2018, https://www.mea.gov.in/.

61. Stephen Kuper, “Australia Joins Blue Dot Network in Attempt to Counter Beijing’s Belt 

and Road,” Defence Connect, 13 November 2019, https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/.

62. Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, “Australia Announces Regional Connectivity Initiative in S Asia 

with India as Pivot,” Economic Times, 9 January 2019, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.

63. Toland Rajah, Alexandre Dayant, and Jonathan Pryke, “Ocean of Debt? Belt and Road 

and Debt Diplomacy in the Pacific,” Lowy Institute analysis, 21 October 2019, https://www

.lowyinstitute.org/.

64. Australian Government, 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper, 23 November 2017, https://

www.fpwhitepaper.gov.au.

65. “Turnbull Plays Down Belt and Road Fears,” SBS News, 23 October 2017, https://www

.sbs.com.au/.

66. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank,” Australian Government, https://www.dfat.gov.au/.

67. Huey Fern Tay, “Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Australia Sixth-Biggest Shareholder in China Bank,” ABC News (Australia), 7 July 2015, https://www.abc.net.au/.

68. Jagannath Panda, “New Momentum in India-Australia Ties and Japan,” Japan Forum for 

Strategic Studies, accessed 5 July 2020, www.jfss.gr.jp/.

69. Ministry of External Affairs, “Transcript of Special Media.”

70. Lily Rothman, “The Long History behind Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ Foreign Policy,” 

Time, 28 March 2016, https://time.com/.

71. Trevor Cloen and Irfan Nooruddin, “The U.S.-India Trade Deal Fell Through. What Happens Now?,” Washington Post, 5 March 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/.

72. This refers to a dynamic in which there are chances of a rising power threatening to displace a ruling power that is more likely to result in war. Read, Graham Allison, “The Thucydides 

Trap,” Foreign Policy, 9 June 2017, https://foreignpolicy.com/.

73. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “Comprehensive Global Strategic 

Partnership.”

74. Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, “India, USA Sign Pact for 3rd Country Projects as Part of IndoPacific Partnership,” Economic Times, 29 March 2019, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.

75. US Embassy and Consulates in India, “Joint Statement on the Second U.S.-India 2+2 

Ministerial Dialogue,” accessed 5 July 2020, https://in.usembassy.gov/.

76. Riley Walters, “The Quad Should Promote Economic Freedom for a Quick COVID-19 

Recovery,” Heritage Foundation, 12 May 2020, https://www.heritage.org/.

77. Jagannath Panda, “India’s Continental Connect on Indo-Pacific and Quad 2.0,” East West 

Center, 26 September 2018, https://www.eastwestcenter.org/.
22 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

FEATURE

All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

Japan and Russia’s Territorial Dispute

Dr. David Sacko

Micah Winkley

Abstract1

Japan has disputed Russian ownership of the Northern Territories/Southern 

Kurils since the end of World War II. Security analyses of Asia-Pacific border 

disputes generally focus on the multilateral South China Sea or bilateral East 

China Sea disputes, with only occasional attention paid to the Southern Kurils/

Northern Territories disagreement. Should this decades-long territorial dispute 

between Japan and Russia escalate or become resolved through a stable condominium, strategic stability in Northeast Asia would be affected. Given the numerous failures to resolve the dispute since the end of World War II, this continuing 

dispute remains overlooked despite clear implications for regional US national 

security interests. An escalation of this disagreement could affect the implementation of regional ballistic missile defense infrastructure, maintenance of an effective deterrent against North Korea, and China pressing claims on US allies as part 

of its rise as a regional power. What is the likelihood that Prime Minister Shinzō 

Abe and President Vladimir Putin’s elevated discussions will positively resolve the 

dispute? Through a two-level game analysis of this territorial dispute, this article 

argues that while the elite circumstances have never been better to resolve this 

dispute, popular forces remain significantly divisive, such that the status quo over 

the Northern Territories will remain in place.

Introduction

At the close of World War II, the Soviets seized the four southernmost Kuril 

Islands from Japan. In 1951, the Soviet Union rejected conditions set forth by the 

San Francisco Peace Treaty that would have provided a process to resolve this 

territorial dispute. High-level negotiations between the two states ensued until 

the early 1970s, when Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev declared that there was 

no territorial issue.2 Lack of traction ensued over signing a peace treaty, with the 

territorial dispute remaining the chief obstacle to improving relations between 

Japan and the Russian Federation. Remarkable events since 2016 indicate renewed and positive efforts, however, the likes of which have not been observed in 

decades. In December 2016, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe welcomed 
All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 23

Russian President Vladimir Putin to Japan for the first time in 11 years, hosting 

Putin as the first-ever foreign leader in Abe’s home prefecture. The two leaders 

subsequently unveiled a new agreement for the joint economic development of 

the four disputed Northern Territories under a “special arrangement.” While the 

specifics of such an agreement continue to be negotiated over successive meetings, 

the potential economic activity under consideration could herald the arrival of a 

condominium arrangement (shared sovereignty). As negotiations continue over 

the border dispute, Abe has demonstrated his willingness to move ahead in drawing Russia closer to Japan through other economic ventures. Just one year after 

the 2016 meeting, Abe’s administration had encouraged private-sector investment in the Russian Far East through a cooperation plan that spurred 21 projects, 

worth over 16 billion USD.3 The high volume of meetings between Abe and Putin, coupled with incremental progress on the dispute, has fostered optimistic 

expectations on the Japanese side for a major breakthrough.4

Recent events since 2016 appear to present a distinctively new “window of 

opportunity”5 for resolution of the territorial dispute. Japan experts observing 

each encounter and statement by Putin, Abe, and their close advisers have renewed hope for a resolution. This position expresses optimism that the Northern 

Territories dispute may be resolved through a condominium territorial arrangement6

 or even bilateral security cooperation.7 For much of the territorial dispute’s 

history, however, severely circumscribed bargaining room prevented Japanese 

leaders from moving past an initial stage of asserting claims. As Putin and Abe 

now plumb the linguistic incertitude of previous bilateral statements on the territorial dispute,8

 creative bargaining maneuvers have become necessary to achieve 

a solution that can satisfy the important audiences in each country. While recognizing the significant obstacles that have derailed success in past negotiations, the 

optimistic camp tends to emphasize the positive developments as evidence that 

there is space for resolution before Abe leaves office. In contrast, this article argues 

that powerful barriers will likely impede Abe’s desire to take major steps toward 

resolution, given the time constraints and other important regional security challenges.9

 Putin may also lack the incentives to soften the shock to Russian citizens 

of ceding Russian land gained victoriously from the Japanese in World War II.10

In the end, there may simply be no room for acceptable compromise.11 Using 

Robert Putnam’s two-level game analysis, this article finds that, despite the recent 

favorable conditions for resolution of the territorial dispute, popular forces in Japan—and especially Russia—will foreclose the possibility of overall successful 

diplomatic efforts before Mr. Abe leaves office in 2021.
24 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Sacko & Winkley

Two-Level Game Analysis

Putnam’s “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics”12 analyzes the interrelationship 

between domestic politics and international diplomacy as a “two-level game.” 

Putnam explicitly considers the process in which state leaders negotiating an 

agreement with their foreign counterparts and the subsequent process of submitting the agreement for ratification by their particular domestic “selectorates,” 

whether democratic, autocratic, or semidemocratic. As Putnam states:

The politics of many international negotiations can usefully be conceived as a 

two-level game. At the national level, domestic groups pursue their interests by 

pressuring the government to adopt favorable policies, and politicians seek power 

by constructing coalitions among those groups. At the international level, national governments seek to maximize their own ability to satisfy domestic pressures, while minimizing the adverse consequences of foreign developments. 

Neither of the two games can be ignored by central decision-makers, so long as 

their countries remain interdependent, yet sovereign.13

Each “sovereign” ignores one of the two “levels” of the negotiation at its peril. 

Negotiators, on behalf of their sovereign leaders, need not only secure agreement 

with their foreign negotiating counterparts (the Level I tentative agreement, in 

Putnam’s parlance) but also with their authoritative domestic constituency (the 

Level II legal ratification). For any likely agreement, the respective negotiating 

parties’ “win-sets” (space for negotiation) must overlap.

Putnam makes two key counterintuitive points on the dynamics of these winsets, however. First, while more room to maneuver at Level 1 makes an accord 

more likely, negotiators will be fixated on the “deliverability” of the accord at the 

domestic level. As Putnam describes it, the fear of involuntary defection with the 

respective domestic political processes completely undercuts the practical realities 

of the delivered accord—a factor that we will return to in the Japan–Russia negotiations over the disputed Northern Territories. Second, Putnam cautions us to 

consider how the size of the Level II win-set (the conditions the domestic constituency will accept to ratify) affects the distribution of the joint gains from the 

international accord reached in Level I. That is, the more limited a negotiator is 

by the prospects of ratification, the less her position can reasonably change—as 

Putnam says, the less she can be “pushed around.”

The successful negotiator will have a firm grasp on both her own Level II political constraints as well as her opponent’s. Win-set uncertainty can be a stumbling 

block to overcome (in terms of evaluating the likelihood of “unintentional defection”) as well as a useful bargaining device (in overstating one’s political constraints). 

Japan’s territorial dispute with Russia fundamentally involves the type of territorial 
All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 25

sovereignty claims that have invoked nationalism on both sides, but it also includes 

potential access to resources, along with strategic military positioning. This analysis 

thus employs Putnam’s two-level game framework by focusing on the interaction 

between governments and domestic nationalist concerns—specifically how domestic institutions interact with the strategies of negotiators. We explore how 

Japanese and Russian political preferences, economic priorities, risk assessments, 

historical memories, potential side payments, and institutional constraints affect 

the likelihood of a near-term successful international accommodation.

Historic Japanese–Russian Relations 

and the Disputed Territory

A Century of Shifting Control: 1850s–1950s

Prime Minister Abe’s opening comments to the 2018 Diet reflect an important 

reality: Japanese–Russian relations have much potential. Tense bilateral relations 

have historically derailed prospects for cooperation, instead encouraging competition for land, resources, and regional power. Ambitious British and American efforts at expansion into the Far East in the 1850s motivated Russian officials to 

build good relations with then-isolationist Japan.14 The Russian fears were not 

ill-founded, as Great Britain and the United States each signed treaties with Japan in 1854. Both agreements encouraged diplomatic and economic interdependence between each state and Japan by facilitating easier port access and granting 

most-favored-nation treatment.15 Russian and Japanese officials subsequently 

adopted and expanded similar conditions in their 1855 Treaty of Shimoda, setting 

in motion the process for discussing other potential areas of disagreement. Among 

these was the important issue of territory demarcation. The Treaty of Shimoda 

drew a boundary between Etorofu and Uruppu, allotting the four currently disputed islands south of Uruppu to Japan and the remaining islands north of Etorofu to Russia.16 Sakhalin remained under joint control for another 20 years, until 

the 1875 Treaty of St. Petersburg settled the issue by giving Russia complete 

possession of Sakhalin and Japan complete possession of the Kuril island chain.17

The newly established borders between Russia and Japan, both now expansionist powers, changed once again—this time through force—during the Russo–

Japanese War of 1904–05; the victorious Japanese gained the southern half of 

Sakhalin through the Treaty of Portsmouth.18 By the outbreak of World War II, 

Japan had solidified its position as a major regional power in the Far East. While 

Japan agreed to sign a Neutrality Pact with the Soviet Union in April 1941, both 

powers continued to maneuver in anticipation of major territorial shifts that could 

result from the war. These expectations became a reality on 8 August 1945, when 
26 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Sacko & Winkley

Soviet troops abruptly abrogated the Neutrality Pact by swooping in with a massive offensive in Manchuria, circumventing Japanese fortifications.19 Soviet fighting persisted after Japan announced its surrender on 15 August, leading to the 

Soviet takeover of all of the Kuril Islands, including the four currently disputed 

ones, by 5 September.20

Japan’s shock over this episode profoundly shaped its perceptions about Soviet 

intentions and trustworthiness by the beginning of the Cold War. The US-crafted 

San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 formally ended the war between Japan and the 

Soviet Union, though the Soviets withheld assent over certain treaty stipulations. 

On the other hand, Japan signed the treaty with Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida 

verbally affirming the status of Kunashiri and Etorofu being “of the South Kurils” 

and Shikotan and the Habomais as part of the Japanese territory of Hokkaido.21

Yoshida took this stance knowing that Article 2(c) of the treaty stipulated that 

Japan “renounces all right, title and claim to the Kuril Islands” and all other territory gained through the Treaty of Portsmouth. At this crucial juncture, then, the 

official Japanese position acknowledged only two islands as inherent territory. Operating in light of this principle, Japan today seems justified in requesting rightful 

ownership of perhaps only the smallest two of the four disputed territories.

Yoshida’s comments notwithstanding, the San Francisco Peace Treaty’s imprecision aggravated the territorial dispute in two important ways. First, the treaty 

failed to delineate the borders between the Kuril Islands and the territory belonging to Hokkaido. Second, the treaty avoided designating the rightful owner of the 

Kuril Islands after Japan ceded this territory. The Soviet Union’s decision to avoid 

signing the treaty and submitting to its dictates thus complicates Russia’s rightful 

claims to the territory, according to the Japanese position. This territorial dispute 

quickly became known as the “Northern Territories Problem” (hoppo ryodo mondai) in Japan, gradually deepening into the most inveterate thorn in the relations 

between the two states today. Although the two sides still have not signed a peace 

treaty, the 1956 Joint Declaration relieved much of the postwar tension.

The Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956 poses significant questions 

about what could have led to a different regional power alignment had the United 

States not intervened in negotiations. Beginning only a decade after the Soviet 

takeover of the Kuril island chain, Soviet–Japanese negotiations nearly resolved 

the territorial dispute. Still recognizing Etorofu and Kunashiri as part of the Kuril Islands, the Soviets nonetheless prepared to return Shikotan and the Habomais 

while tabling discussion of the remaining two islands for “future discussion.”22

Importantly, the proposal guaranteed conclusion of a peace treaty before “the Soviet Union would benevolently return Shikotan and the Habomai Islets to 

Japan.”23 Such a prospect generated fears in the Eisenhower administration of 
All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 27

closer Japanese–Soviet relations. Due to these fears, US Secretary of State John 

Foster Dulles pressed his Japanese counterpart to take a stronger stance on all 

sovereignty claims northeast of Hokkaido. US support augmented efforts by conservative Japanese political elites, who strove to fixate national policy on grouping 

the four islands as a single issue endued with an indivisible nature. Instead of two 

islands being the starting point in negotiations, then, the Japanese side soon demanded the return of all four disputed territories from the Soviet Union.

In return for Japan’s newly delimited bargaining room, the United States agreed 

to the eventual return of Okinawa to Japan. A stalemate ensued thereafter in 

Japanese–Soviet negotiations, hardening the future stances of both parties. Japan’s 

renewed security treaty with the United States in 1960 prompted the Soviet 

Union to proclaim that no territory would be returned to Japan until after the 

withdrawal of all US military forces from Japanese territory.24 In 1961, the Soviet 

Union declared that “territorial issues between Japan and the Soviet Union are 

resolved,” closing off the opportunity for further negotiation.25 The Soviet Union 

continued publicly asserting that no dispute existed, even after private comments 

during 1973 negotiations between Secretary-General Brezhnev and Japanese 

Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka indicated otherwise.26 Both sides failed to make 

any progress throughout the remainder of the Cold War.

Formation & Entrenchment of Japan’s “Inherent Territory” Rhetoric: 

1950s–Present

In the years leading up to the Soviet Union’s collapse, the official Japanese narrative on the Northern Territories problem crystallized, as the islands became 

endowed with greater symbolic worth. Such discourse cemented the status of 

these islands in the minds of the Japanese people, setting the stage for difficult 

bargaining in the future. Maps produced by Hokkaido government officials and 

individual explorers prior to 1945 treated only the Habomai archipelago as an 

integral part of Hokkaido and the other islands as integral to the Kuril Islands.27

Gradually, the Japanese government began to consider all four islands as “inherent 

territory.” This position originated in a grassroots movement initiated by Nemuro 

mayor Ishisuke Ando shortly after Soviet occupation of the islands.28 The city of 

Nemuro originally served as the hub of economic activity for northeast Hokkaido 

and the southern Kuril Islands. After the islands transitioned to Soviet control, 

most of the former Japanese inhabitants moved to Nemuro. Consequently, concerns over economic pragmatism formed the basis for Nemuro’s irredentist movement, which petitioned the central government in Tokyo only for the return of the 

four islands closest in proximity to Nemuro. The other Kuril Islands, like Sakhalin 
28 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Sacko & Winkley

Island, lacked the same emotional connection for these Japanese citizens, who had 

spent their entire lives on the four Northern Territories. Nemuro-based activists 

thus made their demands while acknowledging Kunashiri and Etorofu as part of 

the Kuril island chain and claiming both the Habomais and Shikotan as part of 

Hokkaido.29 The first two islands stood a lesser chance of being transferred back 

to Japan compared to the other two, but the irredentists committed themselves to 

securing the return of all four islands.

Political considerations joined economic considerations over the “inherent territories” when the dominant Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) identified a means 

to counter its political rivals. The language of inherent territory initially became 

manifest on the national level during the Soviet–Japan negotiations of 1955–56. 

Halfway through the negotiations, Japanese diplomats argued for the first time 

that “the four islands are inherently part of Japanese territories,” going so far as to 

label all four islands “Northern Territories” instead of “Southern Kurils.”30 As 

such, Japan would no longer consider any of these disputed islands part of the 

territory ceded after signing the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. A subsequent 

national directive by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) in 1964 repudiating the term “Southern Kurils” in reference to the disputed territories cemented 

the official status of the “Northern Territories” among the public.31 The Japanese 

government later established a holiday to commemorate the “Northern Territories” on 7 February, the anniversary of the 1855 Treaty of Shimoda. Necessity soon 

propelled the LDP to embrace a strong position on the “Northern Territories” 

issue for domestic political reasons as well. The LDP co-opted and emphasized 

the language used by the grassroots irredentists in Hokkaido to shift domestic 

focus away from the rival socialist party’s opposition to the LDP’s Okinawa stance 

of allowing American bases to remain after the island’s reversion to Japan.32 Perceived worldwide Soviet aggrandizement needed to be countered, whether on 

Japan’s northern border or within its borders in the form of dangerous ideologies 

opposed to Japanese national security.

Just before the Soviet Union collapsed, Japanese officials believed the time was 

finally ripe for settling the dispute. One particular Japanese diplomat played a 

crucial role in orchestrating an event never before seen in Japan. On 18 April 

1991, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev became the first leader of either Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union to visit Japan.33 The diplomat Gorbachev traveled 

to meet was the LDP secretary-general, Shintarō Abe. Using a new approach that 

he termed “creative diplomacy,” Abe focused on building mutual trust with Gorbachev. This concept accentuated a feature of the bilateral relationship noticeably 

absent since the nineteenth century.34 Emblematic of this approach, Abe’s USSR 

visit to meet with Gorbachev the year before eschewed talk of “territorial dispute” 
All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 29

in favor of more general reforms.35 Recognizing the potential for fruitful discussion after decades of failed progress, Abe viewed trust building as possible only 

within a broader framework of Japanese–Soviet relations. Enlarging the sphere of 

constructive dialogue would gradually pave the way for expanding future bargaining room on the territories.

During this meeting, then, Shintarō Abe only indirectly referred to “the difficult issue” while insisting on cooperation to solve the issue with “sagacity” and 

“prudence.”36 In taking this stance, Abe implicitly acknowledged constraints that 

simultaneously limited the meeting’s possible outcomes and obliged him to display political acumen in ways hitherto unseen in Japanese diplomacy. Abe’s softened stance in this meeting reciprocated a similar response from Gorbachev, signaling a modification in the Soviet stance on the territorial issue. Official Soviet 

acknowledgement of the dispute reemerged after being shelved decades earlier.37

To cement the foundation of this new relationship, Abe unveiled an eight-point 

cooperation plan that centered on establishing economic, cultural, and academic 

projects within the disputed territories and the USSR more generally.38 Both 

states would carry out these projects in a long-term manner, constantly evaluating 

the intentions and trustfulness of the other side, en route to eventual negotiations 

over the territories.

Unfortunately for these prospects, Shintarō Abe died in May 1991, one month 

after Gorbachev’s visit to Japan. Without the dedicated efforts of this eminent 

statesman, Japanese diplomacy toward Russia returned to a position that reaffirmed the inseparability of economics and politics. Japanese skepticism about the 

possibility for true Russian reform undergirded this position. As much of the 

West became optimistic about Russian integration into the liberal international 

order, Japanese policy makers and citizens hazarded a more cautious view. The 

prevailing Japanese narrative about Russia emphasized the “original form” of an 

essentially Russian “paradoxical, traitorous, cunning, and calculating character 

[that] was contrasted with Japanese consistency and integrity.”39

In many ways, the advent of Russian President Putin opened the most important chapter in the territorial dispute’s history. During his first term as president, 

in March 2001, Putin signed the Irkutsk Declaration with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshirō Mori. This document explicitly reaffirmed the Joint Declaration of 

1956 as the starting point for negotiating a peace treaty, adding that attribution of 

the four disputed territories must be resolved in this process.40 Holding the weight 

of a written statement instead of verbal promises, this declaration announced the 

official resumption of efforts that had been tabled four decades earlier. Putin’s 

hold on power nearly two decades later provides additional hope to the similarly 
30 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Sacko & Winkley

stable Shinzō Abe administration in Japan. Still, progress between the Russian 

and Japanese governments remains largely incremental.

Russia’s Newly Energized Asia Policy: Necessarily a Pivot?

Russia has had high hopes for rapprochement with Japan. While the primary 

object of Russia’s own Asian pivot has been China, a successful Asia policy fundamentally involves Japan. In September 2012, newly re-elected President Vladimir Putin hosted the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit meeting in 

Vladivostok. Later, in June 2013, he announced a series of economic initiatives at 

the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to integrate the Russian economy into the Asia-Pacific region rather than in European markets.41 Taken together, analysts equated these actions with the US “Asian Pivot,” declaring it 

“Russia’s Pivot.”42 A key difference, however, is that Russia faced east to cooperate,

not compete, with China in both economic and security terms. Also, it is wrong to 

say that Russia was pivoting to Asia, especially since they are already geographically present there. Most of the Russian land mass is Asian, and the Russian 

Federation already had key economic and political interactions with Asian states.

Asia has much to offer Russia: close customers for its gas and oil exports, investment to develop Russia’s energy infrastructure in Siberia and the Russian Far 

East, and an alternative to Russian economic dependence on the West. Yet Mr. 

Putin’s words forecasted the trajectory of Russian policy for the next five years. 

China, not Japan, was the primary object of Russia’s newly energized Asia policy. 

However, new possibilities would emerge in the Russia–Japan relationship. Russia 

explicitly sought to mitigate the dependence on China this “pivot” might create by 

pursuing a trilateral relationship involving Japan.

In 2003, Dmitri Trenin’s End of Eurasia thesis attempted to answer the prevailing question of Russia’s alliances. Trenin argued that Russia, given its myriad regional challenges, should integrate with the European Union and pursue cordial 

relations with the United States, thereby essentially joining the West.43 Since independence in 1992, the Russian Federation had been struggling with how best 

to integrate with Western political and economic institutions. Prime Minister 

Yevgeni Primakov’s foreign policy from 1996 to 1998 abruptly rejected US leadership; his airplane’s sudden turnaround after the US bombing of Belgrade was 

named the “Primakov Loop.” His “statist” view of the national interest attempted 

to reconfigure Russia’s presence in the international system as a great power, this 

time in a multipolar world. He opposed Prime Minister Andrei Kozyrev’s “liberal 

westernism” that emphasized integration into Western institutions and noninterference in former Soviet states.44
All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 31

Mr. Putin’s first presidential term would attempt to cooperate with the United 

States and the West in pragmatic rather than ideological terms. As he moved into 

his second term, he sought to renew Russian assertiveness. Despite the Russian 

invasion of Georgia, Dmitri Medvedev’s presidency would attempt a new pragmatism with the United States, as he sought Western economic support for his 

modernization program. His program included the “reset” of relations with the 

United States, the conclusion of the new START treaty that limited strategic 

nuclear missiles, a unified front to contain Iran’s nuclear program, and cooperation 

on US efforts in Afghanistan. President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin 

certainly emphasized the Asia-Pacific region as well but not at the expense of 

Russia’s relation to the West—at least not until 2013.

Underlying Russia’s economic vision for investment in its Far East are its national security concerns. Upon returning to the presidency in 2012, Putin declared 

development of this region one of his chief priorities. The massive Far East is rich 

in resources but lacks the infrastructure to harness those resources. High levels of 

bureaucratic corruption and interference dimmed the prospects for attracting investment, leading to Putin’s decision to establish a “Free Port of Vladivostok” in 

2015. Seen as the bridge to connect Russia to Asia, Vladivostok represents the key 

to unlocking access to Asian economic markets and security partnerships as Russia turns its gaze from Europe. Vladivostok, which is protected by the Kuril island 

chain to its east, also serves as Russia’s point for eastern power projection, housing 

the Pacific Fleet headquarters.

The ascendancy of Mr. Putin in 2012 also saw the marginalization of proWestern elites in the Russian government. Elites who favored defending Russia’s 

sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness returned. There was also a renewed emphasis on Russia’s Orthodox Christian cultural distinctiveness. In retrospect, it 

seems inevitable that there would be a fundamental Russian break with Western 

institutions. After Putin emphasized Russian conservative values—national unity, 

sovereignty, and the traditional family—he was at odds with the liberal Western 

principles of minority rights, democratization, and institutional human rights. 

States along Russia’s eastern border required no such compliance with international norms. Mr. Putin’s return marked a reinvigoration of Russian efforts to 

move the international system closer to multipolarity and away from the US-led 

liberal international order.

Russia had been nurturing a closer relationship with China since 1994, when 

the two countries legally resolved their border disputes. Since then, whenever 

Russia has moved away from the West, it has made greater diplomatic, economic, 

and military cooperative overtures to China. Still, despite treaties and good relations, Russia’s 2013 Asia policy was driven by its continuing anxiety about the 
32 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Sacko & Winkley

vulnerability of its southeastern border and by its desire to boost its economic and 

political presence in the Pacific. Though Russia was once again drifting from the 

West in 2013, there was still the possibility that it might backtrack, in accordance 

with Trenin’s admonition to integrate westward. A series of actions, however, culminating with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, would forestall any westward 

movement in the near term. The invasion represented a fundamental shift in Russia’s departure from Europe and entrance into Asia.

Russia headed east primarily for economic reasons—its prosperity would be 

better served by Asia’s more dynamic economies—but it also has strong geopolitical considerations for the move. It needs to develop its Russian Far East (RFE) 

and Eastern Siberia regions into manufacturing hubs and reroute its energy transportation infrastructure to supply energy to the rest of Asia. In order for Medvedev’s own reset to be successful, he needed to deliver a security framework acceptable to the United States, Europe, and Russia. It was his failure that compelled 

Russia in another direction. Since then, Russia has attempted to build an eastern 

multilateral security framework that is more multipolar rather than centered on 

US power.45 The strategic and economic constraints imposed by US and EU sanctions after the Ukraine invasion enhanced Russia’s relations with China. Since 

2014, Moscow hoped to counter the sanctions primarily by strengthening its energy and defense alliance with China. Russia’s international aspirations, however, 

are at odds with dependence on China. Their relationship is already an unequal 

one; Russia’s Asian strategy thus necessarily includes cultivating ties with other 

Asian states such as India, Vietnam, and Japan. These states have historically had 

discordant relations with Russia.

Russia’s 2016 Foreign Policy Concept fundamentally postulates that the center 

of the world is shifting to the Asia-Pacific region away from the “traditional western powers.”46 As in previous versions, Russia emphasizes its geographic position 

as the key transit zone between Europe and Asia as well as its desire to integrate 

with the Asia-Pacific region to develop the RFE and Siberia. Russia maintains a 

leading role in the Eurasian Economic Union and envisions a similar role within 

the Shanghai Cooperative Organization and the Association for Southeast Asian 

Nations to facilitate such “integration.” Since 2012, and especially 2016, Mr. Putin 

has increased the pace of his official visits to China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South 

Korea, and Vietnam. Trade with Asia has certainly increased with the opening of 

new oil and natural gas pipelines along with liquefied natural gas shipments.47

Japan has a key place in Russia’s energized Asia policy. Russia has reached the 

limit of its political and economic expansion. This is a constraint in its relationship with Japan. As discussed above, the key obstacle to Russia’s more cordial 

relationship with Japan is the disagreement over the ownership of the Northern 
All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 33

Territories/Southern Kuril Islands. Japan and Russia remain far apart on the issue of sovereignty of these islands, preventing a final agreement like the one 

reached by Russia and China in 1994. The US–Japan security relationship has 

been reinforced by the resurgence of China, particularly given China’s muscular 

foreign policy position over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Island dispute. If a peace treaty 

could be concluded, Japan would become Russia’s partner—an even more logical 

partner than China. Japan poses no threat to Russian security, and Tokyo would 

be a more accommodating economic partner. Japan’s technology would be a 

greater boon than China’s.

Seven years after Russia’s Asian Pivot,48 most analysts consider this move to be 

either only a partial success or a failure.49 Russia was able to conclude a 400 billion 

USD natural gas deal with China, but China is paying less than what Russia was 

getting from Western Europe. Furthermore, Chinese investment in the RFE and 

Siberia has not materialized like Putin had anticipated.50 China has many energy 

options, soon to include Iran, whereas Russia has fewer and fewer hydrocarbon 

customers. Beijing still has a more similar worldview to Russia than Europe (and 

vice-versa), but Russia remains in a disadvantaged position in its relations with 

China.

An Unmistakable (and Final?) Window of Opportunity: 

The Abe–Putin Relationship

Since the end of 2016, the convergence of a remarkable number of events suggests considerable potential for resolution of the territorial dispute and conclusion 

of a peace treaty between Japan and Russia. Mr. Putin and Mr. Abe have often 

publicly declared support to resolve the Northern Territories dispute, and the conditions for doing so have rarely been better. Nonetheless, popular forces likely remain sufficiently opposed to any terms of a resolution such that the status quo over 

the Northern territories will remain between Japan and the Russian Federation.

The relationship between Putin and Abe represents perhaps the greatest opportunity for resolution in the territorial dispute’s history. Recognizing the need 

to directly work with Putin on the dispute, Abe orchestrated the Yamaguchi 

Summit at a hot springs hotel in his hometown on 15–16 December, 2016.51 As 

Putin’s first visit to Japan in 11 years as president, Abe planned an extravagant 

setting for their sixteenth official meeting to make significant progress on securing denouement of the territorial dispute. Highlights of the summit included the 

unfolding of proposed Joint Economic Activities ( JEA) to be initiated in the 

Northern Territories under a “special agreement.”52 Last proposed in 1998 by 

Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi in talks with Russian President Boris Yeltsin, the 
34 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Sacko & Winkley

previous JEA plan failed over lack of agreement on issues of jurisdiction and 

sovereignty.53 While the specifics of this “special agreement” to create a type of 

condominium agreement remain undeveloped, Japanese officials view the JEA as 

an indispensable means to soften Russian nationalistic sentiment.

Diplomatic events in 2018 accompany progress made on the economic front 

between Japan and Russia, thereby encouraging prospects for resolving the territorial dispute. National elections in May and September 2018 cemented the legacies of both President Putin and Prime Minister Abe as the longest-serving leaders of their countries since the end of the Cold War and World War II, respectively. 

After parliamentary elections in October 2017, Abe’s LDP holds a two-thirds 

supermajority in both houses of Japan’s Diet.54 Further, Abe retained his position 

as LDP president with support from 70 percent of his party parliamentarians in 

the September 2018 leadership election, highlighting strong support of his policy 

agenda from within the government. Overwhelming LDP power in the government helps provide ample room for Abe’s negotiations with Putin, pending public 

support for this and other issues, like constitutional revision.

Favorable events notwithstanding, Russia’s military modernization on the disputed territories poses a challenge to resolution of the issue. In January 2018, 

Russian Prime Minister Medvedev approved Etorofu’s civilian airport for warplane deployment just prior to exercises held on the four disputed islands by 2,000 

Russian troops.55 Taking place around Japan’s holiday commemorating the Northern Territories, these exercises stung Japanese politicians. Since 2015, Russia has 

concentrated its efforts to modernize its military capabilities on the Northern 

Territories. Indeed, post-2014 Japanese sanctions on Russia after the Crimea annexation led Russia to step up “military maneuvers, new infrastructure, and military modernization” on and near the Northern Territories.56 Then-President 

Medvedev’s visit to the disputed territories in 2010 initiated the Russian buildup, 

but the process accelerated after his second visit following Russia’s annexation of 

Crimea.57 In December 2015, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that Russia planned to actively develop military facilities to support its 

tanks, self-propelled artillery, multiple launch rocket system, surface-to-air systems, and helicopters that defend the islands.58 The Japanese Ministry of Defense 

also reported that Russia equipped its forces on Etorofu and Kunashiri with Bastion and Bal coastal defense missiles in November 2016 before Etorofu’s civilian 

airport received Su-35 air-defense fighters in March and August 2018.59 In fear 

of increased militarization, Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera has 

asked his Russian counterparts in 2+2 security talks to reduce Russian military 

activities on the islands.60
All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 35

Finally, the US–Japan security alliance’s answer to the North Korea missile 

threat poses another challenge to resolution of the territorial dispute between 

Russia and Japan. Criticism from Russia on the heels of a 2+2 meeting between 

Japanese and Russian foreign and defense ministers in July 2018 characterized 

Japan’s then-decision to initiate deployment of the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile 

defense system as a “deployment of the US global missile defense.”61 Even though 

many within the Japanese government argue defensively against Russian opposition to this technology, some Japanese experts contend that Russian officials believe that US-produced technology will never be controlled completely by those 

nations to whom Washington sells the equipment.62 Moreover, Japanese Defense 

Minister Onodera explicitly stated the need to counter “cruise missiles approaching Japan” in a January 2018 visit to Aegis Ashore systems in Hawaii.63 With 

cruise missile capabilities employed more by China and Russia than North Korea, 

Russia portrays Japan’s actions as another step away from developing a relationship based on trust. Without such a relationship, no significant progress may be 

made to resolve the territorial dispute. Japan’s recent decision to cancel its Aegis 

Ashore purchase, prompted largely by domestic and budgetary considerations,64

thus does little to allay Russian concerns about the ultimate direction of the US–

Japan security alliance.

Japan and Russia’s Two-Level Game

In Japan, developments since 2016 have created perhaps the largest potential 

win-set size since the initial stages of Japan’s 1955–56 negotiations with the Soviet 

Union. As described earlier, Level I and II negotiations historically faced constraints due to the high symbolic worth of the Northern Territories and concomitant challenges in dividing “inherent territory” of Japan. This narrative gradually 

united politicians from all parties eager to contrast a Japan respectful of the rulesbased international order with an aggressive Soviet Union actuated primarily by 

raison d’état. To divert scrutiny from pre-1945 Japanese “authoritarianism, militarism, and imperialism,” conservative politicians in particular juxtaposed Japan with 

the Soviet “other.”65 When post-communist Russia began transforming from a 

threatening “otherness” through increased global engagement and decreased troop 

presence in the RFE, Japanese leaders built trust with their Russian counterparts 

through greater socialization.66 Greater cooperation between the two states has not 

been substantively derailed by Russian aggression in 2008 and 2014. Prime Minister Abe is personally committed to resolving Japan’s territorial dispute and looks 

to take advantage of relatively recent major shifts in both levels of negotiations.

As the chief Level I negotiator on the Japanese side, Abe’s decision to emphasize his support of the 1956 Joint Declaration risks running afoul of political 
36 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Sacko & Winkley

opposition groups. In November 2018, the head of the main opposition party 

remarked that “our predecessors were striving to get the four islands back together, 

so I hope the negotiations will be headed for that.”67 Abe’s return to the Joint 

Declaration as a starting point with Putin raises the perennially intractable questions of attribution for each of the four islands. Even the process of ascribing the 

term “return” or “transfer” of Shikotan and the Habomais leading to a peace treaty 

becomes problematic when discussing future sovereignty of these islands, as 

President Putin has pointed out.68 Even so, Abe has the potential support he 

needs from LDP parliamentarians after recent elections in order to overcome elite 

opposition to more creative negotiations. Furthermore, sizeable support in public 

opinions polls from 2013 indicate Level II support may be open to a compromise.69 Whereas tremendous opposition to compromise existed until recently, 

weariness over lack of progress coupled with increasingly pressing strategic concerns permit Abe to expand his win-set size.

The major shift in Japan’s acceptance of territorial divisibility comes on the 

heels of its changing perceptions about the symbolic worth of the islands. As 

memories of the Soviet Union recede into the annals of textbook-based history, 

the public knowledge of the Northern Territories dispute also subsides. The 

younger generation of Japanese come to understand geostrategic challenges stemming from the east and south without understanding the issues surrounding the 

dispute with Russia.70 Furthermore, James Brown notes that “while 81.5% have at 

least some knowledge of the dispute, only 3.2% would campaign actively for the 

islands’ return, according to Cabinet Office data.”71 Taking advantage of the essentially democratic attribute of short-term memory, Abe conspicuously avoided 

using the language “inherent territory” in advance of the 2019 celebration of 

Northern Territories Day.72 Without extensive coverage of the territorial dispute, 

particularly in branding the four islands “inherent,” Abe further expands the Level 

II wiggle room he needs to achieve compromise with Putin.

The final obstacle that narrows Abe’s win-set is the reputational cost to Japan 

in negotiating its other territorial disputes with South Korea and China. The 

Takeshima/Dokdo dispute with South Korea surfaces from time to time, with 

South Korea recently lodging a complaint in response to the Japanese government’s 2018 decision to sponsor an exhibition exerting its territorial claims in a 

newly opened museum in Tokyo.73 Japan’s territorial dispute with China rightly 

receives more attention, given the greater likelihood of gray-zone conflicts 

quickly escalating into armed ones. Japan’s strategic documents orient the state 

toward such a prospect. For this reason, a second F-15 squadron added to Okinawa in 2016 enabled the Japan Air Self Defense Force ( JASDF) to conduct an 

average of two intercepts of Chinese aircraft per day beginning in April 2016.74
All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 37

Additionally, Chinese Coast Guard vessels have “intruded at least a few times a 

month into Japanese territorial waters around the disputed Senkaku islands.” 

Japan has grown increasingly concerned after China’s 2018 decision to transfer 

administrative control of its coast guard from civilian to military authority.75

Among these concerns is the perception that China continues to move away 

from pursuing a “non-militarized, peaceful and stable environment” near disputed territories.76 Conversely, the bilateral Maritime and Aerial Mechanism 

was launched in June 2018 after 11 years of talks about its proper functionality.77

This arrangement encouragingly provides a direct communications link between 

Japan and China to deescalate potential tensions that may threaten an outbreak 

of conflict. Despite these positive developments, the Senkaku and Takeshima 

disputes provide a moderately significant barrier for reputational costs to a Japan 

in pursuit of resolution with Russia. Abe would need to be mindful both of Level 

I negotiators involved in these other disputes as well as Japanese interest groups 

that may seek to politicize an agreement with Russia for their benefit. The latter 

would include political opposition groups and business interests tied to the vast 

natural resources in the East China Sea.

President Putin’s effective management of the Russian Federation’s political system ensures that the Russian Duma and Federation Council, along with Prime 

Minister Mikhail Mishustin and the Russian judiciary, will pose little domestic 

Level II threat to any accommodation with Japan over the Northern Territories/

Southern Kurils. Institutions in competitive authoritarian systems, as described by 

Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, are incentivized by leadership to support the 

critical initiatives of the state with no meaningful political opposition.78 The meaningful opposition in the Russian case would come from the citizens of the Russian 

Federation. Putin’s basis for legitimacy rests on the Russian people, not institutions, with his idea of “sovereign democracy.”79 Any surrender of Russian territory 

is likely to erode domestic support for Putin’s regime. Russian experts have suggested that any decision of this type is “certain to provoke fierce protests in Russia 

and undermine public support for Putin’s government.”80 Mr. Putin started 2018 

with an 85 percent approval rating, yet in mid-2020 he has seen his support decline 

to 59 percent.81 In the face of declining earnings from oil exports and the growing 

indeterminacy of the Ukraine crisis, amid Russia’s struggle in containing the coronavirus, Putin has little domestic capital to expend on resolving the dispute with 

Japan—even in handing over the smaller Habomai islets and Shikotan.

Conclusion

Longstanding territorial disputes can unexpectedly escalate into the deadliest 

of conflicts. Currently the dispute between Russia and Japan over the Northern 
38 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Sacko & Winkley

Territories/Southern Kurils is not militarized, is not escalating, and lacks the imminent danger of the East and South China Sea disputes. Yet resolution of this 

Russo–Japanese dispute would change northeastern Asian strategic stability. This 

article has demonstrated the range of complex issues facing elite (Level I, in TwoLevel Game terms) resolution of the conflict between Japan and Russia. Domestic pressures, however, compound the low probability that this dispute will be resolved in the near term, forestalling Japan and Russia’s drawing closer and keeping 

Japan nearer to the United States and further from Russia. As time runs out for 

the long-serving Japanese prime minister, Abe may explore a greater number of 

novel solutions to achieve breakthrough on an issue that has eluded both his father and him. To what extent, then, can Abe successfully leverage this electoral 

limitation in his negotiations with Putin? The Russian side hesitates on rushing 

the process, instead offering a unique interpretation to Japanese Prime Minister 

Tanaka’s 1973 poetic remarks to Brezhnev: “Although man is not eternal, the 

human kind will exist always.” Elite circumstances have never been better to resolve this dispute; however, domestic pressure within both Japan and Russia will 

continue to prevent fundamental dispute resolution—the status quo over the 

Northern Territories will remain in place. Contrary to Tanaka’s intended meaning, Russian elites may be patient enough to delay the territorial dispute’s resolution to future generations more disposed to benefit. 

Dr. David Sacko

Professor Sacko has taught in the Department of Political Science at the U.S. Air Force Academy since 2002 where 

he currently serves as International Relations and Defense Policy Division Chief. He currently researches Eurasian 

security affairs, integrating persistent engagement into irregular warfare, and how U.S. hegemony affects international governance.

Micah Winkley

Mr. Winkley is an instructor in the Department of Political Science at the U.S. Air Force Academy. His research has 

focused on international security, geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific, and Islamic political thought. Previously, he 

worked with the World’s Greatest Wild Weasels in northern Japan

Notes

1. The opinions expressed in this article pertain only to the authors and do not reflect the 

policy of the US government. The authors thank the Minerva Initiative and the Air Force Institute 

of National Security Studies for their research support: PA#: USAFA-DF-2020-273.

2. Akihiro Iwashita, Japan’s Border Issues: Pitfalls and Prospects (London: Taylor & Francis, 2015), 6.

3. “Japan Offers Know-how for Development of Russia’s Far East.” Russia Today, 19 December 2017, https://www.rt.com/.

4. “Lavrov Says Russia Has No Deadline for Peace Treaty,” Asahi Shimbun, 18 February 2019, 

http://www.asahi.com/.
All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 39

5. Kazuhiko Togo, “The Inside Story of the Negotiations on the Northern Territories: Five 

Lost Windows of Opportunity,” Japan Forum 23, no. 1 (2011): 123–45.

6. Nobuo Shimotomai, “Results of Putin-Abe Summit Meeting,” Valdai Club, 28 April 2017, 

http://valdaiclub.com/.

7. Nobuo Shimotomai, “Can Lavrov’s Visit to Tokyo Become Prelude to Peace Treaty with 

Japan?,” Valdai Club, 3 March 2018, http://valdaiclub.com/.

8. “Is Putin Prepared to Return the Northern Territories? A Russia Specialist Examines the 

Prospects,” Nippon, 24 October 2018, https://www.nippon.com/.

9. Tomohiko Taniguchi, “A Once in Sixty-year Opportunity? Shinzo Abe’s Approach to 

Vladimir Putin,” in Japan-Russia Relations: Implications for the U.S.-Japan Alliance, ed. Gilbert 

Rozman et al. (Washington, DC: Sasakawa Peace Foundation, 2016), 41–48; and Tomohiko Taniguchi and Daniel Bob, “Why Abe Is Seeking a Settlement with Russia,” National Interest, 14 

December 2016, https://nationalinterest.org/.

10. Gilbert F. Rozman, “Unanswered Questions about Japan-Russia Relations in 2017,” AsiaPacific Review 24, no. 1 (2017): 74–94.

11. Yoko Hirose, “Japan-Russia Relations: Can the Northern Territories Issue Be Overcome?,” 

CSIS cogitAsia, 3 April 2018, https://www.cogitasia.com/.

12. Robert D. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level Games,”

International Organization 42, no. 3 (1988): 427–60.

13. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics,” 434.

14. George Alexander Lensen, The Russian Push toward Japan: Russo-Japanese Relations, 1697–

1875 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959), 312.

15. Lensen, Russian Push toward Japan, 337.

16. The Japan Institute of International Affairs ( JIIA), “Japan’s Territorial Issues and the Historical Understandings of the Concerned Countries: Case Studies on the Senkaku Islands, 

Takeshima and the Northern Territories,” March 2014, 29, http://www2.jiia.or.jp/.

17. James D. J. Brown, “Abe’s 2016 Plan to Break the Deadlock in the Territorial Dispute with 

Russia,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 15 February 2016, https://apjjf.org/.

18. James D. J. Brown, Japan, Russia and Their Territorial Dispute: the Northern Delusion (London: Routledge, 2016).

19. Matthew J. Ouimet, “Problems of the Neutrality Period,” in Northern Territories and Beyond: Russian, Japanese, and American Perspectives, ed. James E. Goodby et al. (Westport, CT: 

Praeger, 1995), 44.

20. JIIA, “Japan’s Territorial Issues,” 27.

21. Saburo Okita and Susumu Takahashi, “The Northern Territories / Southern Kuril Islands 

Dispute,” in Northern Territories and Beyond: Russian, Japanese, and American Perspectives, ed. James 

E. Goodby et al. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995), 15.

22. Okita and Takahashi, “The Northern Territories,” 17.

23. Akihiro Iwashita, Japan’s Border Issues: Pitfalls and Prospects (London: Routledge, 2015).

24. Okita and Takahashi, “The Northern Territories,” 17.

25. Yukiko Kuroiwa, “Russo-Japanese Territorial Dispute from the Border Region Perspective,” Revista UNISCI 32, May 2013, 193.

26. Koji Furukawa, “Bordering Japan: Towards a Comprehensive Perspective,” Journal of Borderlands Studies 26, no. 3 (1 December 2011): 297–314.
40 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Sacko & Winkley

27. Alexander Bukh, Japan’s National Identity and Foreign Policy: Russia as Japan’s “Other” (London: Routledge, 2010), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203883754.

28. Alexander Bukh, “Constructing Japan’s ‘Northern Territories’: Domestic Actors, Interests, 

and the Symbolism of the Disputed Islands,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 12, no. 3 (1 

September 2012): 483–509, https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcs008.

29. Bukh, “Constructing Japan’s ‘Northern Territories’,” 490.

30. Kuroiwa, “Russo-Japanese Territorial Dispute,” 201.

31. Kuroiwa, “Russo-Japanese Territorial Dispute,” 201.

32. Bukh, “Constructing Japan’s ‘Northern Territories’,” 498; and Hong N. Kim, “The Sato 

Government and the Politics of Okinawa Reversion,” Asian Survey 13, no. 11 (1973): 1021–35, 

https://doi.org/10.2307/2642857.

33. Junjiro Isomura, “Shintaro Abe’s ‘Creative Diplomacy’,” in in Northern Territories and Beyond: Russian, Japanese, and American Perspectives, ed. James E. Goodby et al. (Westport, CT: 

Praeger, 1995), 83.

34. Isomura, “Shintaro Abe’s ‘Creative Diplomacy’,” 84.

35. Isomura, “Shintaro Abe’s ‘Creative Diplomacy’,” 87.

36. Isomura, “Shintaro Abe’s ‘Creative Diplomacy’,” 88.

37. Isomura, “Shintaro Abe’s ‘Creative Diplomacy’,” 88.

38. Isomura, “Shintaro Abe’s ‘Creative Diplomacy’,” 89.

39. Bukh, “Constructing Japan’s ‘Northern Territories’,” 87.

40. Furukawa, “Bordering Japan,” 303.

41. Team of the Official Website of the President of Russia, “St Petersburg International Economic Forum Plenary Session,” http://en.kremlin.ru/.

42. Baladas Ghoshal, “Moscow-Beijing Strategic Partnership & Beyond: The Russian Pivot to 

Asia Pacific,” Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, 2013, https://www.jstor.org/; and Andrew 

C. Kuchins, “Russia and the CIS in 2013: Russia’s Pivot to Asia,” Asian Survey 54, no. 1 (2014): 

129–37, https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2014.54.1.129.

43. Dmitri Trenin and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The End of Eurasia: Russia on the Border between Geopolitics and Globalization (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment 

for International Peace, 2003).

44. Andrei P. Tsygankov, Russia’s Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity

(London: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016).

45. Ghoshal, “Moscow-Beijing Strategic Partnership & Beyond.”

46. “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation,” 30 November 2016, http://www.mid.ru/.

47. Jeffrey Mankoff, “Russia’s Asia Pivot: Confrontation or Cooperation?,” Asia Policy 19 

(2015) 65–88; and Bobo Lo, “The Long Sunset of Strategic Partnership: Russia’s Evolving China 

Policy,” International Affairs 80, no. 2 (2004): 295–309.

48. Kuchins, “Russia and the CIS in 2013.”

49. Catherine Putz, “Why Did Russia’s Pivot to Asia fail?,” The Diplomat, 18 October 2018, 

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/; and Paul Stronski and Nicole Ng, “The Russian Far East,” in Cooperation and Competition: Russia and China in Central Asia, the Russian Far East, and the Arctic (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 2018), https://www.jstor.org/.

50. Ashleigh Garrison Song Kelly, “Russia’s Achilles Heel: Putin Lacks Master Plan for Aging 

Oil Economy,” CNBC, 19 July 2018, https://www.cnbc.com/.

51. National Institute for Defense Studies, “East Asian Strategic Review 2017,” Chapter 6.
All Quiet on the Eastern Front?

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 41

52. National Institute for Defense Studies, “East Asian Strategic Review 2017,” Chapter 6.

53. Nobuo Shimotomai, “New Russia-Japan Deal to Make Kuril Islands an Area of Cooperation,” Valdai Club, 19 December 2016, http://valdaiclub.com/.

54. Motoko Rich, “Japan Election Vindicates Shinzo Abe as His Party Wins Big,” New York 

Times, October 22, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/.

55. Henry Meyer and Isabel Reynolds, “Putin Holds Military Exercises on Islands Claimed by 

Japan,” Bloomberg, 13 February 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/ .

56. Paul J. Bolt and Sharyl Cross, China, Russia, and Twenty-First Century Global Geopolitics

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 47.

57. Japan Ministry of Defense (MOD), “DEFENSE OF JAPAN 2015 | Japan Ministry of 

Defense,” 2015, http://www.mod.go.jp/.

58. Japan Ministry of Defense (MOD), “Security Environment Surrounding Japan: Development of Russian Armed Forces in the Vicinity of Japan,” October 2018, http://www.mod.go.jp/.

59. Japan Ministry of Defense (MOD), “Security Environment Surrounding Japan.”

60. Franz-Stefan Gady, “Japan Asks Russia to Reduce Militarization of Disputed Kuril Islands,” The Diplomat, 1 August 2018, https://thediplomat.com/.

61. “Russia Voices Concerns over Japanese Missile Defense System,” Asahi Shimbun, 1 August 

2018, http://www.asahi.com/.

62. Author’s interview, Tokyo, 29 June 2018.

63. “Japan Gov’t Considering Aegis Ashore for Cruise Missile Defense,” The Mainichi, 12 

January 2018, https://mainichi.jp/.

64. Jeffrey W. Hornung, “Japan Is Canceling a U.S. Missile Defense System,” The RAND Blog, 

6 July 2020, https://www.rand.org/.

65. Alexander Bukh, “Identity, Foreign Policy and the ‘Other’: Japan’s `Russia’,” European 

Journal of International Relations 15, no. 2 ( June 1, 2009): 319–45, https://doi.org/10.1177

/1354066109103141.

66. Bukh, “Identity, Foreign Policy and the ‘Other’.”

67. Jiji, “Despite Perceived Progress, Japan and Russia Remain Far Apart in Territory Dispute,” Japan Times, 17 November 2018, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/.

68. Junnosuke Kobara, “Word Choice Reveals Perception Gap in Japan-Russia Dispute,” Nikkei Asian Review, 17 November 2018, https://asia.nikkei.com/.

69. Jeremy Fuller, “Can Abe Make the Northern Territories Issue His Diplomatic Legacy?,” 

Stimson Center, 31 October 2016, https://www.stimson.org/.

70. Hirose, “Japan-Russia Relations.”

71. James D. J. Brown, “Northern Territories Issue Haunts Japan’s Leaders,” Nikkei Asian Review, 6 March 2018, https://asia.nikkei.com/ .

72. “Japanese Government-Backed Rally over Islands Held by Russia Adopts Muted Tone 

amid Talks,” Japan Times, 7 February 2019, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/.

73. Thisanka Siripala, “Dokdo or Takeshima? Japan and South Korea Reopen Territorial Row 

Ahead of Olympic Games,” The Diplomat, 7 February 2018, https://thediplomat.com/.

74. Clay Dillow, “Military Nightmare Scenario Brewing in the East China Sea,” CNBC, 4 

April 2017, https://www.cnbc.com/.

75. “Japan Alarmed by Change in Status of China Coast Guard,” Asahi Shimbun, 27 June 

2018, http://www.asahi.com/.
42 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Sacko & Winkley

76. Lyle Morris, “China Welcomes Its Newest Armed Force: The Coast Guard,” War on the 

Rocks, 4 April 2018, https://warontherocks.com/.

77. “China-Japan Hotline Launched to Avoid Sea, Air Clashes,” South China Morning Post, 8 

June 2018, https://www.scmp.com/.

78. Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, “The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism,” Journal of 

Democracy 13, no. 2 (2002): 51–65, https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0026.

79. Derek Averre, “‘Sovereign Democracy’ and Russia’s Relations with the European Union,” 

Demokratizatsiya 15, no. 2 (22 March 2007), 173; and Philipp Casula, “Sovereign Democracy, 

Populism, and Depoliticization in Russia,” Problems of Post-Communism 60, no. 3 (May 1, 2013): 

3–15, https://doi.org/10.2753/PPC1075-8216600301.

80. Jiji, “Despite Perceived Progress, Japan and Russia Remain Far Apart in Territory Dispute.”

81. Yuri Levada, “Russian Presidential Approval Rating,” Levada Center, https://www.levada.

ru/; and Henry Meyer, Ilya Arkhipov, and Bloomberg, “With Approval Ratings at an All-time Low, 

Putin Is Making Moves to Stay in Power until he’s 83,” Fortune, 28 June 2020, https://fortune.com/.
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 43

FEATURE

Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

The Uncertainty and Survival of a 

People’s National Aspirations

Zeus Hans Mendez

Rife with historical tensions, the region of Balochistan has erupted into 

insurrections against the Pakistani state since 1948. Convinced of being 

historically wronged, the Baloch view their fight as one against repression 

and for self-determination. Though residing in the same region, the ethnic identity of the Baloch has remained in sharp contrast to the ultranationalism that 

defines the Pakistani state. Therefore, the Pakistani security forces, who see many 

of the Baloch nationalist groups as terrorists, have crushed any opposition or demand for reform. This, in addition to a deteriorating human rights scenario has 

further cemented Baloch opposition against Pakistan. Across the border in Iran, 

the Baloch face a similar fate, with extreme deprivation and marginalization by 

the Iranian theocracy. While undoubtedly possessing unique identities and aspirations, repression and ignorance on both sides of the border have resulted in a 

common desire for liberation. However, the fact that an international border 

separates two distinctive Baloch communities, one motivated by secular aspirations and the other by Sunni Islam, any progress toward a unified front is hindered. Drawing on such dynamics, this article will seek to highlight the fact that 

even though the fight for Balochistan is one of international significance, most 

observers have ignored the situation, leaving the Baloch in a drawn-out insurgency with no support and an increased feeling of uncertainty. In this context, 

many have termed the Baloch freedom movement as dying or dead. Nevertheless, 

recent instances have shown that the tensions in the region are still relatively on 

the rise. This article will seek to highlight and contextualize such events and happenings in a gradually deteriorating environment.

A Historical Note

Today, the land of the Baloch is divided among the countries of Iran, Pakistan, 

and Afghanistan. Almost evenly portioned between Pakistan and Iran, it is categorized as the provinces of Balochistan and Sistan-Baluchistan respectively. 

Within Afghanistan, a small portion of the Kandahar, Helmand, and Nimruz 

provinces are also part of Balochistan. The division of the region among three 

different countries goes back to the era of empires in southern and western Asia. 
44 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Mendez

Sandwiched between the Persian and Indian empires on either side, the region 

has been at the crux of power play throughout history. In the 1500s, Balochistan 

was carved up between the Mughals to the east and the Safavids to the west.1

However, after the consecutive demise of these vast empires, the region collapsed 

into a number of principalities, with Kalat emerging at the forefront of these. The 

Khans of Kalat emerged as the primary forces behind attempts at sovereignty and 

consolidation of the state of Balochistan in the years to come. Nevertheless, in the 

1800s, with the emergence of the British Raj in India and the Qajar empire in 

Persia, Kalat and the larger region of Balochistan was once again at the center of 

the regional power play. While the British transformed Kalat into an associated 

state of the British Empire in 1854,2 Persia reconquered western Balochistan, a 

region that Iran retains to this day.

While it has been assumed and held as the truth by many that Balochistan was 

accorded the status of a Princely State under British administration during the 

nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, the Baloch themselves hold a 

different position. According to both separatists as well as Baloch politicians today, 

Balochistan or more specifically, the Khanate of Kalat, was never a part of British 

India and, thus, could not be treated as a part of Pakistan. Treating Balochistan as 

a state of the erstwhile empire would be a violation of the treaty agreements between the Kalat state and the British Raj. The aforementioned treaty is that of 

1876 between the Viceroy and Governor General, Lord Lytton, and the Khan of 

Kalat, Mir Khudadad Khab, which mentioned that the British government would 

respect the independence of Kalat as long as it would act in “subordinate 

coordination.”3 In accordance with this, the Baloch observe that the Kalat state had 

a different direct relationship with the British government that was separate from 

the British Raj in India. Nonetheless, during the process of Indian independence, 

before the Partition was decided upon, even Indian leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru 

held that Balochistan was an integral part of India.4 A border state of a newly 

emerging nation could not be allowed to gain independence after all.

In this context, the independence of Pakistan in 1947 brought increased pressure on the Khan of Kalat to allow for accession of the Kalat state to the state of 

Pakistan. However, the lower house of the Balochistan parliament unanimously 

passed a resolution declaring that relations with Pakistan should be established as 

between two sovereign states and not by accession.5 It is to be noted that when 

Pakistan declared independence in August 1947, so also did the Khan of Kalat 

declare independence for Balochistan. While this signified a unified Balochi dissent against accession to the Pakistani state, the newly formed Pakistani government would not adhere to it. Largely motivated by the fear of Indian influence in 

a strategically critical region, Pakistan sought to carry out the accession forcefully. 
Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 45

Initially capitalizing on the rivalry and feuds between the Khan and the surrounding regions, it motivated many of Kalat’s feudatories to join Pakistan. This, along 

with the mounting pressure of a possible military offensive against Kalat, served 

as the final straw. The Khan eventually signed the instrument of accession in 

March 1948, less than a year following Balochistan’s declared independence.

This forceful accession of Kalat to Pakistan signified the end of the brief period 

of national sovereignty for the Baloch and, thus, immediately caused anti-Pakistan 

protests to engulf Balochistan. This marked the beginning of a struggle that has 

endured for decades. Pakistan’s penchant for ignoring the concerns and identities 

of the minor ethnic groups fueled rebellion and restiveness throughout the latter 

half of the twentieth century. While certain achievements were made within the 

autonomy provided for the Baloch in the 1970s, Islamabad quashed this too. The 

1970 election that brought to power the prominent National Awami League, a 

coalition of Baloch parties, which began to make significant structural changes in 

promotion of the Baloch people, was ousted by the government of Zulfiqar Ali 

Bhutto in Islamabad.6 Such interference sparked a renewed rebellion in Balochistan, which resulted in the loss of 3,000 Pakistani soldiers and about 5,000 

Baloch guerrilla fighters, in a conflict that lasted nearly four years. And while the 

Pakistani army and government were able to quell the insurgency in the 1970s, 

they were not able to win over the Baloch, who once again led an insurrection 

against the quasi-military government of Pervez Musharraf in the early 2000s.

Even though this latest uprising has shown signs of faltering or completely dying out over the past two decades, it persists today. Numerous groups that carry out 

acts of political violence against the Pakistani forces have emerged over the years. 

However, the fight for Balochistan now shows signs of desperation. Provoked by 

the neglect of the Pakistani government in ensuring economic or social stability 

and development in the region, the Baloch see a great need in separating from 

Pakistan. Today Balochistan’s Human Development Index (HDI) ranks below 

0.40 as compared to the other provinces of Pakistan that lie above 0.50.7 In sharper 

contrast, a 2016 study by the Social Development and Policy Centre showed certain districts in Balochistan ranking below the 0.30 mark.8

 In fact, out of the 15 

districts with the lowest HDI indexes in Pakistan, 11 were from Balochistan. According to a United Nations Development Programme report from 2003, nearly 

47 percent of the 31 districts with the lowest HDI indicators were in Balochistan.

9

 In the context of the 2016 study, it is evident that not much has changed.

Today there has possibly been increased development in the region due to the 

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). However, this merely serves greater 

strategic aspirations and is not to be understood as beneficial to the Baloch in any 

way. The neglect meted out by the Pakistani state to the region of Balochistan has 
46 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Mendez

always been a sticking point. It is a clear indication of the lack of attachment 

Pakistan shares for a people and land it sought to possess rather than assimilate.

Pakistan’s Repression

For decades, Pakistan has suppressed and ignored the Baloch people, infuriating them and yet reducing their capabilities of protest. Out of fear of a resurgence 

and possibility of a united Balochistan, the government in Islamabad has only 

sought to consolidate more power and maintain complete control of the region 

through Pakistan’s security forces. However, this has resulted in a deplorable human rights situation in Balochistan. The general approach adopted by the Pakistani state toward any dissent in the region has been that of force, often disproportionate to the threat. Using the military to quell any Baloch uprising into 

submission has become a norm, and any attempts at protest have been reduced to 

naught. The main cause of the Baloch failure to launch an all-out offensive against 

the Pakistani army has been a shortage in numbers. While undoubtedly empowered by a feeling of commitment to the Baloch nationalist cause, the fact that the 

Baloch comprise less than 5 percent of the total population of Pakistan, hinders 

any progress. Though the province of Balochistan accounts for nearly 44 percent 

of the Pakistani state, its population is equal to only 12.3 million as compared to 

approximately 200 million in the rest of Pakistan.10

Such contrast in the numbers has meant that none of the uprisings against the 

government have been able to sustain themselves. Additionally, not only is the 

region of Balochistan sparsely populated but also the Baloch themselves only account for 60 percent of the population in Balochistan. The rest of the population 

consists of Pashtuns, Sindhis and Punjabis.11 In countering such contrasting difficulties, the Baloch have adopted tactics of guerrilla warfare, which has given rise 

to groups like the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) and the Balochistan Republican Army (BRA). In dealing with these groups as well, the Pakistani government has not sought methods of mediation or resolution but instead once again 

delegated the task to the military. To this end, activists and politicians like Naela 

Qadri Baloch, who fled Pakistan in 2016, have accused the Pakistani government 

of committing genocide in the region.12 Even though such accusations are plentiful, the international community has largely ignored the Baloch cause.

While some may perceive claims of genocide as exaggerations, they are not 

baseless, and certain activities currently occurring in Balochistan lend support to 

such accusations. There are two primary methods of repression adopted by the 

Pakistani state: bribes and all-out bludgeoning of the Baloch.13 The military has 

thus been accused of destroying and depopulating Baloch as well as being responsible for a multitude of forced disappearances in urban and rural Balochistan. Any 
Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 47

person considered a supporter or sympathizer of the Baloch freedom movement 

is considered a threat and kidnapped, tortured, or killed. This has not only affected 

the common people but also high-ranking officials. The 2006 arrest of Akhtar 

Mengal, the Chief Minister of Balochistan, is a glaring example. He was arrested 

and denied basic rights of medical treatment or bedding while being imprisoned. 

Adding insult to injury, he was also kept in a cage during subsequent court proceedings.14 Nonetheless, such denial of basic prison rights is the least the Pakistani 

state has done. Their atrocities in the region are far worse.

The number of cases of disappearing Baloch being attributed to either Pakistan’s security forces or Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) has slowly been 

on the rise. Many political activists, members of the Baloch Students Organization, and journalists have been abducted in broad daylight by pro-Pakistani gunmen and security forces. For example, Hamid Mir, a senior Pakistani journalist, 

hosting a program on Balochistan in 2014, was shot in a suspected assassination 

attempt by ISI gunmen—although Mir survived, the case highlights Islamabad’s 

extreme attempts to censor media coverage of tensions in Balochistan.15 A year 

later, a famous human rights activist, Sabeen Mahmud, was killed by gunmen in 

Karachi for hosting an event called “Take 2 of Unsilenced Balochistan.” While 

the attack was pinned on random Pakistanis who felt threatened by a woman 

talking about human rights issues in a province of Pakistan, fellow activists have 

accused Pakistan’s powerful ISI of playing a role.16 These are just two in a number 

of other cases that have plagued both Baloch and other activists fighting for their 

rights. This has continued to such an extent, that with hundreds of bodies being 

uncovered every year, Balochistan is now being viewed as Pakistan’s land of mass 

graves.17 Thus, it is evident that Naela Baloch’s accusations of genocide are perhaps not too far from the truth.

However, Pakistani repression does not stop there. Not only have the Baloch 

people been ignored and repressed but the Pakistani state has also exploited the 

resource rich region for oil and mining—with no benefits to the people of the 

province. While gas was discovered in the province in the 1950s, it was largely 

used to supply Karachi and Punjab, with Quetta, the capital of Balochistan only 

receiving access to these local resources in the 1980s.18 Since then, Islamabad has 

provided this natural gas only to supply the army cantonments in Balochistan, 

and as of 2014, 59 percent of the urban population of Balochistan did not have 

access to the resource. As of January 2020, the Sui Southern Gas Company, which 

supplies gas to Sindh and Balochistan, reported the shortfall of gas at nearly 40 

percent.19 The federal government’s continued marginalization of the province 

stands as the cause of this problem and is also at the crux of Baloch dissent against 

Chinese investment and the CPEC. Such deprivation, combined with the repres-
48 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Mendez

sion and blatant disregard for the Baloch people, is held as justification for their 

increasing resentment and larger aspirations for freedom.

Across the Border in Iran

In the Shia-dominated country of Iran, the Baloch are disregarded in much the 

same way as in Pakistan. While on the Pakistani side, nationalist and federalist 

aspirations factor highly, for the Iranians, the tensions and repression of the Baloch 

are a result of the religious divide. With the predominantly Sunni Baloch accounting for scarcely 2 percent of Iran’s 82 million in an overwhelmingly Shiite 

nation, Tehran has largely neglected or suppressed the minority. A lack of reporting as well as immense repression from the Iranian government has not allowed 

for Baloch struggles to reach a tipping point. There has been a rise in radical 

movements and terrorist groups across the province, but the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other such security forces have been largely suppressed such organizations. Nonetheless, throughout last year, attacks in the region have increased significantly, with numerous reports highlighting the 

possibility of a growing Sunni insurgency in Sistan-Baluchistan.20

Like other minorities in Iran, the Baloch have faced political, cultural, and socioeconomic discrimination at the hands of the government. Not only are the 

Baloch underrepresented in the government and the security forces, but much like 

their distant kin in Pakistan, they also live in one of the poorest provinces in Iran. 

Areas with larger Baloch populations are severely undeveloped, with reports indicating that nearly 70 percent of the population lives under the poverty line.21 As 

a result, four prominent militant groups have arisen in Iran. Historically, the first 

and most prominent of these was Jundallah or the “Soldiers of God.” This rather 

radical group has played a role in the extreme radicalization and instability in the 

province. Being responsible for a number of attacks and bombings on both government and civilian targets, the organization was highly active from 2003 until 

2010, when its founder, Abdolmalek Rigi, was tried and hanged.22 The execution 

of Rigi caused Jundallah to splinter into the Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice) and 

the Harakat Ansar Iran (Movement for the Partisans of Iran) groups, which are 

prominent and active even today. While the Harakat Ansar Iran group merged 

with another and transformed itself into the Ansar al-Furqan (Guardians of the 

Criterion) militant group, Jaish al-Adl has remained the most powerful of the 

splinter organizations.23

Jaish al-Adl has carried out a number of prominent attacks against the Iranian 

government, which considers the organization to be the successor of the Jundallah. However, while Tehran categorizes as separatists, the group has identified 

themselves as “Iranian,” with merely the need to gain Sunni representation in the 
Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 49

Shiite-dominated country.24 Thus, the group has adopted tactics of terrorism and 

guerrilla warfare, carrying out some of their deadliest attacks within the last few 

years. On 16 October 2018, 12 IRGC members were kidnapped from an outpost 

in western Iran in retaliation to the death of four Sunni Baloch militants.25 Government forces were only able to recover five of the abductees. Within the next 

few months, the group carried out another attack against the IRGC, killing at 

least 27 in a suicide bombing in February 2019.26 In December 2018, another 

three people were presumably killed and 40 others injured in an attack in the port 

city of Chahabar conducted by either Jaish al-Adl or Ansar al-Furqan.27 Thus, the 

Iranian government sees Jaish al-Adl as a prominent security threat, alleging interference and support from external actors like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the 

United States.28 However, the US government designated the group as a global 

terrorist organization in 2019.29

While Jaish al-Adl and its counterparts on the Pakistani side have similar aspirations for the liberation of the Baloch, the ideologies of the various organizations are not harmonious with one another. While organizations like the Balochistan Raaji Ajoi Sangar (BRAS, Balochistan National Freedom Front) in 

Pakistan is motivated by secular and nationalist aspirations or at least the need to 

launch coordinated attacks against the Pakistani military and Chinese interests in 

the region, sectarian and religious currents govern the motivations of Jaish al-Adl. 

This has resulted in regular cross-border conflicts between both groups.30 Thus, it 

is understood that the overemphasis of the religious identity that Jaish al-Adl 

seeks to instill in the Baloch is in complete contrast to the secular aspirations of 

the militant groups in Pakistan.

Baloch Uprising, Aspirations, and Leaders

While Jaish al-Adl dominates the landscape on the Iranian side, the BRAS 

does so on the Pakistani side. Launched in November 2018, the BRAS is a unification and consolidation of three Baloch subnationalist groups, the BLF, the 

Baloch Republican Guards (BRG), and a splinter faction of the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA).31 However, this unification is symbolic of recent developments, 

and the fight under such militant groups has continued since the beginning of the 

fifth uprising in 2002. Initially adopting a hardline approach against the military, 

the militants’ use of guerrilla warfare has drawn out the conflict for almost two 

decades. The early years of the conflict saw Balochistan descend into an all-out 

insurgency, with militants capturing and controlling vast regions under the BLA, 

the primary group at the time. The key leaders of the insurgents at the time were 

Akbar Bugti and Balach Marri, two tribal sardars who held influence over a large 

number of Baloch.32 It was claimed at the time that nearly 2,000 Bugtis and an 
50 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Mendez

equal number of Marris, among others tribes spread across Balochistan, were resisting the Pakistani forces.33 Today, many key leaders of the Baloch have been 

exiled from the country or killed by the Pakistani state in a bid to reduce dissent 

in the region. This has undoubtedly reduced the intensity of the insurgency of the 

early 2000s. However, the BRAS and other militant groups active in the region 

still carry out frequent attacks against the Pakistani establishment.

Table 1. Major Attacks against the Pakistani Armed Forces and Chinese projects34

Date Killed Injured Attack Details Location Perpetrator

30 AUG 

2018 0 3 Suicide attack by son of Baloch leader injured Chinese engineers Dalbandin, Pakistan BLA

23 NOV 

2018 4 0 Hour-long shootout at the Chinese consulate, killing police and civilians

Chinese Consulate, 

Karachi, Pakistan BLA

14 DEC 

2018 6 14 Attack on Frontier Corps Kech District, Pakistan BLA, BRAS

29 JAN 

2019 9 21

Bombing and firing at the Office of 

the Deputy Inspector General, killed 

5 police and 4 civilians

Office of Deputy 

Inspector General, 

Loralai, Pakistan

Unknown

16 FEB 

2019 2 0 Attack on Frontier Corps Loralai, Pakistan Unknown

18 FEB 

2019 4 0 Attack on Frontier Corps Panjgur District, Pakistan BLA

29 MAR 

2019

Not 

Specified

Not 

Specified

22-vehicle convoy attacked by 

remote-controlled bomb, killing 

several Chinese engineers and 

workers. This attack coincided with 

the visit of the Pakistani Prime 

Minster to Gwadar

Hamdard University, 

Karachi BLA

18 APR 

2019 14 0

15 attackers stopped a bus and killed 

10 naval, 3 air force, and 1 coast 

guard officers.

Makran coastal 

highway, between 

Karachi and Gwadar, 

Pakistan

BRAS

12 MAY 

2019 5 0

Bomb on Pearl Continental Hotel in 

retaliation to Chinese projects in the 

region, killed 4 hotel workers and a 

naval officer.

Gwadar, Pakistan BLA

13 MAY 

2019 4 11 Blast near a police van Mini Market area, Quetta, Pakistan Unknown

20 JUL 

2019 1 10 1 policeman killed Double Road, Quetta, Pakistan Unknown

27 JUL 

2019 4 0 Attack on Frontier Corps across the Pak-Afghan border

Turbat District, 

Pakistan Unknown

30 JUL 

2019 5 32 Blast near a police van Quetta, Pakistan Taliban

26 SEPT 

2019 0 3 Three policemen killed by a bomb Bypass, Quetta, Pakistan Unknown

29 SEPT 

2019 3 12 Bomb blast Chaman, Pakistan Unknown
Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 51

Date Killed Injured Attack Details Location Perpetrator

16 OCT 

2019 1 5

Attack on bypass, possibly by 

Tehrik-e Taliban (TPP) or other 

extremist groups

Bypass, Quetta, 

Pakistan Unknown

21 OCT 

2019

3 9 Attack, possibly by TPP or other 

extremists

Spinny Road, Quetta, 

Pakistan Unknown

30 OCT 

2019

1 0 Suicide bomber on motorbike killed 

1 policeman Loralai, Pakistan Unknown

16 NOV 

2019

3 4 Roadside bomb killed 3 paramilitary 

troops

Kalach, Quetta, 

Pakistan Unknown

10 JAN 

2020 15 20

Suicide bomber targeted a mosque 

in Quetta, possibly by a religious 

extremist group

Satellite Town, Quetta, 

Pakistan Unknown

17 FEB 

2020 10 35 Suicide bomber hit a police vehicle Quetta Press Club, 

Quetta, Pakistan Unknown

19 FEB 

2020 16 0 16 Army personnel killed by BLT Singsila area, Dera 

Bugti District, Pakistan

Balochistan 

Liberation Tigers

20 FEB 

2020 5 3 Attack against a Frontier Corps 

check post

Turbat District, 

Pakistan Unknown

19 MAY 

2020 6 0 Frontier Corps vehicle targeted by 

improvised explosive devices

Mach District, 

Pakistan Unknown

13 JUN 

2020 1 1

Attack on state-backed “death 

squad” members opperating under 

the ISI and army

Panjgur District, 

Pakistan BRA

16 JUN 

2020 1 0 One man shot dead in retaliation for murder of Baloch woman in 2019

Panjgur District, 

Pakistan BRA

3 JUL 

2020 0 Not Specified

Attack on levies post in Chappar Lat 

area, where militants confiscated 

ammunition

Harnai District, 

Pakistan BLA

5 JUL 

2020

Not 

Specified

Not 

Specified

Militants attacked Security Forces 

checkpoints with heavy weaponry

Harnai District, 

Pakistan BLA

7 JUL 

2020 5 Not Specified

A convoy of the Frontier Corps was 

ambushed on its way to a military 

camp at Narom

Kech District, Pakistan BRAS

9 JUL 

2020 0 Not Specified

36-inch gas pipeline destroyed with 

an explosive in Pir Chata area

Dera Bugti District, 

Pakistan BLT

11 JUL 

2020 0 2 Unidentified gunman opened fire and critically injured two policemen

Mastung District, 

Pakistan Unknown

14 JUL 

2020 3 8

Militants carried out a “fire raid” on 

Security Forces patroling convoy 

near Kahan area

Panjgur District, 

Pakistan BLF

17 JUL 

2020 2 6

An Anti-Narcotics Force team of the 

Pakistani Security Forces was 

attacked and bombed

Kharan District, 

Pakistan Unknown

19 JUL 

2020 0 Not Specified

Unidentified militats attacked the Oil 

and Gas Development Company 

Limited gas field and attacked 

security posts around the field

Dera Bugti District, 

Balochistan Unkown
52 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Mendez

The attacks listed in table 1 are a clear indication that while the intensity of the 

uprising has been reduced, it has not been quelled completely. With this, the 

Bugti–Marri areas, the Quetta region, central Balochistan, and the Makran belt 

have continued to bear the brunt of these attacks. A possible reasoning behind the 

same is the support the movement still receives. Even though many key leaders of 

the Balochistan militant groups have been exiled from Pakistan, they still direct 

affairs from abroad. Brahamdagh Bugti, the grandson of Akbar Bugti, is currently 

in the United Kingdom, apparently still in control of the Balochistan Republican 

Army, the alleged militant wing of his Balochistan Republican Party (BRP).35

Balach Marri’s brothers have also been exiled from Pakistan but are still viewed as 

influential among the continuing nationalist movements. Mehran Marri, who 

was granted political asylum in the United Kingdom, is allegedly the leader of the 

United Baloch Army, a splinter faction of the BLA, which was apparently led by 

Hyrbyair Marri, his other brother.36 Finally, the Lashkar-e-Balochistan, another 

nationalist group in Balochistan, is allegedly headed by Javed Mengal, the son of 

former chief minister Ataullah Mengal and brother of Akhtar Mengal.37 While 

unable to directly contribute to the groups in Balochistan, they have apparently 

sourced funding and seek to globalize an issue that has failed to garner international attention and aid.

On 9 September 2019, banners calling attention to the acute human rights violations in Balochistan appeared in Geneva, Switzerland, in front of the venue for 

the 42nd session of the UN Human Rights Council.38 The key drivers of such 

protests and campaigns have been the BRP and the Free Balochistan Movement 

(FBM), headed by Hyrbyair Marri.39 The BRP and the World Baloch Organization have also held a number of campaigns across the United Kingdom, raising 

banners of “End Enforced Disappearances in Balochistan.”40 In 2019, there was 

an increase in the campaigns across London, in the form of newspaper advertisements, billboard signs, and joint awareness campaigns. In the month of June, the 

BRP also flew “Free Balochistan” banners during a Pakistan–Afghanistan cricket 

match in Headingley Stadium.41 Such campaigning has not only been prominent 

in London but also at events held in Switzerland, South Korea, and across Balochistan. A conference titled “The Humanitarian Challenges in Balochistan” was 

also held in Germany by the Human Rights Council of Balochistan, the Baloch 

Human Rights Organization and the Baloch Human Rights Council—three organizations dedicated to the Baloch cause.42 However, it is doubtful that this has 

resulted in much for the movement as a whole.

Nonetheless, within Balochistan, inflammatory actions aimed at escalating tensions with the Pakistani government have surfaced once again. Leaders like Khalil 

Baloch, the current chairman of the Balochistan National Movement (BNM), 
Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 53

have vowed support for Balochistan’s “freedom fighters.” In an e-mail interview in 

2019, he was quoted as saying “the recent escalation in militant attacks is a direct 

reaction to the growing atrocities committed by the Pakistani army in Balochistan 

and China’s relentless plunder of Baloch resources.”43 In the same interview, he also 

said that the BNM, once one of the strongest parties in Balochistan, would no 

longer negotiate autonomy with the Pakistani government and seek a separate 

state for itself. Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch, the leader of the BLF, has also made such 

statements within the last year. When asked in an interview why democratic means 

have not been used to resolve grievances with Pakistan, he said that “there is no 

democracy in Pakistan and the Baloch are compelled to rebel against oppression.”44

Such statements have seemingly coincided with the increasing attacks in the 

region over the past few months, as can be seen in table 1. Largely centered around 

Balochistan’s capital city of Quetta, the attacks draw attention to the increasing 

unrest in the province. This unrest also reached a tipping point in the beginning 

of June 2020, with mass protests being held across the province in retaliation for 

the shooting of a mother and her child by Pakistani army–supported criminals. 

Protests have erupted across Balochistan demanding justice for four-year-old 

Bramsh, who was shot along with her mother, Malik Naz, in Turbat city in southern Balochistan.45 According to reports, thousands of protestors pelted stones and 

burned a number of military establishments, forcing Pakistani Army soldiers to 

abandon their border patrol posts.46 The problem with the situation in Balochistan 

is that protests or campaigns do not suppress the brutality of the Pakistani forces 

but seem to only incite more of the same.

While reports of the large protests in the province surfaced on 11 June, the 

Pakistani military abducted eight Baloch youths four days later.47 It is alleged 

that nearly 47,000 Baloch have been illegally abducted by the Pakistani armed 

forces.48 Since the protests on 11 June 2020, reports have shown a significant 

increase in the number of enforced disappearances, raids, and arrests being carried out by the Pakistani Security Forces.49 While the Baloch have strived endlessly for either a separate state or at the very least autonomy, representation, and 

an end to exploitation, none of their uprisings have gained them much in these 

regards. It remains to be seen if the recent protests and an increase in attacks will 

serve to change the current scenario.

Geopolitical Considerations

The increased chances of protest and uprisings in Balochistan have not only 

destabilized the region but also affected the interests of a number of external 

actors. While undoubtedly compromising for some, it has also been used as a 

strategic tool by others. It goes without saying that a united Balochistan, how-
54 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Mendez

ever unlikely that possibility may be, is an existential threat to both Pakistan and 

Iran. In 2009, the Khan of Kalat, Mir Suleman Dawood, formed the Council for 

Independent Balochistan, which was meant to signify a renewed fight for the 

freedom of Balochistan. This council was to grant representation not only to 

other separatist leaders like Brahamdagh Bugti but also to Baloch from Iran.50

While the initiative never gained traction, it is nonetheless indicative of the 

Baloch aspiration for a nation comprising of people on either side of the border. 

It is undoubtedly out of the fear of such aspirations that the governments of both 

Pakistan and Iran have adopted disproportionate uses of force in countering any 

uprisings in their provinces.

Another consideration that the Iranian government has to make with regard to 

the insurgency in Balochistan is that of strategic and economic needs. In light of 

increasing sanctions from the United States, Iran is seeking a way out into the 

international market and sees cooperation with China as the next best alternative. 

Already having shown support for Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Tehran has also recently shown immense interest in the CPEC. In a joint statement 

in April 2019 between Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan and Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, the two countries pledged to support regional connectivity, 

raising concerns over a possible China–Iran–Pakistan nexus.51 In such a scenario, 

any attacks by the Baloch on Chinese infrastructural projects in Pakistan are detrimental to Iranian interests as well. Therefore, during the meeting in April, decisions over the creation of a Joint Rapid Reaction Force in countering terrorism 

were made.52 While this agreement may serve the strategic purposes of Iran, it 

could be highly compromising to Pakistan’s neighbor to the east, India, with 

whom Iran has traditionally enjoyed good relations.

With Iran discussing the possibility of a liquefied natural gas pipeline being 

connected with the CPEC as well as greater cooperation between the ports of 

Gwadar and Chabahar, tensions in India have been stoked, as the latter port was 

developed with Indian investment.53 For New Delhi, Chabahar was meant to be 

a means in circumventing Pakistan and solidifying India’s access to Central Asia. 

The project was also part of New Delhi’s larger aspirations of countering Chinese 

influence in the region through the development of India’s own counter port. 

Supposed intervention by India in the region has thus been repeatedly used by the 

Pakistanis as a tool to link India with the Balochistan freedom struggle.54 A separate, friendly, united Balochistan would undoubtedly serve India’s greater strategic 

interests of containing Pakistan’s ambitions. However, the question of whether 

the Indian government has truly intervened in the region is up for debate. Nonetheless, Pakistan has accused India of supporting militant groups in Balochistan 

since the very first uprising in 1948.
Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 55

The reference to Balochistan in Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s speech 

in 2016 was also viewed by Islamabad as an intrusion into Pakistan’s affairs.55

However, with no references to Balochistan since then, it can be understood that 

the reference was merely meant as anti-Pakistan rhetoric related to the Kashmir 

issue rather than any actual support for the freedom movement. Nonetheless, the 

repercussions of such a statement were manifold. While the statement invigorated 

a few in Balochistan, it also had serious ramifications for others. According to 

Hybyair Marri, “If one had checked social media 10 days after the statement, one 

would have seen that Pakistanis killed about 60–70 Baloch each day,” goading 

them to call on support from their Indian friends.56 Thus, Pakistan sees external 

influence by India as the biggest threat to Balochistan.

On the other hand, for the Baloch, the biggest external threat comes from 

China. The Baloch approach toward Chinese investment, which was initially accusatory of Islamabad and Beijing’s exploitation of Balochistan’s resources, has 

gradually turned violent. Within the last two years, militants have carried out a 

number of shootings and bombings against Chinese infrastructural projects and 

Chinese workers. In March 2019, the BLA attacked a 22-vehicle convoy with a 

remote-controlled bomb that killed several Chinese engineers and workers.57 The 

BLA, which is greatly opposed to further Chinese investment in the region, also 

targeted the Chinese consulate in Karachi in November 2018.58 The organization 

also claimed responsibility for an attack on a bus carrying Chinese mining workers in August of the same year.59 This increase in attacks against the Chinese stems 

from the Balochs’ feeling of being exploited and cheated out of their rightful resources. With the region already being majorly ignored and deprived by the 

Pakistani government, additional exploitation is unacceptable to the Baloch.

What the Baloch see as exploitation, Islamabad sees as development and Beijing sees as strategic influence. As part of the BRI, the CPEC has been touted as 

one of its biggest and most controversial projects yet. Initially valued at 46 billion 

USD, the total cost had risen to 62 billion USD as of 2017,60 which has undoubtedly increased even more by now. With infrastructural projects spanning the 

length and breadth of Pakistan, it is perhaps the biggest project undertaken under 

the BRI. However, a majority of these projects are found in the province of Balochistan. The Gwadar International Port as well as its airport, along with a vast 

array of pipelines, railways, and highways all run through this region. These projects are meant merely to facilitate trade and mining for Pakistan and grant China 

access to the Arabian Sea. For the Baloch, however, there is not much to gain—

not only are their resources being exploited but also their land. Gwadar, which 

constituted the crux of China’s strategic plans for the region, has seen an entire 

special economic zone leased to China for a total of 40 years.61 Recent reports 
56 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Mendez

regarding the construction of a high-security compound near Gwadar Port, which 

will apparently be used as a naval base by China, have also surfaced.62

There is also another problem that the Baloch face from increased Chinese 

investment in the region. As is the case with other Chinese projects around the 

world, projects and investment under the BRI, including the CPEC, bring with 

them an influx of Chinese workers. It is believed that China plans to settle nearly 

500,000 Chinese in Gwadar port as part of the CPEC, which will have serious 

repercussions on the national, economic, and historic rights of the Baloch.63 With 

so many Chinese set to enter Balochistan, the Baloch fear irreversible demographic changes and increased marginalization.64 In this context, Mir Suleman 

Dawood has not only touted the CPEC as an existential threat to the original 

inhabitants of Balochistan but has also called on both the United States and India 

to support an independent Balochistan.65 While the Baloch have begun a series of 

attacks against CPEC projects within the region, their leaders are unsuccessfully 

attempting to draw in support from external stakeholders, terming the CPEC as 

“threatening to the interests of both India and the US.”66

Nonetheless, while such appeals have been directed at the US government time 

and again, Washington has largely turned a deaf ear. The role the United States 

plays in Balochistan is undoubtedly one of interest. Under the Obama administration, while some voiced support for a separate Balochistan, the official stance of 

the government was one against “carving out Balochistan from Pakistan”;67 thus, 

leaving the Baloch to an uncertain fate. In recent times, the uncertainty of US 

support has increased, with Pres. Donald Trump going so far as to label the BLA 

as a terrorist group. Coming merely a year before the US presidential elections, 

this has been viewed as a move to appease the Pakistani government and spur on 

the Afghan–Taliban peace negotiations.68 Amid the withdrawal of American 

troops from Afghanistan, the Trump administration considers the support of 

Pakistan to be critical to the peace process. Therefore, Washington has finally 

banned the BLA after years of Pakistani appeals for such action. This approval, 

however, has had serious ramifications for the Baloch freedom movement, reducing its autonomy and freedom to revolt.

While other issues within Asia have gained significant attention, the Balochs’ 

freedom struggle has been largely unreported or ignored. The conflict over Kashmir, for example, has featured widely in the international media as well as international government statements for decades. While the US government accepts 

Balochistan as the territory of Pakistan, it holds that the territory of Kashmir is 

disputed. Though Washington has expressed concern over the human rights 

abuses in Balochistan, it remains adamant in its opposition to self-determination 

for Balochistan.69 In July 2019, 16 members of the European Parliament sent a 
Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 57

letter to President Trump, urging him to take cognizance of the human rights 

violations and exploitation in the region in response to him terming the BLA as 

terrorists.70 While this may mark a certain divergence in stance by a portion of the 

international community, there has been minimal mention of Balochistan by EU 

member countries themselves. In sharp contrast, some EU member countries 

have issued statements on Kashmir, and the EU parliament has also extensively 

discussed the Kashmir issue.71 Likewise, the international media has often castigated the Indian armed forces for perceived abuses in Kashmir, while largely ignoring the atrocities committed by the Pakistanis in Balochistan. The international community’s contrasting approach to both these issues is quite questionable, 

lending itself to the politicization of strategic interests. In this scenario, the Baloch 

are yet again left to fend for themselves.

Conclusion

The future of the Baloch and their freedom movement is embedded in uncertainty. While there are many who see the possibility of a resurgence as likely, the 

odds are stacked strongly against the Baloch. Lacking in both military prowess as 

well as economic financing, the Baloch have only been able to sustain their movement for this long due to sheer determination. Thus, the Baloch freedom struggle 

has suffered a shortage of numbers that will never be a match for the Pakistani 

military. However, this is not the only obstacle to a united state of Balochistan: the 

lack of international support and internal unity have also had similar effects. Most 

of the current leaders of Balochistan are subsumed by their own self-interests and 

internal political tensions and lack the motivation to form a common front against 

the Pakistani state. Not only have some sought to fight their own fight, causing 

the movement to splinter, but many leaders have also been wooed by the government in Islamabad and have thus turned against their own.72

The insufficiency of support from the international community for the movement has become apparent. Though the issue is one of international significance, 

owing to a number of external stakeholders and cross-border aspirations, it has 

still been ignored. What is quite apparent is the Baloch will never be able to make 

any significant gains or even win their freedom from the Pakistani state without 

external assistance. This has granted the Pakistani government a free hand in dealing with the region, allowing the military to sustain much of its activities in repression of the Baloch. A member of the Indian National Security Advisory 

Board stated in December 2019 that the insurgency in Balochistan was likely to 

intensify.73 However, even if there is an iota of truth in this, it is more likely that 

this too will result in no gains for the Baloch, as the Pakistani state’s repression 

against the Baloch is in fact intensifying in like fashion. According to the Human 
58 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Mendez

Rights Council of Balochistan, the attacks and military raids against the Baloch 

have also significantly increased, especially during the COVID-19 lockdown.74

The determining factor for the Baloch in the end will be that of external influence, whether for benefit or for harm. While India and the United States have 

chosen to either remain silent or make decisions that are detrimental to the survival of the Baloch freedom movement, the Chinese have been able to retain their 

presence in the region and almost complete the CPEC. This is clearly indicative 

of the fact that the Pakistani state has the influence and ability to constrain the 

insurgencies in the region and carry on with its projects and plans for Balochistan. 

Already deprived of their resources and repressed by the Pakistani state, it is likely 

that the Baloch may soon become a marginalized population in their own land. 

With the military becoming more repressive, the cases of enforced disappearances 

mounting daily, and the insurgency failing, it has become evident that the Baloch 

are running out of time. 

Zeus Hans Mendez

Mr. Mendez is the center coordinator of the Centre for Security Studies (CSS) at the Jindal School of International 

Affairs, O.P. Jindal Global University. He is also a research assistant at the Centre for Security and Strategy Studies.

Notes

1. Rajkumar Singh, “Accession of Independent Balochistan to Pakistan,” South Asia Journal, 23 

October 2016, http://southasiajournal.net/.

2. Akhilesh Pillalamarri, “A Brief History of Balochistan,” The Diplomat, 12 February 2016, 

https://thediplomat.com/.

3. Manzoor Ahmed and Gulawar Khan, “The History of Baloch and Balochistan: A Critical 

Appraisal,” South Asia Journal of South Asian Studies 32, no. 1 ( June 2017), 47.

4. Syed Iqbal Ahmad, Balochistan: Its Strategic Importance (Karachi: Royal Book Company, 

1992), 111.

5. Inayatullah Baloch, The Problem of Greater Baluchistan: A Study of Baluch Nationalism (Stuttgart, Germany: Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GMBH, 1987), 184.

6. Ahmed and Khan, “History of Baloch and Balochistan,” 49.

7. United Nations Development Programme–Pakistan, Pakistan Human Development Index 

Report, 2020, 4–5.

8. Haroon Jamal, Quantifying Sub-National Human Development Indices from Household Survey 

Data, Research Report No. 96 (Karachi: Social Development and Policy Centre, 2016), http://

www.spdc.org.pk/.

9. United Nations Development Programme–Pakistan, Pakistan Human Development Index 

Report 2003, 2003.

10. Government of Pakistan, “2017 Population Census Data,” 2017, http://www.pbs.gov.pk/.

11. Sushant Sareen,  Balochistan - Forgotten War Forsaken People (New Delhi: Vivekanand 

Foundation, 2017), 12, https://www.vifindia.org/.
Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 59

12. “Experts, Activists Criticise Pakistan Army for Human Rights Abuses in Balochistan 

Amid Covid-19 Outbreak,” ANI News, 2020, https://www.aninews.in/.

13. Sareen, Balochistan - Forgotten War Forsaken People, 63.

14. Sanaullah Baloch, “Balochistan: Unlawful Detention BNP Leader,” Unrepresented Nations 

and People Organization, 8 March 2008, https://unpo.org/.

15. Mohammed Hanif, “The Hamid Mir Case: ‘In Pakistan, They Used to Censor Journalists 

– Now They Shoot Us,” The Guardian, 23 April 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/.

16. Arooj Zahra, “Pakistani Activist Sabeen Mahmud Dared to Discuss a Neglected Region 

of Her Country Then She Was Killed,” Washington Post, 28 April 2015, https://www.washington 

post.com/.

17. “Balochistan: Pakistan’s Land of Mass Graves,”  WION, 31 March 2019, https://www.

wionews.com/.

18. “Gas Supply to Central and Southern Balochistan,” Daily Balochistan Express, May 2016, 

http://www.bexpress.com.pk/.

19. Kunwar Khuldune Shahid, “Crippling Gas Shortage in Pakistan’s Balochistan,” Asia Times, 

January 2020, https://asiatimes.com/.

20. After a brief lull in attacks by militant groups in Iran after the end of Jundallah, attacks by 

groups like Jaish al-Adl and Ansar al-Furqan have increased again since 2015. For reports see, 

Chris Zambelis, “Iran Confronts Intensifying Insurgent Offensive in Sistan-Balochistan Province,” Terrorism Monitor, 17 April 2015, https://jamestown.org/; and “Iran File: Iran’s Armed 

Forces Prepare for Sunni Insurgency in Baluchistan,” Critical Threats, 14 December 2018, https://

www.criticalthreats.org/.

21. Nicholas Cappuccino, “Baluch Insurgents in Iran,” United States Institute of Peace, 27 April 

2017, https://iranprimer.usip.org/.

22. Akram Umarov, “The Rise of Terrorist Attacks and Radicalization in Iran: Factors and 

Drivers,” European Eye on Radicalization, 12 February 2019, https://eeradicalization.com/.

23. “Iran File: Iran’s Armed Forces Prepare for Sunni Insurgency in Baluchistan,” Critical Threats.

24. Chris Zambelis, “A New Phase of Resistance and Insurgency in Iranian Baluchistan,” Combatting Terrorism Centre Sentinel 2, no. 7 ( July 2009), 2.

25. “Insurgent Group Jaish Al-Adl Claims Kidnapping of Iran Security Personnel,” Defense 

Post, 22 October 2018, https://www.thedefensepost.com/.

26. Ami Held, “Nearly 2 Dozen Iranian Revolutionary Guards Reportedly Killed in Bomb 

Attack,” National Public Radio, 13 February 2019, https://www.npr.org/.

27. Joanne Stocker, “Al-Qaeda Linked Ansar Al-Furqan Claims Deadly Car Bombing in Iran’s 

Southeast Port City Chabahar,” Defense Post, 06 December 2018, https://www.thedefensepost.com/.

28. Ted Regencia, “Iran Warns Pakistan to Crack Down on Jaish Al-Adl,” Al Jazeera, 16 February 2019, https://www.aljazeera.com/.

29. Office of the Spokesperson, US Department of State, “Terrorist Designations of Balochistan Liberation Army and Husain Ali Hazzima and Amendments to the Terrorist Designations of Jundallah,” 2 July 2019, https://www.state.gov/.

30. Mouhammad Akbar Notezai, “The Coming Crisis along the Iran-Pakistan Border,” The 

Diplomat, 17 March 2020, https://thediplomat.com/.

31. Fahad Nabeel, “Identity as a Pretext of Terror: Brief Backgrounder of Baloch Raaji Aajoi 

Sangar,” Centre for Strategic and Contemporary Research, 18 April 2019, https://cscr.pk/.
60 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Mendez

32. Muhammad Tahir, “Tribes and Rebels: The Players in The Balochistan Insurgency,” The 

Jamestown Foundation, 3 April 2008, https://jamestown.org/.

33. Carlotta Gall, “In Remote Pakistan Province, Civil War Festers,” New York Times, 2 April 

2006, http://www.nytimes.com/.

34. For recent attacks see, South Asia Terrorism Portal, “Data-Sheet of Major Terrorist Incidents in Balochistan,” Institute for Conflict Management, https://www.satp.org/.

35. Frederic Grare, “Balochistan: The State Versus the Nation,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 11 April 2013, https://carnegieendowment.org/.

36. Andrew Korybko, “Baloch Separatist Defector Exposes Europe’s Double Standards to 

Terrorism,” Oriental Review, 27 March 2018, https://orientalreview.org/.

37. For brief detailing of groups currently operating in Balochistan see, Naseer Dashti, The 

Baloch Conflict with Iran and Pakistan: Aspects of a National Liberation Struggle (Bloomington, IN: 

Trafford, 2017), 240–63.

38. IANS, “Bolochistan people want UNHRC to save them from Pakistan atrocities,” Free 

Press Journal, 10 September 2019, https://www.freepressjournal.in/.

39. ANI, “Free Balochistan movement marks Independence Day of Balochistan,” Asian News 

International, 14 August 2019, https://www.aninews.in/.

40. “World Baloch Organisation and Baloch Republican Party Launch Campaign to End 

Enforced Disappearances in Pakistan,” Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, 18 June 

2019, https://unpo.org/.

41. Nathan Hyde, “Protesters explain plane stunt that fuelled violent clashes at Cricket World 

Cup match at Headingley,” Leeds Live, 5 July 2019, https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/.

42. Jaibans Singh, “Why Balochistan Needs Much More Help Than Kashmir?,” Eurasian 

Times, 2019, https://eurasiantimes.com/.

43. “An interview with Khalil Baloch, Chairman, Baloch National Movement,” Diplomatic 

Square, 11 July 2019, https://www.diplomaticsquare.com/.

44. Nupur J. Sharma, “Pakistan Plundering Balochistan, We Appeal PM Modi to Support 

Freedom Struggle: Dr Allah Nazar Baloch of BLF Speaks Exclusively to OpIndia,” OpIndia, 22 

July 2019, https://www.opindia.com/.

45. Mariyam Suleman, “Balochistan Erupts in Protests over a Murdered Mother and Her 

Injured 4-Year-Old,” The Diplomat, 4 June 2020, https://thediplomat.com/.

46. “Pakistan Army Abandons Border Post as Massive Protests Erupts in Balochistan,” Eurasian Times, 11 June 2020, https://eurasiantimes.com/.

47. “Balochistan: Pakistani force abducts 8 Baloch Youths from Khuzdarm Nohski and Panjgur,” Balochwarna News, 14 June 2020, https://balochwarna.com/.

48. Nazir Ahmad Mir, “Abysmal Human Rights Situation in Balochistan,” Manohar Parrikar 

Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis, 30 May 2020, https://idsa.in/idsacomments/.

49. For reports on abductions made by the Pakistani Security Forces, see South Asia Terrorism 

Portal, “Balochistan: Timeline (Terrorist Activities),” Institute for Conflict Management, https://

www.satp.org/. Information has been cross referenced with news reports.

50. Bari Baloch, “Council of Independent Balochistan Announced,” The Nation, 12 August 

2009, https://nation.com.pk/.

51. Hamed A. Kermani, “Iran Plays Pakistan, China against India as Modi Turns to Trump,” 

AL-MONITOR, 5 June 2019, https://www.al-monitor.com/.
Repression and Revolt in Balochistan

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 61

52. “Iran and Pakistan to set up joint rapid reaction force after Balochistan attacks,” Defense 

Post, 22 April 2019, https://www.thedefensepost.com/.

53. Anirban Bhaumik, “Iran Goes to Pakistan with Chabahar Link Plan,” Deccan Herald, 28 

May 2019, https://www.deccanherald.com/.

54. Sareen, Balochistan - Forgotten War Forsaken People, 106.

55. “Pakistan Opposition Leader Bilawal Bhutto Blasts PM Modi for Balochistan Comments,” Indian Express, 17 August 2016, https://indianexpress.com/.

56. “Hyrbyair Marri’s Interview with the Tilak Chronicle,” Balochwarna News, 14 May 2020, 

http://balochwarna.com/.

57. “Baloch Liberation Army Attacks Chinese Assets - Several Chinese Engineers Killed,” 

Indian Defence News, IDRW, 1 April 2019, http://defencenews.in/.

58. Press Trust of India, “Pakistan Says Main Facilitator of Attack on Chinese Consulate Arrested in Sharjah,” The Hindu, 30 January 2019, https://www.thehindu.com/.

59. Gul Yousafzai, “Five Wounded in Attack on Bus Ferrying Chinese Workers in Pakistan,” Reuters, 11 August 2018, https://www.reuters.com/.

60. Arif Rafiq, “China’s $62 Billion Bet on Pakistan,” Foreign Affairs, 24 October 2017, www.

foreignaffairs.com/.

61. Press Trust of India, “Pakistan’s Gwadar Port Leased to Chinese Company for 40 Years,” 

Economic Times, 20 April 2017, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.

62. “Balochistan: China Secretly Building High-Security Compound at Gwadar,” Balochistan 

Post, 3 June 2020.

63. Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, “Balochistan Is Back in Spotlight after Ban against Baloch 

Liberation Army (BLA),” Economic Times, 15 July 2019, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.

64. Shah Baloch, “CPEC: A Bad Deal for the Baloch People?,” The Diplomat, 30 December 

2015, https://thediplomat.com/.

65. “CPEC an Existential Threat to Baloch: Khan of Kalat,” Financial Express, 27 May 2020, 

https://www.financialexpress.com/.

66. “CPEC an Existential Threat to Baloch: Khan of Kalat,” Financial Express.

67. ANI, “US Says Carving out Balochistan from Pakistan Not Policy of Obama Administration,” Business Standard, 12 February 2014, https://www.business-standard.com/.

68. Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, “Baloch Army Ban: US Attempt to Ensure Pakistani Help in 

Kabul,” Economic Times, 3 July 2019, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.

69. Chad Marzen, “Balochistan, Self-Determination, and U.S. Foreign Policy,” SSRN Electronic Journal 45, no. 1 (2018), doi:10.2139/ssrn.3302762.

70. Geeta Mohan, “16 EU Members of Parliament Write Letter to Trump to Intervene in 

Balochistan,” India Today, 21 July 2019, https://www.indiatoday.in/.

71. Suhasini Haidar, “European Parliament to Vote on Kashmir, Citizenship Amendment 

Act,” The Hindu, 27 January 2020, https://www.thehindu.com/.

72. See the case of Raisani and Zehri, politicians who have defected from the Baloch national 

aspirations in Malik Siraj Akbar, “Redefined Dimensions of the Baloch Nationalist Movement,” 

Xlibris Corporation, 2011, 192–95.

73. Press Trust of India, “Balochistan Insurgency Likely to Intensify: NSAB Member,” The 

Economic Times, 2 December 2019, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.

74. HRCB, “Balochistan: 16 Killed, 45 Abducted in April as Military Raids Increased,” Human Rights Council of Balochistan, 8 May 2020, https://hrcbalochistan.com/.
62 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

VIEW

Fresh Whole Blood for the Near-Peer 

and Immature Theater Conflict

Closing a Critical Gap

Lt Col Alex P. Keller IV, MD, USAF

Maj Ryan G. Garrison, DHA, USAF

Col James E. Powell, USAF, retired

Abstract

Living in South Korea during the fall of 2017 through spring of 2018 proved 

to be politically tense and professionally exciting for the medical enterprise. Increased rocket testing and inflammatory political rhetoric from North Korea increased global scrutiny and media coverage of the region. A very real concern for 

renewed kinetic war permeated almost every strategic staff meeting. Provision of 

blood products in the theater to sustain force preservation became a top priority 

for operational health service support (HSS) planning. According to a report 

from the United States Institute of Surgical Research in 2018, “US forces in Korea lack an adequate blood supply system, adequate capability to administer damage control resuscitation in the field or during evacuation, and lack adequate surgical treatment capabilities to support combat operations.”1

 Currently, the Armed 

Services Blood Program (ASBP) has sustainment plans in place for mature theater operations; i.e., operations greater than 30–60 days post commencement of 

hostilities. Multiple systemic reviews of operational plans and rehearsal of concept 

exercises illuminated a critical blind spot in the event of a renewed fight in Korea. 

The United States lacks a realistic and standardized process to provide an adequate 

blood supply system for the first 30–60 days of conflict. “Current USFK [United 

States Forces Korea] efforts to improve training in walking blood bank (WBB) 

procedures are a step in the right direction toward improving blood availability, 

but are inadequate to bridge the capability gaps identified in combat casualty care 

resources.”2 The concept of operations for blood supply to US forces is urgently 

needed in the event of a transition to hostilities in Korea. This article provides a 

framework to enable readily available fresh whole blood (FWB) to bridge the 

critical time gap between the first shot being fired and plausible execution of current medical supply plans that rely on functional air and sea supply chains.
Fresh Whole Blood for the Near-Peer and Immature Theater Conflict

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 63

Introduction

The Air Force Medical Service’s (AFMS) FY19 Strategic Communication 

Plan contains three main themes. Strategically, it aims to achieve full-spectrum 

medical readiness, drive AFMS transformation, and strengthen the joint warrior 

medic with priorities of delivering integrated operational support and trusted care 

with a readiness focus on expeditionary medicine, partnerships, and innovation. 

The ability to deliver blood products in the area of responsibility (AOR) in a manner that saves cost (in terms of dollars and lives), reduces time (logistics on delivery of blood products), and impacts quality (both preservation of a fighting force 

and life itself ) is a necessity. The amount of WB required during the initial 30–60 

days cannot be overlooked. Modeled casualty estimates do not account for US or 

host-nation casualties or biological or chemical munitions, nor do these models 

take high-rise housing into consideration. Seoul represents a true modern megacity, with an estimated population of ~10,000,000 people in Seoul proper and 

~25,000,000 in the metropolitan area.3 Blood requirements for traumatically injured soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan provide a systematic framework to comprehend the total amount of blood that will be needed. The civilian population can 

be considered as having the same risk for traumatic injury as combatants in the 

event of a kinetic strike on the Seoul metropolitan area. The chairman, Coagulation & Blood Research Department, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, 

states the criticality of this issue well:

Recent experience (Afghanistan and Iraq) shows that for every 1,000 wounded, at 

least 10% are at risk of early death due to exsanguination (first 3-6 hours) and will 

need substantial blood support. These 10% represent [over 40%] of transfused 

WIA [wounded in action] who will receive massive transfusions (>10U RBCs or 

WB in 24 hours). For 1,000 wounded, we would anticipate 100 patients consuming about . . . 1,500+ WB units mostly in the first 3–6 hours after injury during 

damage control resuscitation and surgery. One could estimate that for every 1,000 

wounded, at least 2000 WB units or component equivalents (roughly 2,500 RBCs, 

2,500 FFP, 400 apheresis platelets, etc.) would be required in the first 3-6 hours 

following injury. Clearly, this blood requirement cannot be met solely by relying 

on WBB resources. A plan for rapid supply of blood from forward-deployed 

[INDO]PACOM units and CONUS must be established and rehearsed.4

The complex logistics required in contested environments pose an increased 

risk to mission and force. As complexity increases, so does the possibility the 

chain can be disrupted by a failure, constraint, or attack upon any portion of the 

supply chain. Stringent regulatory requirements ensure the quality of stored blood 

products. They require proper cold-chain management; inventory tracking; skilled 
64 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Keller, Garrison, & Powell

personnel to collect, monitor, and administer the blood supply; and specialized 

shipping capabilities.

Transition from armistice to kinetic hostilities results in an immediate increase 

in the requirement for HSS, including access and distribution of blood products. 

Blood is central to modern trauma strategies to save lives and conserve the fighting strength. An effective operational plan that can overcome the logistical complexities requires a well-defined process map and identification of key stakeholders in the flow of the process. Establishment of standardized guidance via the 

implementation of a Department of Defense (DoD)-wide prescreening process 

will identify and provide the essential ingredient: the blood donor. These identified personnel provide a source of fresh whole blood (FWB) available at day zero 

of conflict at the time an emergency occurs without further logistical requirements. This article proposes a strategy to provide blood products as far forward as 

possible to bridge the critical capability gap in a tactical, operational, and strategically economical manner compared with current HSS plans.

The Contested Environment in Korea

Contested environments present significant additional considerations for the 

provision of HSS that differ from recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 

amount of blood required to effectively treat estimated trauma casualties sustained 

in the first 30 days of a North Korean attack would be astronomical. The 2019 

Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care (CoTCCC) guidelines recommend whole blood as the preferred resuscitation fluid.5

 The classic staple, normal 

saline, is absent from the recommendations due to a broad body of evidence 

showing that saline contributes to metabolic derangements causing harm in 

trauma. Currently, the 121st Combat Support Hospital (CSH) has approximately 

30 units of packed red blood cells available. At best, this would resuscitate a couple 

of major traumas. Multiple factors such as lack of intensive care unit capabilities 

as well as robust host-nation hospital system result in trauma being deferred to 

the civilian system in Korea. The physicians assigned to the CSH for one- to twoyear tours do not see a significant volume of trauma cases. When looking at the 

blood demand in the event of war, one cannot consider US casualties in isolation.

Incoming fires on South Korea are expected to include conventional explosives, 

chemical weapons, biological agents, or a combination of these. These fires would 

be expected to have a primary impact on the civilian population. The large number 

of expected Korean casualties will overwhelm the civilian medical system and 

prevent US forces from utilizing host-nation hospitals as currently done during 

armistice. Like at other OCONCUS locations, a significant number of US family 

members accompany their service members to bases in South Korea. The presence 
Fresh Whole Blood for the Near-Peer and Immature Theater Conflict

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 65

of these civilians creates additional casualties that will strain the blood supply in a 

transition to hostilities.

Noncombatant evacuation operations (NEO) will consume significant manpower and resources. With sufficient warning of an attack, an orderly evacuation 

of noncombatants would follow a directive from the US Ambassador to South 

Korea. These NEO operations could be another source of fresh blood for US 

forces. Each eligible adult could donate a unit of FWB while at NEO assembly 

points awaiting evacuation. The collection at multiple locations would require 

personnel and equipment to collect, process, and store the blood. FWB is only 

good for 21 days under ideal storage conditions. NEO assembly points are neither 

staffed nor equipped to provide this service. Surprise attack poses increased strains 

on the NEO system.

A surprise attack by North Korea would be expected to make the roads out of 

Seoul impassable. The “fog of war” created by sudden panic and disorientation 

makes systematic collection of blood impossible. The service members would report to their war-fighting locations, while their dependents would report to NEO 

assembly locations with minimal baggage. The psychological impact on service 

members reporting for war without confirmation that their family members are 

safe cannot be underestimated. This could result in service members absence until 

their family members are transported to the NEO assembly point, resulting in a 

decrease in effectiveness of the fighting force. Medical professionals are not immune to this effect. Depending on a “tenuous at best” and “just trust us it will 

work” process with multiple unsupportable assumptions does not instill confidence in the war fighter. Current plans to import blood cannot meet the modeled 

casualty estimations and must be rewritten.

Current blood supply models depend on pre-positioned frozen blood stores 

or importing blood via air or sea shipment. Current in-theater ability to thaw 

frozen blood has a capacity of around 200 units per 24-hour period. This amount 

represents a minuscule contribution compared to expected blood requirements. 

There is no guarantee that the United States will have air and sea superiority 

early in a conflict with North Korea. Until air and sea routes of importation are 

secured, medical support functions will have to rely on blood already available 

in theater. Using the Korean Red Cross as a source of blood presents another 

possible alternative.

South Korean practices are very similar to the US blood bank system. In fact, if 

an American goes to a host-nation hospital and requires a blood transfusion, they 

receive Korean blood. We have, by practice, accepted that the Korean blood bank 

system meets acceptable quality standards by sending trauma patients to Korean 

hospitals. Thus, purchasing blood from the Korean system appears valid. This ar-
66 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Keller, Garrison, & Powell

gument fails because it focuses solely on quality. The reality of early combat in 

South Korea will be an issue of quantity and capacity—not quality. In the event 

of war, the Korean medical system will be inundated with civilian casualties demanding care. The United States should not rely on contracts with the Korean 

blood system to provide the limited resource to the US military at the expense of 

Korean citizens. Could the United States utilize patients with clearly nonsurvivable wounds as potential sources of FWB?

Early in the war—when medical supplies, blood, and evacuation options are 

extremely limited or nonexistent—medics could use mortally wounded patients 

as a source of FWB. A unit under fire and running low on ammunition would 

take ammunition from a wounded teammate who is unable to contribute to the 

fight. Reallocation of resources to the area of greatest need is a well-grounded 

military principle. This logic would imply that to phlebotomize critically wounded 

patients who have no reasonable chance of survival would similarly reallocate a 

critical and finite resource. Current medical practice attempts to keep these patients comfortable with pain medication and companionship while iteratively 

evaluating their status. Rather than use limited medical resources on these patients, why not use these soldiers as a medical resource for salvageable war fighters? This option represents an emotionally extreme ethical dilemma, though it 

does not factually differ from organ donation, which is a widely accepted medical 

practice in the United States.

Organ donation exists in the United States, though typically limited to braindead or terminal patients (and specific instances of living donors for bone marrow 

and kidney transplants). War differs from peacetime medical operations, because 

military physicians are forced to make quick and calculated decisions between conserving the fighting strength or saving the few who may be more critically wounded 

with limited medical supplies. Reverse triage addresses this scenario. In war, some 

patients who may be salvageable during peacetime must be labeled as expectant. 

Hastening the inevitable death of an expectant warrior to save the life of one or 

more of his teammates represents an option under extreme circumstances. This 

drastic measure, while possible, would require a deeper ethics discussion before 

implementation. So far, discussion has focused on casualties and constraints based 

on fires into Seoul. North Korean ballistic missiles must also be considered.

North Korean ballistic missiles can reach the full length of the South Korean 

peninsula. Open-source reporting has also confirmed North Korean missiles 

capable of reaching Japan, Guam, and the continental United States. This places 

all major aerial and naval ports of embarkation, as well as major staging areas, 

within range. North Korea’s possession and willingness to use chemical and biological agents further complicates the threat to those air and sea ports. If these 
Fresh Whole Blood for the Near-Peer and Immature Theater Conflict

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 67

ports were to become contaminated with chemical or biological agents, it is 

doubtful command authorities would allow assets to land or dock in the contaminated areas. Before the air and sea supply lines can be optimized, the theater 

ballistic missile and chemical/biological threat must be eliminated or at least reduced to an acceptable level. Optimizing the air and sea supply lines will have a 

profound impact on delivery of all critical war supplies, including blood.

Once blood arrives in Korea, it must be transported to the patient, or the patient must be brought to the lifesaving resource. Due to the mountainous South 

Korean geography, a significant number of tunnels and bridges exist between the 

Greater Metropolitan Seoul Area and the southern port of Busan.6 Compromise 

of these bridges or tunnels will greatly impact evacuation efforts via train or automobile. Gridlocked roads and impassable bridges and tunnels, coupled with mass 

southward migration of the civilian population, will prevent timely distribution of 

blood. The same factors will complicate the evacuation of patients from the north 

to medical facilities located further south. Blood needs to move north from southern ports of embarkation, and the patients need to move south from the northern 

battlespace. The same movement-restricted environment applies equally to patients and blood supply. Ariel movement will also be disrupted.

Movement via air will be greatly restricted during the first 7–30 days of war. 

Limited rotary wing assets currently reside on the peninsula. The United States 

has finite capacity, which is unlikely to be tasked for purely medical reasons. Until 

incoming fires have been attritted, commanders cannot be expected to risk these 

limited assets to evacuate patients from frontline areas. Assuming personnel were 

dispatched to support patient movement, they will have limited options for receiving facilities to offload patients. The same restrictions will apply to areal movement of blood. Fixed-wing delivery options will also be extremely limited until 

enemy air defenses are reduced and air superiority is gained.

The US military medical system has been a victim of its own success in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. Recent experiences with 97-percent survival rates for wounded 

combatants have become the new expectation. Denied and contested environments inherently do not allow for the same level of medical care as locations with 

established and well-resourced theater combat support hospitals. To maintain the 

trust of the war fighter, the United States will do everything possible to ensure 

survival of wounds. The United States must establish a plan to provide lifesustaining and lifesaving medical care in contested or denied environments. Lowtiter FWB represents a proven, safe, and economical manner to provide point of 

injury blood for combat resuscitation.

“Low titer group O whole blood can be considered the standard of care in resuscitation of major hemorrhage.”7

 Currently, many military units prescreen their 
68 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Keller, Garrison, & Powell

personnel to act as emergency blood donors.8 This practice is most commonly 

referred to as a walking blood bank (WBB). In the Special Operations Forces 

community there are two notable programs: the Ranger O Low Titer (ROLO),9

utilized by the 75th Ranger Regiment, and the Standardized Tactical Universal 

Donor-Korea (STUD-K) program, utilized by Special Operations Command 

Korea (SOCKOR)10 and United States Forces Korea (USFK).11 The WBB does 

not replace the formal blood bank system. The intent has always been to augment 

the blood supply in times of exceptional need. Now is the time to move beyond 

conventional thinking and create a standardized DOD-wide system that is simple, 

yet responsive enough to provide blood any time and any place that US service 

members find themselves in harm’s way. “Severely injured combat casualties requiring transfusion have a significant mortality rate (range 10–20%) and have the 

greatest potential to benefit from early and appropriate transfusion strategies.”12

Recent analysis of casualties from Afghanistan clearly shows, “Among medically 

evacuated US military combat causalities in Afghanistan, blood product transfusion prehospital or within minutes of injury was associated with greater 24-hour 

and 30-day survival than delayed transfusion or no transfusion.”13 FWB is the 

solution, especially in contested or denied environments.

The use of FWB resuscitation decreases mortality and morbidity in war fighters wounded in combat.14 Transfusion of FWB at the point of injury (POI) can 

decrease mortality rates of “potentially survivable” injuries. The use of low-titer 

type O whole blood has been used during many prior conflicts. Low-titer type O 

blood can be given to anyone on the battlespace with extremely low and acceptable risk of adverse reaction. The current military definition of “low-titer” is less 

than a 1 to 256 dilution of Anti-A/Anti-B antibodies.15 Lt Col Ethan Miles of 

the 75th Ranger Regiment has spearheaded a recent revitalization of this very old 

concept. SOCKOR used a modified version of his program to scale for use in the 

Korean theater. This protocol was adopted by 8th Army and implemented by 

units throughout USFK.

Fresh low-titer whole blood represents a safe cost-effective method to make 

blood available at the POI. A prescreened donor requires only a simple blood 

donation bag to be able to provide a unit of warm whole blood. Prescreening donors within the combat units prior to deployment eliminates any need for the 

supply and distribution chain, because the donor pool has already been established. Use of prescreened WBBs also eliminates very expensive and potentially 

unreliable infrastructure that requires power to cool and rewarm blood products 

and the associated technical personnel. FWB from a living donor can be directly 

infused to a patient without the need for any additional expensive equipment.
Fresh Whole Blood for the Near-Peer and Immature Theater Conflict

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 69

Currently the Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps all have varying levels of 

involvement and operating procedures for use of FWB. Most of the programs are 

run by junior medical officers. Their supervisors possess varying levels of expertise 

or comfort with this type of program. A plethora of data shows low-titer whole 

blood can be used safely and efficiently.16 The required level of safety and certainty 

during mass casualty in wartime scenarios cannot be expected to match peacetime 

levels. This is supported by a 2010 policy from the Under Secretary for Health 

Affairs, Dr. Charles Rice: “The use of non-FDA-compliant blood is sometimes 

necessary to save lives and may be the only alternative during combat operations 

or mass casualty events.”17

Current DOD protocols for accessions require testing for blood type, HIV, 

hepatitis, sickle cell disease, G6PD deficiency, and other conditions based on a 

premise of population health, its impact to readiness, and safety. Antibody titer 

testing should be added to the accession predeployment test profile on all personnel with type O blood. Approximately 40 to 50 percent of the US population has 

type O blood. Additionally, 25 to 75 percent of personnel with type O blood will 

have low Anti-A/Anti-B antibody titers. A recent 2019 study in Texas showed 

that 87 percent of 3,274 type O+ male donors were low-titer.18 With successive 

titer testing, it appears that individuals display a tendency toward lower titers.This 

indicates that titer testing may not be required after the second test if donors have 

been identified initially as low-titer.19 Due to the significant cost associated with 

current models that perform titer testing prior to every deployment, the military 

should establish service members’ titer with a onetime test. Testing for transfusiontransmitted diseases should be completed concurrently with titer testing.

Current accession testing includes hepatitis and HIV as noted above. Many of 

the additional confirmatory tests at the ASBP included on standard blood bank 

panel include Chagas disease, West Nile virus, human T lymphocytes virus, malaria, Zika, babesiosis, among others. While this broader level of testing is appropriate for safety in the much larger and regulated blood banking system, it is 

not required in the context of this program, because the mortality rate is reduced 

and all those potential issues in morbidity can be treated afterward.

The risk of a transfusion-transmitted disease will be higher under this program 

than the formal blood banking system. This recognized risk can be mitigated. 

HIV and hepatitis C (HCV) do not represent the same threat they did 50 years 

ago. HIV has become a chronic disease that can be managed, not the relative 

death sentence it was in the 1980s. HCV is still a major issue, but modern drugs 

are almost capable of a complete cure.
70 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Keller, Garrison, & Powell

Conclusion

US servicemembers may be asked to put their lives directly in harm’s way. These 

warriors deserve every opportunity to survive their period of service, whether one 

tour or an entire career. Exsanguination has been a leading cause of death in every 

conflict. The use of tourniquets greatly decreased loss of life due to extremity 

hemorrhage, but this success has been predicated upon early evacuation and early 

surgical intervention. The situation described above as well as unseen future conflicts in a peer-to-peer or near-peer fight will prevent early evacuation and early 

damage control resuscitation. A well-established program to prescreen all military 

members and identify eligible donors, coupled with trained and empowered medics able to perform pre-hospital blood transfusions, will provide the best option to 

close the critical capability gap.

Now is the time for the DOD to establish a uniform process to prescreen and 

standardize training and procedures across all military departments. Establishment of a DoD-level program will improve joint medical interoperability. Economic feasibility and interoperability are critical to programmatic sustainability. 

Establishing a safety net against future disruptions of conventional supply and 

distribution is vital for combatant survivability in contested environments. Programs established by the 75th Ranger Regiment and SOCKOR serve as proof of 

concept. These proven and established programs must be scaled and implemented 

across the whole of the DOD. 

Lt Col Alex P. Keller IV, MD, USAF

Colonel Keller currently commands the Special Warfare Operational Medicine Squadron at JBSA-Lackland. His 

previous assignments ranged from squadron doctor to theater special operations command surgeon during his 15 

years supporting Air Force special operations. Dr. Keller maintains board certification in emergency medicine with 

special interest in pre-hospital emergency medical services and combat trauma care. He earned his MD from the 

Medical College of Georgia and a masters in strategic studies from the Air War College and maintains a faculty 

appointment in the Department of Military and Emergency Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the 

Health Sciences.

Maj Ryan G. Garrison, DHA, USAF

Major (Dr.) Garrison is clinical laboratory officer currently serving as Chief of Medical Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Modernization at the Air Force Medical Readiness Agency, where he coordinates 

and manages 41 programs with 22 DOD partners to enhance the readiness for 300,000 Airmen. Prior assignments 

include multiple laboratory flight commands and a USCENTCOM deployment as the Chief of Apheresis. Garrison 

received his doctorate in health administration from the Medical University of South Carolina, holds dual master’s 

degrees in public administration from Valdosta State University and military operational art and science from Air 

Command and Staff College, and a bachelor’s degree in clinical laboratory science with an emphasis in molecular 

biotechnology. Additionally, he is dual certified by the American Society of Clinical Pathology as a medical laboratory scientist and molecular biologist.
Fresh Whole Blood for the Near-Peer and Immature Theater Conflict

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 71

Col James E. Powell, USAF, retired

Colonel Powell is a senior wargame programmer at the LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education, 

Air University, where his primary focus is on using wargames as a unique research methodology to develop insights 

and options for senior decision makers on various strategic issues such as command relationships, joint all domain 

operations, and medical support for combat operations in denied and contested environments. He received master’s 

degrees in international relations from the Air War College and in information systems management from Boston 

University. A graduate of the USAF Academy and the USAF Fighter Weapons School, Powell is a career educator 

and fighter pilot and has taught at the Air Command and Staff College and the Air War College.

Notes

1. Andrew P. Cap, “Assessment of U.S. Damage Control Resuscitation Readiness for Combat 

Operations in the Republic of Korea (ROK),” Joint Trauma System Assessment, 2018.

2. Cap, “Assessment of U.S. Damage Control Resuscitation Readiness.”

3. “ South Korea Population 2020 (Live),” World Population Review (website), 2020, https://

worldpopulationreview.com/.

4. Cap, “Assessment of U.S. Damage Control Resuscitation Readiness.”

5. Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care, “TCCC Guidelines for Medical Personnel 

190801,” National Association of EMTs, 1 August 2019, http://www.naemt.org/.

6. Busan is the South Korean port formerly known as “Pusan.” It was officially renamed in 2000.

7. Andrew P. Cap, et al., “Whole Blood Transfusion,” Military Medicine 183, no. l–2 (1 September 2018),51, https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usy120.

8. Eve Meinhardt, “Walking Blood Banks Fill Gap for Medical Care in Field Environment,” Health.mil, 6 August 2019, https://health.mil/; and C. J. Lovelace, “USAMMC-K 

Gains Operational Control of Blood Support Detachment,” Korea.Stripes.com, 10 September 

2019, https://korea.stripes.com/.

9. Tony Mayne, “Ranger Whole Blood Program wins an Army’s Greatest Innovation Award,” 

Army.mil, 14 March 2017, https://www.army.mil/.

10. Alex P. Keller, “Operating Instruction for STUD Blood-K O Low Titer Whole Blood 

Program” Pyeong-Taek, ROK 2018.

11. Scott Kuhn, “Walking Blood Bank Can Save Lives on the Battlefield,” Amry.mil, 5 August 

2019, https://www.army.mil/; and Cap, “Assessment of U.S. Damage Control Resuscitation Readiness.”

12. Cap, et al., “Whole Blood Transfusion.”

13. Stacy A. Shackelford, et al., “Association of Prehospital Blood Product Transfusion during 

Medical Evacuation of Combat Casualties in Afghanistan with Acute and 30-Day Survival,” 

Journal of the American Medical Association 318, no. 16 (2017): 1581–91.

14. Shackelford, et al., “Association of Prehospital Blood Product Transfusion.”

15. Roland L. Fahie, “Low Titer Group O Whole Blood for Contingency Support” (Falls 

Church, VA: Armed Services Blood Program Office, 11 April 2016).

16. Geir Strandenes, et al., “Low Titer Group O Whole Blood in Emergency Situations,” 

Shock 41, no. 1 (2014): 70–75, doi:10.1097/SHK.0000000000000150.

17. Charles L. Rice, Health Affairs Policy 10-002 Policy on the Use of Non-U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration Compliant Blood Products (Falls Church, VA: Armed Services Blood Program Office, 19 March 2010.

18. Rachael Beddard, et al., “ImmunoglobulinM Anti‐A and Anti‐B Titers in South Texas 

Group O D+ Male Donors,” Transfusion 59, no. 7 ( July 2019): 2207–10.

19. Jonathan D., Bailey, et al., “Changes in Donor Antibody Titer Levels over Time in a 

Military Group O Low‐Titer Whole Blood Program,” Transfusion 59, no. S2 (2019): 1499–1506.
72 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

VIEW

India’s Deterrence Goldilocks 

Dilemma in South Asia

Geoffrey Brown

Abstract

In the last two decades, the world has experienced a massive shift. Developing 

countries have economically and militarily advanced and are more aggressively 

pursuing their national interests. The two largest of these countries, China and 

India, have been at odds for decades over border disputes. Compounding this, 

China’s closer relations with Pakistan and attempts to encircle India have pushed 

the two countries on a collision course, one that the United States, which views 

China as a great-power rival, would be well-positioned to exploit. However, the 

nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India makes this a difficult task. According to Vipin Narang’s works, Pakistan has adopted an asymmetrical escalation 

nuclear posture that effectively deters India from pressuring it, even in the face 

of terrorist actions like the 2008 Mumbai attacks. In my research, I seek to present the unique Goldilocks dilemma that balancing China and Pakistan presents 

to India and examine how closer Indo–American collaboration is the best path 

to prevent rapid instability and possible nuclear war in the region. This article 

examines why a closer future US–Indian partnership is needed to finesse India 

out of its Goldilocks dilemma.

The Deterrence Goldilocks Dilemma

During the Cold War, deterrence was comparatively straightforward: have 

enough nuclear weapons and well-positioned ground forces to ensure that your 

enemy felt that their ability to act against your side was restricted. However, the 

bipolar world of the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union is 30 

years behind us, and while the economic integration of the world has increased 

dramatically, political integration and alliances have lagged. The result is that we 

live in a far messier multipolar international system, what author Ian Bremmer 

defines as G-Zero, a situation where “no country or bloc of countries has the political and economic leverage to drive an international agenda.”1

In the realm of deterrence, one of the conundrums that this new normal presents to states is the Goldilocks dilemma. The Goldilocks principle is when something must be “just right,” not too much and not too little. The Goldilocks dilemma is a balancing problem where this cannot be achieved. When two forces 
India’s Deterrence Goldilocks Dilemma in South Asia

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 73

create a situation where “just right” is impossible, either you need more to avoid 

one problem or less to avoid another one.

 This deterrence conundrum was less of an issue in the past during the more 

structurally bipolar Cold War but will become an increasingly common issue as 

more countries achieve nuclear breakout and the structures shift to a more multipolar paradigm. Recently, a great example of a state experiencing this dilemma 

was the United States and its Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) 

with Russia. On the one hand, this treaty helped maintain strategic stability with 

Russia and increased European confidence in American promises by ensuring 

that no local nuclear conflict at shorter range could leave the United States untouched. However, China was not bound by this treaty and possesses 2,650 landbased missiles that would be in violation of the treaty if Beijing were a member. 

The United States felt the need to counterbalance these weapons with assets 

banned by the treaty to establish strategic stability and reassure its allies in East 

Asia.2 Thus, on 2 August 2019, Washington withdrew from the treaty after a war 

of words with Russia regarding Moscow’s compliance with the treaty—only to 

immediately turn around and test its own medium-range missile on 20 August.3

The situation the United States found itself in was a result of two different rival 

forces acting upon it and challenging Washington’s deterrence plans. However, 

America is far from alone in this regard, and its situation is, relative to others, 

stable. The award for the worst deterrence Goldilocks dilemma must go to India, 

which must contend with two rivals: a revisionist nuclear Pakistan, paranoid about 

its security situation and constantly supporting terror attacks across the border, 

and the rising regional power of China, with its territorial claims on Indian territory and ambitions to expand Beijing’s control into the Indian Ocean. Like the 

American dynamic, India is faced with a conundrum where New Delhi must 

choose between having either stability on one front or deterrence on the other. 

Worse, either choice will result in disastrous consequences in the future for India

Quadrilateral Nature of the South Asian Security Situation

The root cause of the South Asian security situation can be traced back to 

Kashmir. Ever since the bloody event that was the 1947 Partition of India occurred, there has been bad blood between India and Pakistan. Despite the shared 

linguistic and culture heritage, the Hindu–Muslim divide that Partition exacerbated resulted in a situation that was destined to produce war and strife. India was 

far from united when it won its independence, and the myriad of Princely States 

and their rulers had, in theory, the choice to accede to either India or Pakistan. 

Fifteen million people were forced to move, and 10 million lost their lives in the 

ensuing chaos.4 India’s Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Patel, now famously known 
74 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Brown

as the Bismarck of India, worked endlessly to create a politically integrated India 

and managed to coerce all but three states into the Union.5 In late 1947, Patel 

used force to bring Hyderabad and Junagadh, both states with Muslim rulers, to 

join the Union. On the other hand, Kashmir’s Hindu ruler decided to join willingly, but his Muslim-majority population and Pakistan did not accept this, resulting in the 1947 Indo–Pakistan War that split Kashmir in two. It is this territorial conflict that keeps Pakistan and India perennially fighting and makes close 

relations realistically impossible.

Making the conflict even more complicated, Beijing’s claims on northeast 

Kashmir and other parts of North India brought China into the mix in 1962, 

when, while the rest of the world was distracted by the Cuban missile crisis, Chinese troops took Indian-held territory in the Sino–Indian War.6

 Later that year, 

Pakistan ceded the territory China claimed that it held in Kashmir to end all 

disputes and foster better relations with Beijing. This was the start of the “AllWeather Friendship” between the two countries, forming, in India’s view, an antiIndian alliance. Pakistan would later go on to facilitate relations between China 

and the United States during the Nixon administration. Nowadays, China is 

Pakistan’s most significant military ally and has referred to Pakistan as “our Israel.”7

However, in India’s corner there is now the United States, which, while having 

supported Pakistan in the past for Islamabad’s help in Afghanistan, has slowly 

shifted to a strongly pro-India stance since 2000.8 Washington sees in India a 

natural democratic partner that can help the United States maintain its position 

in the Indo-Pacific and greatly frustrate Chinese efforts at hegemony and power 

projection. As a result, Washington has sought closer relations with New Delhi 

since Pres. Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia.” As of now, the United States and India 

have signed the 2012 Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) and, in 

2014, the Declaration on Defense Cooperation.9 Later, President Obama and 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi met during India’s 66th Republic Day and hammered out a framework for the US–India defense relationship and a joint strategic 

vision for the Indo-Pacific region, in addition to four projects under the DTTI. 

This all served, from the US point of view, to cement the partnership with India. 

One sign of the strength of this new partnership is how it has continued to blossom during the Trump administration, at a time when America has experienced 

fraying relations with most of its other major allies.10

From the Indian point of view, the United States is a welcome interloper whose 

support could help tip the scales in India’s favor at bit. China is much more developed militarily and economically than India, and Beijing has used its financial 

resources to slowly cultivate relationships on India’s borders, making New Delhi 

nervous and mistrustful of China’s “peaceful rise.” In addition, Chinese assistance 
India’s Deterrence Goldilocks Dilemma in South Asia

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 75

to Pakistan’s military, nuclear programs, and in international bodies has become 

an unacceptable thorn in the side of India—not to mention the constant issues of 

territorial disputes that have existed since 1962 and which were exacerbated by 

the Doklam Standoff in 2017 and the ongoing situation in the Galwan Valley. At 

this moment, India is a defensive power under great pressure, pushed by a revisionist nuclear Pakistan on one side and a now superpower China on the other.11

Something not often appreciated by Washington is that India is not warming to 

the United States out of some feeling of brotherhood among democratic states 

but rather out of need and a shared interest in seeing the status quo in South Asia 

maintained.12 Which brings us to the main point of this article: How can a US–

Indian partnership work to finesse India out of its Goldilocks dilemma?

In answering this question, we must understand more in-depth the two sides of 

India’s Goldilocks dilemma, the forces that are acting upon it and have pushed the 

country that founded the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) into aligning itself 

with the United States. The first is what New Delhi can do to more effectively 

deter China from encroaching on Indian territory and New Delhi’s sphere of influence. The second, and much trickier, issue is the South Asian nuclear dyad. According to Narang’s work, Islamabad has already adopted an asymmetrical escalation 

nuclear posture that effectively deters India from pressuring Pakistan but also increases the risk of nuclear theft and accidental launch. This means that Pakistan has 

operationalized its nuclear capabilities to deliver a first strike against India should 

conventional conflict arise between the two. Since the events of the 1971 war, 

Pakistan has been very sensitive about the relative balance of power between itself 

and India, and with Pakistan’s nuclear program, Indian plans for grand strategy has 

been consistently constrained. Thus, India has tried different strategies to reestablish deterrence that have only further increased instability. Essentially, this leaves 

New Delhi in a Goldilocks dilemma, where India must increase its capabilities so 

Chinese decision makers fear it, without causing Islamabad to panic.13Therefore, 

the key to the Goldilocks dilemma for India is maintaining stability with or deterring Pakistan while simultaneously freeing up enough resources to be able to deter 

China. An extremely tall order for India on its own.

Deterring China

One of the main goals of a US–India alliance, especially from the viewpoint of 

India, would be to deter China from further action and expansionism along the 

Indian border, in terms of both claimed territory and attempts to limit New 

Delhi’s relations with India’s neighbors. When it comes to understanding and 

conceptualizing deterrence, I find it most helpful to remember the Doctor Strangelove quote: “Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy . . . the 
76 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Brown

fear to attack.”14 What is key here is the mind of the enemy, and as such we need 

to know what China thinks of India. To properly do this I would need to know 

Mandarin, but since I do not, I have based this part of my work on the scholarship 

of Xiaoping Yang of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and more 

recent work done by Yun Sun of the Stimson Center’s East Asia Program.

My first and foremost takeaway from Yang’s work is the simple fact that Beijing 

is not worried about New Delhi and does not view India as a security threat.15

There are two chief reasons at work for this thinking. First is that there is a capability gap, especially in technology, between the two countries in favor of China. 

The second factor is the no-war bottom-line threshold, which simply means 

China believes neither side wants war and Beijing must merely avoid pushing any 

issue to that point. All of this is further built off the assumption that China does 

not need to respond to India as a nuclear power. Again, there are two reasons for 

this assumption. One is that Beijing does not fully believe the story that New 

Delhi developed India’s weapons to deter China. While Beijing does understand 

that India feels pressured by the Sino–Pakistan alliance, Chinese leaders feel that, 

since China’s nuclear capability is concentrated on the United States, India’s worries are baseless. Instead, Chinese strategic circles believe that India went overtly 

nuclear for political reasons of prestige and that there is no real intention on New 

Delhi’s part to threaten China. Secondly, China does not worry about India’s 

nukes due to New Delhi’s “no first use” policy and limited nuclear capability, again 

Beijing does not believe India’s seriously intends to fight China. Essentially, at the 

root of China’s threat perception of India lies the fact that Beijing does not see a 

situation in which the two countries would involve themselves in a full-scale war, 

conventional or nuclear.

However, despite this outlook, Yang points out several current events have 

given China some concern, all of which are tied with India’s recent alignment 

with the United States. The US–India nuclear deal in 2008 was the first, though 

Beijing’s main worry was the wavering support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty 

regime in Washington; furthermore, China expressed concern about the possibility of dual-use technology that could help lead to an arms race in Asia.16 The 

second event was when, in 2010, India’s no-first-use policy seemed to evolve from 

a “no-first-use” to a “no-first-use against nonnuclear weapons states” policy. Again, 

this goes back to China’s reasoning that if it sees no aggressive intention from 

India, Beijing does not need to worry, and these changes could snowball.

A further step in the wrong direction, from China’s point of view, was the initiatives that India rolled out as a partner of the United States. Next, was India’s 

formation of a special border force specifically meant to deal with Tibet and 

China-related border issues. Finally, there was the launching of India’s nuclear 
India’s Deterrence Goldilocks Dilemma in South Asia

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 77

submarine, the Arihant, in 2016, which, while not worrying China due to the 

ship’s lack of technical sophistication, was yet another step that increases the 

chance of future crisis. Again, China does not yet feel that India is a security 

threat, but Beijing is not happy with the direction New Delhi is going.

According to Sun’s work, these previous actions, a more assertive Modi government, and a closer relationship with Washington have been enough to push Beijing to attempt forming better ties with New Delhi, with high-profile visits in 

2019.17 While Beijing believes in China’s superiority, Chinese leaders realize that 

their nation suffers from an asymmetry of threat perceptions. New Delhi views 

China as its primary threat, while Beijing only views India as one of many secondary challengers. Beijing realizes this could possibly result in China’s own 

Goldilocks dilemma and as such wishes to avoid conflict with India. However, 

Chinese leaders find themselves unable to work with India diplomatically, since 

New Delhi’s prerequisites for trusting China, resolutions to border issues and 

halting attempts to stop Pakistani backed terrorists via the UN, are hard commitments, while Beijing’s need, that India becomes neutral, is ephemeral and easy to 

change. As such, the trajectory for Sino–India relations to become more conflictual in nature over time is high.

According to Yang, Beijing’s future threat perception of India will be shaped by 

three factors: foreign support for India, the enhancement of India’s conventional 

military, and how China’s interactions with India regarding border disputes and 

Tibet play out. Sun’s more recent work has shown that the situation has shifted 

enough to warrant Beijing’s attention but not enough to result in any shift in 

policy. This is due to Chinese observers maintaining their low expectations for the 

US–India partnership. They believe there are too many issues, in strategic culture 

and choice of partners, for cooperation to go further and that the alignment of the 

two countries is merely tactical with little real depth. Therefore, Beijing believes 

that when a conflict arises cooperation will fall apart, unlike other US alliances 

with binding agreements. This understanding of how China views India gives us 

a basic road map about the direction the US–India partnership can go and what 

types of support would help India to be taken more seriously by China.

Pakistani Nuclear Strategy and Full-Spectrum Deterrence

On the other end of the Goldilocks dilemma, there is the matter of Pakistan’s 

nuclear capabilities, which Narang’s work outlines meticulously. Pakistan has 

operationalized its nuclear capabilities to create an asymmetric escalation posture, where a state, historically a state conventionally inferior to its adversary, 

operationalizes its nuclear capacity so that it can launch a first strike, thus deterring the use of both nuclear and conventional capabilities against itself. For this 
78 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Brown

posture to be credible under circumstances when an adversary attacks, there must 

be some level of delegation of authority, and the state’s nuclear capabilities must 

be married to its armed forces. This is to ensure the enemy understands that any 

aggressive action is likely to trigger a nuclear response despite how the enemy 

might try to sow confusion. Additionally, this means this posture relies partially 

on the state being unambiguous about its capabilities and deployment to get the 

maximum deterrence effect.18

Currently only Pakistan employs this posture, given the extreme difference in 

the power of its conventional forces and India’s. Seared into the minds of all 

Pakistani commanders is the memory of their nation’s humiliating defeat in the 

1971 war, when India succeeded in splitting Pakistan in half in a mere 13 days, 

making Bangladesh, which had been East Pakistan, an independent country.19

While Pakistan would prefer a strategic restraint regime of some kind with India, 

which would limit conventional and nuclear forces, Islamabad understands that 

this will never happen due to India’s security concerns regarding China. Furthermore, Pakistan does not view stability as possible until New Delhi shows India is 

serious about solving territorial disputes, which given India’s advantageous position is highly unlikely.20 Therefore, the perceived growth in Indian capabilities, 

combined with the view that diplomatic solutions are a pipedream, has resulted in 

the current Pakistani strategy of full-spectrum deterrence, threating nuclear first 

use in conventional conflict through its nuclear posture.

In his experiment, Narang looks at the history of conflict between India and 

Pakistan since they gained nuclear capacities and evaluates the deterrence effect 

that each posture had while employed. His results are very straightforward in 

that the asymmetric escalation posture has been “deterrence optimal” for Pakistan. The evidence for this lies in the fact that while the United States was able 

to help deescalate and end conflicts for Pakistan while it employed the catalytic 

posture, such did not deter India from using conventional means against Pakistan at times. On the other hand, since employing the asymmetric escalation 

posture Pakistan has had, at the time of Narang’s article, no Indian conventional 

forces setting foot on Pakistan’s soil, even in the aftermath of two major InterServices Intelligence–supported terrorist attacks.21 This posture has served as a 

shield from which Pakistan can use subconventional means to attack India with 

no fear of reprisal, resulting in a stability–instability paradox. The idea behind 

the paradox is that the nuclear weapons will deter major actions by an opponent 

resulting in strategic stability, which paradoxically makes lower levels of violence safer since the other party cannot escalate in response without threatening 

nuclear conflict.22
India’s Deterrence Goldilocks Dilemma in South Asia

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 79

However, this has led to even greater escalation and instability in the region, 

as use of subconventional attacks has led India to become frustrated and desperate for reprisal, and New Delhi has attempted strategies, such as Operation Cold 

Start, which it believes will allow India to strike Pakistan in a limited fashion 

without crossing the nuclear red line.23 However, this did not deter Pakistan, and 

New Delhi has likely been driven to skirt the edges of India’s no-first-use policy 

to reestablish deterrence. Outlined in Narang’s newer work, it is highly likely 

that India is putting the intelligence and weapons capabilities together to allow 

it to launch a preemptive counterforce strike that could credibly destroy Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities24—a plan that is highly destabilizing, since it would 

push Islamabad to use all of its nuclear weapons in the event of a crisis out of fear 

that Pakistan could lose them. Additionally, this will result in Pakistan delegating even more authority, spreading out their weapons caches, and increasing the 

risk of accidental use and theft to maintain the credibility of Islamabad’s deterrent against Indian conventional forces, which Narang asserts would put the region on permanent crisis footing, as both countries are playing evermore dangerous games of brinksmanship.

Recent events have seen the issue of such South Asian brinksmanship pushed 

to the forefront. At the end of January 2019, Pakistan tested a nuclear-capable 

close-range ballistic missile—the Nasr. The development of the Nasr was in response to the Indian Cold Start doctrine.25 Then on 14 February 2019, the 

Pakistan-based terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammad killed 46 Indian soldiers in 

the Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir, leading New Delhi to respond with 

an airstrike on 26 February at Balakot, in Pakistan-held territory, with an Indian 

jet shot down and its pilot captured.26 In the ensuing chaos, India escalated massively, and it was reported that Prime Minister Modi threatened to use missiles if 

the Indian pilot was not returned to India.27 For the first time in this brinkmanship game since acquiring nuclear weapons, it appears Pakistan blinked, and Islamabad promptly returned the pilot. Furthermore, Pakistan responded to the 

first Indian warplanes to cross the line control since 1971 not with nuclear forces 

but with conventional airpower.28 While it is only a small concession, this small 

victory for India will undoubtedly serve to strengthen existing plans to pursue 

preemptive counterforce strike to deter Pakistan. However, Pakistan will not sit 

on its hands and will likely be putting together its own plans, via increased survivability of weapons and/or more advanced designs, to break Indian confidence in 

its capabilities. The result appears more volatile than most of the Cold War, with 

no winners, and it is clear alternatives must be found to fix the situation.
80 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Brown

The Lukewarm Porridge: A Formal US–India Alliance Is the Only 

Option of Unappetizing Options

After considering the issues India has at both ends of its Goldilocks dilemma, 

it is clear how the dual pressures have pushed New Delhi into aligning with the 

United States. It deserves to be reiterated how big of a change this is for the 

country that founded the NAM during the Cold War. While this is a big step, it 

is also still not enough to allow India to fix its Goldilocks dilemma. The apparent 

brittleness of the US–India partnership means it does little to deter Beijing or 

constrict Chinese action in the region. At the same time, the nuclear dyad between Pakistan and India has only become more unstable, with India having 

barely managed to achieve what appears to be a short-term pyrrhic victory. The 

Modi and Trump administrations have continued to ramp up ties. However, this 

has still fallen short of a formal treaty alliance, which, as unappetizing as it might 

be, is New Delhi’s best shot at solving India’s Goldilocks dilemma.

New Delhi currently faces three possible paths India can pursue to escape its 

dilemma. The first path is the current one, where New Delhi continues to try to 

solve the matter with India’s own power, maintaining some of its neutrality, only 

making some tactical partnerships at its convenience. However, as we can already see, this path fails to deter China from making moves against India, and 

the preemptive counterforce strategy will result in more crisis instability and is 

highly unlikely to reestablish deterrence with Pakistan in the long term. In fact, 

it will most certainly result in an arms race that will put the region at greater 

risk and drain resources needed to compete with China and restart the growth 

engine of the now sputtering Indian economy. In short, we already know that 

this path is going to fail.

A second path would be an attempt to work with China rather than the United 

States on fixing these issues. However, according to Sun’s work, this path would 

likely be doomed to failure. Frustratingly, China finds itself pulled in two directions when it comes to India; on the one hand, Beijing has a genuine interest in 

maintaining peace so it can focus on China’s conflict in the Indo-Pacific with the 

United States and not divert forces to its front with India. However, at the same 

time, Indian and Chinese plans and visions in South Asia are incompatible and a 

source of strife. Compounding this is the fact that South Asia is India’s primary 

theater but only a secondary one for China; thus, there is an asymmetry of actions 

and demands. As previously stated, China only demands India remains neutral, 

while India demands actions from China that Beijing could not take back and that 

would strengthen India in the region. This is intolerable to Beijing, which views the 

demands as too much and feeding into India’s internal politics. Beijing believes 
India’s Deterrence Goldilocks Dilemma in South Asia

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 81

that if China gave India any kind of victory, it would embolden New Delhi further. 

China’s core interest here is that India remains struggling to control South Asia 

and neutral in China’s conflict with the United States, as such it is clear that diplomatic attempts to find solutions to New Delhi’s Goldilocks dilemma will be 

stalled by China, whose main goal is Indian passivity. In short it is a waste of time.

The third path is a formal alliance between the United States and India against 

China, and the extension of American security guarantees could be the most 

powerful deterrent that India could hope for against Beijing. While China might 

view its capabilities as far ahead of India’s, Beijing is under no illusions about 

China’s gap with the United States. Additionally, as mentioned before, this would 

force China to deal with a new front and split its forces, giving both India and the 

United States a better chance in the region. For dealing with Pakistan, an Indo–

America alliance offers several possibilities. First it creates a problem for Islamabad, as India would, officially or unofficially (since the United States would never 

allow a nuclear attack on its troops to go unpunished), be under an American 

nuclear aegis, and the credibility of Pakistani threats that would escalate to attacks 

on Indian territory would be less believable. More importantly would be the possibility of India opening new options to increase costs of subconventional attacks 

committed by Pakistan via sanctions through the US alliance network. Finally, is 

the possibility that the response to a US–India alliance is a closer Sino–Pakistan 

alliance. Naturally, there are negatives to this eventuality; however, there could be 

two major positives. First, this would end the Goldilocks dilemma, since the conflict would become bipolar in nature and create two united fronts facing off. The 

second is that this bipolar scenario would more easily allow for treaties to prevent 

nuclear arms races and could generate some real strategic stability in the region. 

Everything considered, it is not guaranteed that a formal alliance would allow 

India to escape the Goldilocks dilemma, but it certainly gives New Delhi the best 

chance of deterring Beijing and new tools for dealing with Islamabad.

With this said, neither New Delhi nor Washington is quite ready for a formal 

alliance, as there are some speed bumps that need to be considered and remediated. Trump has furthered cooperation in meaningful ways and signaled a willingness to work more closely with the rebranding of US Pacific Command to US 

Indo-Pacific Command. However, his attitude and policies on immigration have 

not been well-received in New Delhi. Additionally, India’s purchase of Russian 

missile defense systems, bought to enable India’s new counterforce posture, according to Narang, and other weapons have made it difficult for the United States 

to work toward interoperability and position some of its most sensitive technologies in India. The US–India relationship is a relatively new one, and these are 

some of the kinks. However, there are going to be costs that New Delhi must deal 
82 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Brown

with to secure the alliance; namely, India will need to abandon its counterforce 

posture against Pakistan and the Russian missile defense that is a key part of it.

Furthermore, there are questions as to whether this alliance is desirable for the 

United States, given the current situation. India is facing major domestic challenges, and there are some real questions about New Delhi’s ability to deliver on 

the hopes that US policy makers have for it. US interests are very much at the 

periphery of Indian domestic politics; while both countries are democracies, this 

has never led to especially good relations in the past as it did in the West. The 

Indian economy is growing fast but also generating massive income inequality, 

underemployment, brain drain, and drought. Militarily India’s forces are primarily 

focused on Kashmir and Pakistan, tying down large quantities of manpower and 

military spending.29 As much as India would like to remove itself from the India–

Pakistan dyad, issues in Kashmir and growing nationalism constantly draw New 

Delhi back into a fight Washington would much rather not take part in.30 The 

caution on both sides to solidify a defense relationship are built upon some major 

hurdles that will take time to overcome, but given it is India’s best option to surmount the Goldilocks dilemma and America’s best option to open a second front 

for China, Washington should continue pushing for a treaty alliance.

Finally, as American strategy clearly wants the Indo-Pacific to play a major role 

in its future plans for countering China, supporting India might be the cost 

Washington must bear to open another front against China in this new Cold War. 

Furthermore, the current state of Pakistan’s and India’s nuclear forces demands 

US attention, and given that China will be as useless in solving this crisis as it has 

proven to be with North Korea, a strategy to reestablish strategic stability by 

changing the conflict from multipolar to bipolar is one worth contemplating.

Conclusion

India is in a Goldilocks dilemma in which New Delhi must increase its capabilities vis-à-vis China, but at the same time, Islamabad harasses and constrains 

India. Pakistan has used its nuclear capabilities to create an asymmetrical escalation posture and is seeking full-spectrum deterrence against India. In doing so, 

Islamabad has created a security situation with risks with which both the region 

and wider world must concern themselves. With this article, I have pointed out 

that to achieve both of its aims India’s only feasible option is a formal alliance 

with the United States. Continuing the old Indian policy of nonalignment will 

never allow New Delhi to escape the Goldilocks dilemma, as India lacks the 

strength to do this on its own. Aligning India with China to solve the issue is 

doomed to fail, as Beijing views India, by virtue of New Delhi’s position and level 

of power in South Asia, as a rival that must be subjugated to secure Chinese he-
India’s Deterrence Goldilocks Dilemma in South Asia

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 83

gemony. The extent of Beijing’s goodwill is limited, as China only wants to avoid 

conflict with India, while Beijing still must concern itself with the United States. 

These factors have already served to push India into aligning itself with America; 

the question remains if India and the United States can agree to the formal alliance necessary to counter China. If not, India is merely pushing off inevitable 

conflict with China over the Indo-Pacific—possibly to a time when New Delhi 

might not have the United States and US allies to help keep Indian borders and 

waters where they are today. 

Geoffrey Brown

Mr. Brown recently graduated with his master’s degree from Georgia Tech’s Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. While studying languages in India on a Boren SAFLI Fellowship in 2018, he became interested in South Asian 

security issues. Previously, he presented at the United States Strategic Command’s Deterrence and Assurance Conference and later won the 2019 General Larry D. Welch Deterrence Writing Award (Senior Division) for his work.

Notes

1. David Rothkopf, “G-Zero: Gee, Another Idea with Zero to Support It,” Foreign Policy, 28 

February 2011, https://foreignpolicy.com/.

2. Thomas G. Mahnken, “Countering Missiles with Missiles: U.S. Military Posture after the 

INF Treaty,” War on the Rocks, 16 July 2019, https://warontherocks.com/.

3. “INF Nuclear Treaty: US Tests Medium-range Cruise Missile,” BBC News, 20 August 2019, 

https://www.bbc.com/.

4. William Dalrymple, “The Bloody Legacy of Indian Partition,” New Yorker, 22 June 2015, 

https://www.newyorker.com/.

5. Daniel Argov, “Vallabhbhai Patel,” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2018, https://www.britannica.com/.

6. Ishaan Tharoor, “What China’s and Pakistan’s Special Friendship Means,” Washington Post, 

21 April 2015, sec. World Views, https://www.washingtonpost.com/.

7. Thalif Deen, “China: ‘Pakistan Is Our Israel,’” Al Jazeera, 28 October 2010, https://www

.aljazeera.com/.

8. Paul Staniland, “America Has High Expectations for India. Can New Delhi Deliver?,” War 

on the Rocks, 22 February 2018, https://warontherocks.com/.

9. US Department of Defense, “Fact Sheet: U.S.-India Defense Relationship,” no date, https://

dod.defense.gov/.

10. Richard Fontaine, “U.S.-India Relations: The Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy 

Bright Spot,” War on the Rocks, 24 January 2019 https://warontherocks.com/.

11. Staniland, “America Has High Expectations.”

12. Dean Cheng and Lisa Curtis, “The China Challenge: A Strategic Vision for U.S.–India 

Relations,” Backgrounder (Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, 18 July 2011), http://thf

_media.s3.amazonaws.com/.

13. Yogesh Joshi, “Angles and Dangles: Arihant and the Dilemma of India’s Undersea Nuclear 

Weapons,” War on the Rocks, 14 January 2019, https://warontherocks.com/.

14. Stanley Kubrick, Dr. Strangelove: or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

(Hollywood, CA: Hawk Films and Columbia Pictures, 1964), film.
84 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Brown

15. Xiaoping Yang, “China’s Perceptions of India as a Nuclear Weapons Power,” Carnegie 

Endowment for International Peace, 30 June 2016, https://carnegieendowment.org/.

16. Yang, “China’s Perceptions of India.”

17. Yun Sun, “China’s Strategic Assessment of India,” War on the Rocks, 25 March 2020, https://

warontherocks.com/.

18. Vipin Narang, “Posturing for Peace? Pakistan’s Nuclear Postures and South Asian Stability,” International Security 34, no. 3 (Winter 2009/10): 38–78, https://www.belfercenter.org/.

19. Sushant Singh, “India-Pakistan 1971 War: 13 Days That Shook the Subcontinent,” Indian 

Express, 16 December 2016, https://indianexpress.com/.

20. Lawrence Rubin and Adam N. Stulberg, eds., The End of Strategic Stability?: Nuclear Weapons and the Challenge of Regional Rivalries (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2018).

21. Narang, “Posturing for Peace?”

22. Robert Jervis, The Meaning of Nuclear Revolution Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon

(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989).

23. Narang, “Posturing for Peace?”

24. Christopher Clay and Vipin Narang, “India’s Counterforce Temptations: Strategic Dilemmas, Doctrine, and Capabilities,” International Security 43, no. 3 (2019): 7–52.

25. Ankit Panda, “Pakistan Conducts Second Nasr Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missile Test in 

a Week,” Diplomat, 4 February 2019, https://thediplomat.com/.

26. Soutik Biswas, “Viewpoint: India Strikes in Pakistan a Major Escalation,” BBC News, 26 

February 2019, sec. India, https://www.bbc.com/.

27. Jeffrey Lewis, “‘Night of Murder’: On the Brink of Nuclear War in South Asia,” NTI, 6 

November 2019, https://www.nti.org/.

28. “Balakot: Indian air strikes target militants in Pakistan,” BBC News, 26 February 2019, 

https://www.bbc.com/.

29. Staniland, “America Has High Expectations.”

30. Rubin and Stulberg, End of Strategic Stability?
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 85

VIEW

Untapped Potential between India 

and Japan in the Indo-Pacific

Pursuing International Military Education

Vindu Mai Chotani

Dr. Shutaro Sano

The geopolitical and strategic space created by the India and Japan Special 

Global and Strategic Partnership has put both states in a position to focus 

on deepening the connective tissue in their bilateral partnership. In the 

Indo-Pacific region, some of these primary issues have been connectivity and infrastructure projects, security and defense relations, and trade ties.

However, a study of regional trends demonstrates that the region is also faced 

with increasing incidences of instability and unpredictability. The most recent examples being the US-China trade war and the COVID-19 pandemic. In analyzing 

this rising uncertainty, there is a growing need to explore the underlying, secondary, and/or more untapped potential of the Indo-Japan bilateral partnership.

One crucial area emphasized is the need to pursue a more profound international military education program, with a focus on cadet-level trainings and exchanges. This article argues that there is a need for dialogue on this issue and also 

a need for the implementation of potential collaborative exchanges, programs/

courses, scholarships, and conferences between Indian and Japanese cadets. The 

idea behind these policy recommendations is that in the short- and long-term, 

such endeavors would essentially give more heft and consistency and deepen trust 

in this bilateral relationship, especially in the realms of defense and security.

Importance of Cadet-Level International 

Military Education Exchanges

International military education exchanges, if pursued at the cadet level, could 

have a number of short- and long-term benefits. Firstly, while it is important to 

acknowledge the importance of maintaining defense exchanges at senior levels, 

initiating defense exchanges at a younger stage can be foundational as this when 

the cadets—the future top-level officers—cultivate their personalities, qualities, 

and beliefs with regard to the outside world. Thus, while friendship or comradeship can also be fostered at a later stage in life or when senior officials conduct 

exchanges, cultivating enduring or meaningful friendships is much more compli-
86 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Chotani & Sano

cated and difficult. Primarily because officials at this stage in their lives and careers 

have multiple “calculations” based upon their professional and social positions.

Secondly, cadet-level exchanges are important to enhance better military education and to foster stronger ties through mutual understanding between the two 

countries. Visits of this nature, while giving wide exposure to general cadets, also 

helps in comparing military standards with other contemporary institutes and 

thereby carry out introspection with a view to reviewing syllabi and positive 

changes/upgrades of training infrastructure. Along these lines, one can gauge the 

reasons why so many military academies, including the National Defense Academy of Japan (NDA), the Indian Military Academy (IMA), and all three military 

academies in the United States welcome so many international cadets to study 

alongside their own.

Thirdly, at a soft-power level, these exchanges provide cadets access to important tools for decision making, such as cultural sensitization, knowledge sharing, 

and language skills—all of which enhance professionalism and ties among cadets. 

Some of these cadets may also go on to hold senior positions in their home countries. Thus, in the future, they carry the potential to aid states to work toward their 

broader goals of creating peace and stability: regionally and internationally.

An Assessment of International Military 

Education in Japan and India

To understand the gaps that could potentially be filled, taking stock of both 

country’s military education programs and international exchanges is important.

The National Defense Academy of Japan (NDA)

Cadets in Japan are trained and educated at the NDA in Yokosuka.1 The 

uniqueness of the academy lies in its dual education/training structure in which 

its educational curricula are in full conformity with the Japanese university standards set by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 

(MEXT), while the standards of the academy’s basic defense studies and training 

are set by the Ministry of Defense (MOD). This has been an important factor for 

the cadets to cultivate their identities within the realm of Japanese society.

The academy is also unique for its long history of incorporating international 

cadets into its educational system, starting from 1958. As of 2019, Japan has accepted more than 2,000 foreign cadets.2

 Through their daily interactions with 

international cadets, the exchanges have widened the international awareness and 

perceptions held by the Japanese cadets. This reception of international cadets at 

the academy has been extremely important for the Japanese cadets, who have 
Untapped Potential between India and Japan in the Indo-Pacific

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 87

mostly been brought up in a mono-ethnic society that lacks firsthand knowledge 

of non-Japanese people. Simultaneously, the exchanges have enabled the international cadets to acquire a value of internationalization and a more nuanced and 

deeper understanding of Japanese culture and lifestyle.

At the cadet level, the NDA has both long- and short-term exchanges with key 

Indo-Pacific states such as the United States, Australia, and a majority of ASEAN 

states. With respect to its long-term, five-year program, the NDA receives about 

120 international cadets—25 cadets each year, from about 10 countries—mainly 

from Southeast Asia.3

The international cadets who enroll in the long-term exchange program are 

initially required to complete a one-year Nihongo ( Japanese language) course. At 

this point, they are called “zero-class” students and are not yet categorized as 

“cadets.” Upon completion of the first year of language training, they will become 

“freshmen” cadets and study and train together with other Japanese cadets for the 

following four years until their graduation. One of the main reasons for the full 

year of Japanese language education is that the courses taught at NDA are primarily in that medium.

With regards to shorter programs, the NDA has a two-year program (for 

sophomore and junior years) for cadets from countries including the Republic of 

Korea (ROK). In addition, the NDA receives cadets from the United States (army, 

navy, and air force), Australia (joint institution), and France (air force) for one 

semester—which is approximately four months. The NDA also offers 10-day visits to the academy for cadets from Australia, India, the ROK, Russia, Singapore, 

Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Further, the NDA also sends more than 50 Japanese cadets, many of them juniors, overseas each year. Those studying in the ROK do so for a year for the air 

force cadets, and one semester for the army and navy cadets. Other one-semester 

exchanges include those in Australia, France (army, navy, and air force), Germany 

(army and air force), Qatar, and the United States (army, navy, and air force).4

NDA cadets also engage in one- to three-week visits to the service academies of 

Brazil, Canada, China, India, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, the United Kingdom, 

and the United States.

The training and exchange of military officers and personnel is a vital component of the strategic partnership between Japan and its partner states in the defense 

and political-security arenas. For example, Rear-Admiral Edwin Leong from Singapore graduated from the NDA in 1998. Having majored in aerospace engineering at the NDA, he is now Head of Naval Operations in Singapore.5

 Another key 

example is with Thailand, with which the NDA’s international exchange program 

has its longest relationship, starting in 1958. Two, four-star generals (one from the 
88 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Chotani & Sano

Air Force and one from the Navy) have been graduates from NDA and have become prominent and influential leaders in the Royal Thai Armed Forces.

Finally, in addition to the exchange programs listed above, the NDA annually 

holds the International Cadets’ Conference and invites cadets from about 20 

countries, including India and China.

To laud these achievements, in November 2018, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe 

held a Reception for the Gathering of the Foreign Cadet Graduates of the National 

Defense Academy. The prime minister emphasized that this gathering was the first 

of its kind to build a network with foreign cadets who graduated from the NDA.6

The Indian Military Academy (IMA)

India has several defense training institutions and military academies. While 

Indian cadets train at a number of institutions, such as the National Defence 

Academy and Army Cadet College, international cadets, known as the Foreign 

Gentleman Cadets (FGC), are trained at the Indian Military Academy.

Since 1948, a limited number of cadets from African and Asian countries with 

close ties to India have received “pre-commission training” at the IMA.7 These 

countries have included Angola, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Myanmar, Ghana, Iraq, 

Jamaica, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, the Philippines, Singapore, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, and Zambia. In recent years, Sudan, the Maldives, Botswana, 

and Lesotho have also sent cadets to IMA.

Due to the fact that more underdeveloped or weaker states have small armies 

and lack the infrastructure to train their military officers, they seek help from 

larger and better-equipped countries such as India for the training of their officers. This trend is reflected in the number of FGM graduates. For example, as of 

2016, a total of 1,961 foreign cadets graduated from the academy, with the highest 

number of the cadets coming from India’s neighborhood: Bhutan, 551; Afghanistan, 422; Sri Lanka, 263; Nepal, 141; and Tajikistan, 144.8

Neighborhood states and smaller nations aside, it should also be noted that 

other states with more developed militaries too, such as France and Singapore, 

have previously sent their cadets to India to receive a military education and to 

foster stronger ties between the two countries.9

India has a steady number of FGC intakes every year. In 2016, 53 FGCs 

graduated from the IMA;10 in 2018 and 2019, there were 80 and 77 such graduates respectively.11

However, more recently, the Indian government announced that it has prohibited its armed forces personnel from partaking in training courses that are funded 

by foreign governments.12 New Delhi has stated that it would allow armed forces 
Untapped Potential between India and Japan in the Indo-Pacific

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 89

personnel to attend training in foreign countries only when deemed utmost necessary and that the Indian government would pay for such training.13

Against this background, it is worth noting that despite being one of the most 

professional providers of military training in the world, India still faces significant 

gaps in terms of military education, beyond tactical and operational issues. Given 

the increasingly interdependent and complex nature arising in Indo-Pacific region, collaborating and expanding its military education scope with like-minded, 

trusted partners could be beneficial.

Potential Areas of Collaboration between India’s and 

Japan’s Cadet Programs

Scholarships and Exchanges

Starting in 1996, the Japanese government has a scheme to annually offer full 

scholarships to international cadets to study at the NDA, under the NDA’s international exchange program.14 If a foreign cadet is enrolled at the NDA, she/he is exempted from paying for tuition, rooms, uniforms, food, and all medical treatment at 

the academy or other medical institutions of the Japan Self-Defense Forces.15

While this may be difficult for Indian cadets to access due to the limitations on 

receiving foreign training, it should be noted that Indian military personnel can 

themselves identify suitable foreign institutions for training courses and seek government funding.16 Further, it is worth acknowledging that the “US and UK have 

for a long period primarily sponsored the Indian military officers’ training. Many 

times, it is done on a reciprocal basis.”17

Given the strong bilateral ties between India and Japan, both countries can 

work to establish a scheme wherein both states can reciprocate with scholarships, 

therefore allowing for Indian cadets to apply to study at the NDA and Japanese 

cadets at the IMA. This could first start with short-term semester exchanges and 

then graduate to long-term exchanges.

Further, another area for opening up potential exchange collaborations is with 

India’s National Cadet Corps (NCC). Through its Youth Exchange Programme 

(YEP), India has sent over 100 young cadets to participate in NCC activities of 

the host country to create an increased awareness and appreciation of each other’s 

socioeconomic and cultural realities.18 While countries have included Bangladesh, 

Bhutan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Nepal, Russia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, 

Turkmenistan, and Vietnam, exchanges with an important bilateral partner such 

as Japan are yet to be seen.
90 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Chotani & Sano

Finally, in 2014, the Indian Naval Academy in Ezhimala, Kerala, opened its 

doors to foreign cadets, albeit only cadets from the Indian Ocean region: Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Mauritius.19 While it is key for India to engage its neighboring, smaller states, given the importance that both India and Japan place on 

maritime security and a large array of maritime issues, cadet-level exchanges could 

go a long way toward deepening higher-level ties. Thus, it is worth exploring 

complementarities here as well.

Soft-power Engagements

Soft-power engagements have always been important in deepening ties between states, and in a number of ways, it is no different in the realm of professional military education.

Host-family relations. Unlike the Japanese cadets, international cadets are assigned to Japanese host families who will take care of the students outside the 

NDA. The system is aimed to give international cadets some “relief ” time so that 

they can learn more about the Japanese culture and system without having to 

cope with the various stresses they usually have at NDA. Some international 

cadets become so close psychologically with their host families that they would 

call their Japanese host-family members as “fathers/mothers/brothers/sisters.”

As mentioned previously, if India and Japan were to initiate either short- or 

long-term cadet exchanges, they would have the opportunity to provide their 

cadets with this unique and invaluable human experience.

Language. Taking stock of India’s important bilateral partnerships, Indian cadets 

are trained in a number of foreign languages. Cadet courses in Russian, English, 

Arabic, and French are offered. In 2012, given the importance India places on 

China, and as part of a pilot project of the Indian MOD, Indian cadets studying 

at one of the oldest Rashtriya Military Schools (RMS), located in Chail, Himachal Pradesh, also started studying the Chinese language.20 However, there has 

been no introduction of Nihongo yet.

Further, Japan’s NDA offers Nihongo training for one full year to those international cadets who engage in the five-year exchange program. However, since India does not partake in this long-term cadet-level exchange, Indian cadets do not 

have access to this opportunity as well, to take up the study of Nihongo. Thus, 

despite Japan being one of India’s increasingly important bilateral partners, there 

is yet to be an option for Indian cadets to learn Nihongo, either at the IMA or 

even at the NDA.

On the other hand, for the Japanese cadets, at Japan’s NDA, academic education 

and training are, in general, held in Japanese. The NDA also offers foreign language courses for the cadets: it is mandatory for the cadets to take English lan-
Untapped Potential between India and Japan in the Indo-Pacific

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 91

guage courses, as well as one of the following languages as their secondary foreign 

language: Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Korean, Portuguese, and Russian. 

Here as well, there is no option or possibility to learn Hindi.

Further, while these foreign language courses are certainly beneficial in improving the basic foreign language skills for the cadets, the effects of these courses are 

somewhat restricted in a way, because they do not necessarily provide Japanese 

cadets with an adequate level of language skills to effectively engage in other 

academic courses and training in a foreign language.

Thus, as India’s ties deepen with Japan, offering academic and training courses in 

English for the Japanese cadets, for example, could well be a meaningful step.

Cultural Clubs. As part of the extracurricular activities, the cadets of Japan’s 

NDA can join a number of cultural and/ or athletic clubs.21 As part of cultural 

clubs, Indonesian, Mongolian, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and East 

Timorese cultures are among the topics and activities that NDA cadets have 

access too.

Once again, if Indian cadets were able to take part in the long term or short term 

exchanges (or vice-versa), they could actually form their respective country clubs 

and promote a deeper understanding of India or Japan at a much earlier and 

younger stage, rather than waiting for mid-level or senior officer level exchanges 

to do this.

While, this can be viewed as a very small step, cultural activities and cultural 

clubs in universities go a long way in deepening people to people ties.

Faculty exchanges and syllabi content analysis. The academic levels of international cadets differ greatly based upon not only their personal academic background but also the levels of educational systems of their countries of origin. For 

example, international cadets from countries such as East Timor had a harder 

time in their studies at Japan’s NDA because of the lack of or insufficient educational systems in their home countries.

Additionally, in November 2018 one of the authors of this article visited Japan’s 

NDA to deliver a guest lecture on India–Japan relations in the Indo-Pacific. This 

was attended by approximately 40 cadets from Japan, the United States, and a 

few ASEAN nations. Many cadets expressed how the scope of certain geographic 

areas such as the Bay of Bengal or other geopolitical and geostrategic terms in 

the Indo-Pacific region were completely new to them.

Given the growing role that both Japan and India are shouldering in the IndoPacific region, faculty exchanges give the academies an opportunity to review syllabi and also have an informed and updated understanding of what each academy 

is teaching and focusing on. This in turn would enable the cadets to have access to 

higher quality education.
92 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Chotani & Sano

Conclusion

Under the banner of the Special Global and Strategic Partnership, India and 

Japan have been strengthening their defense ties through various exchanges and 

conducting trainings at an unprecedented pace in recent years. In doing so, the 

two countries have begun to establish a foundation to deepen a sense of trust 

between their militaries.

However, there are still areas in this partnership that remain significantly untapped. One such key area brought forth in this article has been the lack of sound 

people-to-people networking at the cadet level between the two states. As such, 

this article has highlighted a number of potential areas of collaboration in this 

realm that could be further explored by India and Japan. A truly effective and 

sustainable relationship is developed through a sense of affinity that can be better 

cultivated at an early stage of one’s professional career, a vital period in which 

people develop identity and awareness as well as learn to respect the value of diversity and mutual interdependence. 

Vindu Mai Chotani

Ms. Chotani is a PhD student at the Graduate School of Public Policy, the University of Tokyo.

Dr. Shutaro Sano

Dr. Sano is a senior researcher at the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INS), former professor at the National 

Defense Academy of Japan, and Colonel, Ground Self-Defense Force (retired).

Notes

1. In addition to the undergraduate courses offered for the cadets, the NDA also has graduate 

courses, both at the masters and Ph.D. level for Self-Defense Forces officers.

2. Cabinet Public Relations Office, Government of Japan, “Reception for the Gathering of the 

Foreign Cadet Graduates of the National Defense Academy,” 28 November 2019, http://japan

.kantei.go.jp/.

3. As of April 2020, Brunei is the only ASEAN country that has yet to send its cadets to the 

NDA.

4. In the past, the NDA also received cadets from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI).

5. Cabinet Public Relations Office, “Reception for the Gathering.”

6. Cabinet Public Relations Office, “Reception for the Gathering.”

7. “IMA trains growing number of young foreign army officers,” India Review, June 2006, 5, 

https://eoi.gov.in/.

8. Times News Network, “53 Foreign Cadets from 8 Countries complete their training,” Times 

of India, 10 December 2016, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.

9. “IMA trains growing number of young foreign army officers,” India Review.

10. “IMA trains growing number of young foreign army officers,” India Review.
Untapped Potential between India and Japan in the Indo-Pacific

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 93

11. Press Trust of India, “427 cadets pass out from Indian Military Academy,” Economic Times, 

8 December 2018, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/; and Kalyan Das, “459 Gentleman 

Cadets pass out of IMA,” Hindustan Times, 9 June 2019, https://www.hindustantimes.com/.

12. “India Bars Its Military from Undertaking Foreign-Sponsored Training,” Sputnik News, 22 

September 2017, https://sputniknews.com/.

13. “India Bars Its Military from Undertaking Foreign-Sponsored Training,” Sputnik News.

14. Embassy of the Republic of Philippines, “Another Batch of Two Filipino Cadet Scholars 

Graduate From The National Defense Academy of Japan,” 23 April, 2018, https://tokyo

.philembassy.net/.

15. National Defence Academy of Japan, “Education of Foreign Cadets and Foreign Graduate 

Students,” https://www.mod.go.jp/.

16. Maj Gen R. K. Arora, ret., chief editor of Indian Military Review, cited in “India Bars Its 

Military from Undertaking Foreign-Sponsored Training,” Sputnik News, 22 September 2017, 

https://sputniknews.com/.

17. “India Bars Its Military from Undertaking Foreign-Sponsored Training,” Sputnik News.

18. Press Trust of India, “NCC, Kyrgyz Republic MoU for youth exchange programme,” Business Standard, 5 January 2017, https://www.business-standard.com/.

19. P. Sudhakaran, “Indian Naval Academy opens doors to foreign cadets”, Times of India, 12 

December 2014, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.

20. Ajay Suru, “Cadets of Chail military school to learn Dragon’s language,” Times of India, 3 

April 2012, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.

21. National Defence Academy of Japan, “Extracurricular Activities,” https://www.mod.go.jp/.
94 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

BOOK REVIEW

India and Nuclear Asia: Forces, Doctrine, and Dangers, by Yogesh Joshi and Frank O’Donnell. 

Georgetown University Press, 2019.

The China India Rivalry in the Globalization Era, ed. T.V. Paul. Georgetown University Press, 

2018.

With a burgeoning economy and one-sixth of the global population, India’s nuclear policy will 

be increasingly significant to its regional and global role. More specifically, India must navigate the 

strategic complexities of defense policy with two strategic competitors: China and Pakistan. India, 

which has been fighting Pakistan off and on since 1947, acts as the more sophisticated conventional 

force. However, Pakistan enjoys the backing of the much larger, much more powerful China. The 

second nuclear age is Asian-centric, and these three nuclear powers form the core of the debate.

Joshi and O’Donnell argue that growing regional force structures, technological sophistication, 

ambiguous nuclear policy, and potentially low escalation thresholds set the stage for deadly 

misperception between India, China, and Pakistan. This misperception could lead to inadvertent 

regional escalation through a naval domain that lacks multilateral regulation, dual-use platforms 

that shade strategic intent and mission, and conventional targeting seeking to seize operational 

advantages. Beyond the military operational environment, political leadership runs the risk of accidental escalation due to a lack of understanding of the potential nuclear consequences of their 

actions. These risks are prominent among India and its nuclear neighbors due to a lack of clear 

policy and a void of trilateral relations.

The book goes on to describe in detail the rapidly advancing nuclear forces of India and China 

and the growing force of Pakistan. It offers insights into the decision making of the three states 

with respect to one another and the composition and disposition of their strategic forces. The 

authors suggest that a murky Indian policy may be allowing its long-standing no-first-use and 

minimum deterrence policies to give way in practice to nuclear war-planning; including extremely 

punitive response measures and a Herman Kahn-esque flexible response option. Regional nuclear 

stability, as much as India can uniquely contribute to it, requires two things. First, India must execute a service-wide nuclear posture review to synchronize and stabilize its nuclear policy amid 

rapidly advancing technology and adversarial activity. Once internally sorted, India should push 

for meaningful trilateral dialogue between itself, China, and Pakistan to remove a degree of potentially costly strategic ambiguity from the political arena.

The authors ground their analysis on the concepts developed by Posen, Kahn, Schelling, Stoessinger, and the so-called “Third Wave” practitioners of nuclear deterrence theory. They have done a 

superb job developing the implications of various nuclear policies and postures, and they present 

careful discussions of policy challenges related to doctrine, force structure, technology, and 

leadership-driven dynamics. However, suggesting an entirely public defense review is probably 

unrealistic in such a contentious security environment. Additionally, there is a contradiction when 

the authors assert that a sea leg could help minimize forces while claiming this somehow conflicts 

with designs for a minimal deterrence posture. I believe they more accurately are suggesting the 

increasing complexity from a nuclear monad to a nuclear dyad breaks with traditional concepts of 

force expansion. The authors base much of their argument on the idea that excessive strategic 

ambiguity and mirror imaging national components of rationality will not add stability to the 

situation. They derive this argument from discussing the misperception inherent in the lack of 

declaratory policy between India and China and the assumed responses to conventional strikes or 

development meant to create parity. I tend to agree, yet these assertions could benefit from discussing or referencing a wealth of post–Cold War literature and documentation that supports such 

a claim. This includes but is not limited to Keith Payne’s The Fallacies of Cold War Deterrence and a 

New Direction, in which the author demonstrates a fundamental US misperception of Cuban resolve to die for their cause in 1962—or the since declassified Soviet doctrine that incorporated 

nuclear weapons into warfare in Europe, very contrary to the US perception.
Book review

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 95

Ultimately, the dialogue stimulated in this book is informative, chilling, and logical. India’s 

nuclear future has global implications for deterrence theory and stability. As the authors depict, 

the United States has had a significant degree of involvement in helping shape India’s nuclear 

policy. I would look forward to seeing the trilateral discussions forwarded in this book expanded 

to include the United States. Other nuclear powers, particularly the United States, could help 

counterbalance a united Pakistan and China, should India find itself at a negotiating disadvantage—ideally leading to a more impartial and stable nuclear peace.

Moving beyond nuclear force structures and strategic escalation alone, T.V. Paul et al. seek to 

characterize the nature of the relationship between two rising Asian great powers, India and 

China. The China India Rivalry in the Globalization Era seeks to explain why, in some sense, these 

two Asian giants seem to be experiencing a degree of economic and political rapprochement; yet, 

maritime disputes, disagreements over international status, and a near territorial military conflict 

in 2017, according to Paul, suggest an “enduring managed rivalry.”

The book introduces the paradox of Chinese and Indian territorial conflict across the so-called 

McMahon Line. Currently, stability supports Chinese and Indian prosperity and development, yet 

each must remain uncompromising on settlement demands to placate political interests. The compilation offers a nuanced discussion of status, conceptualizations of international order, strategic 

culture, and strategy to shed theoretical light on the various fissures and bridges between the two 

nations. The discussion of resource scarcity and its effects on competitive polices provide reasons 

for hope in future renewable energy pursuits. Yet there is a grave potential for future contention 

over freshwater shortages. The work suggests macroeconomic interactions are becoming increasingly asymmetric (a destabilizing trend) as India is about eight times more reliant on Chinese 

imports than China is on Indian imports, and so forth. Moreover, certain Chinese investment 

practices and Chinese investment into Pakistan prove problematic for the hopes of a stabilizing 

economic interdependence between India and China. The paradoxical nature of this rivalry extends into global governance, where both nations seek greater institutional membership and eventually more influence in a reorganized system. However, instead of facilitating, they work to block 

the interest realization of the other in these institutions. Ultimately, this compilation of papers 

asserts that there exists a managed rivalry where status and influence are as much a source of disagreement as are substantive concerns. In fact, because the material and conceptual are bound 

together in this rivalry, the authors suggest that the asymmetry of Chinese and Indian power 

prevents large-scale traditional conflict while also enabling the persistence of general competition.

I am not sure if the ultimate assertion that each paper displaying a complex paradoxical relationship is always enough to draw the papers coherently together as a single narrative or common 

operating picture. The global contextualization of the theme of this book was a strength and something these authors had over O’Donnell and Joshi. O’Donnell and Joshi’s in-depth engagement of 

Pakistan provides very useful context to a number of Paul’s various sections. O’Donnell and Yoshi’s 

in-depth description of Pakistan’s nuclear posture and doctrine drives home the operational complexities for India’s posture and force development discussed in Paul’s book. I would perhaps like 

to see both texts discuss Russian strategic interests, even if just to explain away their relevance if 

that is their reason for exclusion.

The China India Rivalry suggests that India does not, in the foreseeable future, pose a strategic 

threat to China. However, India and the Nuclear Asia makes a compelling case as to why Indian 

force structure is already problematic for China and provides evidence that Chinese policy has 

begun to recognize this. O’Donnell and Yoshi emphasize the trilateral nature of regional nuclear 

dynamics, deftly displaying the interdependent policy and threat dynamics. In Paul’s compilation, 

Narang mentions the nuclear relationship between India and China as almost negligible compared to Pakistan for India and the United States for China. While it is important to understand 

national priorities and a broader strategic scope, Narang seems to overlook the interdependent 
96 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Book review

security dynamic of Pakistan, India, and China that requires India to plan strategic contingencies 

for Chinese involvement in a conflict with Pakistan. This strategic planning drives force structure, 

weapon development, and operational plans that ultimately take a bilateral issue and turn it into a 

regional or global powder keg. Narang also suggests an utter acceptance of Schelling’s principals 

for nuclear deterrence between China and India. However, O’Donnell and Joshi portray a much 

more ambiguous and contentious nuclear relationship, with potential brinksmanship tailored by 

something akin to escalation rungs. What Paul so critically adds is the asymmetric status dynamic 

between India and China that drives Indian ambitions for recognition, as well as the hardbalancing of the other leading to the internalization of a bilateral enmity identity. The perceptive 

American reader should see a direct correlation between the dynamics and potential perils of 

China ignoring Indian status contextualized through a reading of both books and the same factors 

that shape the status dynamics between China and the United States. Additionally, Paul’s sections 

help the reader zoom out from the all-consuming nuclear dynamics of O’Donnell and Joshi and 

witness the broader implications and flashpoints for conflict, as well as an overall stability driven 

by very complex and intertwined interests.

Taken together, these works provide an excellent context for the Asian-centric future of global 

politics and the competition therein.

Chris Giuliano

Graduate Student

Department of Defense and Strategic Studies

Missouri State University
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 97

DIGITAL-ONLY VIEW

The United States and South Korea in 

the Indo-Pacific after COVID-19

Kyle Ferrier

Abstract

No matter who is in the White House come January, there is a clear and pressing need to update the US approach to the Indo-Pacific region. The scope of the 

damage from COVID-19 has emphasized the need for the US Free and Open 

Pacific strategy to better encompass nontraditional security concerns, particularly 

global health and climate change. While sufficiently addressing these challenges 

will only become more difficult as the rivalry between Washington and Beijing 

intensifies, all signs point to South Korea as not only being a crucial actor to help 

substantively address these issues but also to potentially bridge the cooperation gap 

with China in these areas. To illustrate why South Korea should be crucial in US 

Indo-Pacific policy after the pandemic, this article first outlines the limitations to 

Seoul’s participation under the current US approach and how South Korea’s contributions toward the same goals as the United States are currently undervalued. It 

then outlines why the needed changes to the US regional approach after the coronavirus will be most effectively pursued by greater cooperation with South Korea—or at the very least better recognizing Seoul’s positive role in the region.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic is shaping up to be the most transformative development of our time. How the virus quickly spread across the world and brought 

the global economy to a sudden halt will have a lasting, sweeping impact. Though 

we are still in throes of the disease and its fallout, there are expectations of widespread change, as the virus exposes fundamental weaknesses in social, political, 

and economic systems alike.

Washington’s relationships in the Indo-Pacific region are, of course, not exempted from these coronavirus-induced changes. In this regard, perhaps the most 

significant consequence has been the heightening of tensions in the already 

strained ties with Beijing. US president Donald Trump has taken to blaming the 

Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attempt to initially cover up the virus in Wuhan for the worldwide spread of the disease, withholding funding for the World 

Health Organization for its alleged complicity in the CCP’s dishonesty and insisting on referring to the disease as “Chinese.” Existing sources of friction in the 
98 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Ferrier

relationship have also been heating up, with both countries ratcheting up measures against each other’s media outlets and more assertive Chinese naval activity 

in the South China Sea. In short, great-power competition is intensifying.

Much as it is doing for nearly everything else, COVID-19 is likewise laying 

bare the shortcomings of existing US policy toward the region. The Trump administration’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) strategy may be multifaceted, 

but traditional security concerns have by far received the most attention, directed 

toward a rising China. However, the scope of the damage from the pandemic has 

emphasized the need for the FOIP agenda to better encompass nontraditional 

security concerns, particularly health. The current inflection point provides an opportunity to incorporate another important, hitherto underappreciated nontraditional security concern in the current strategy: climate change.

While the White House may look to the current crisis to catalyze a decoupling 

with China in certain areas, COVID-19 also highlights that key issues such as 

global health and climate change cannot be resolved with a complete severing of 

ties with Beijing. Thus, not only must the issues that fall under the FOIP strategy 

umbrella be reevaluated but so too must a wholesale competition with China.

In such a recalibrated Indo-Pacific strategy, Seoul should undoubtedly feature 

more prominently in Washington’s approach to the region. The Republic of Korea 

(ROK or South Korea) has been reluctant to officially endorse the existing FOIP 

strategy over fears of incurring China’s ire, potentially placing the large bilateral 

trading relationship and Beijing’s support on North Korea at risk. The necessary 

adjustments to FOIP made clear by COVID-19, however, better align with South 

Korea’s proven success in key nontraditional security areas. Furthermore, because 

South Korea is perceived as a more neutral actor in the Indo-Pacific and has actively taken on leadership roles in regional cooperation, Seoul could even help 

facilitate crucial cooperation between Washington and Beijing.

To demonstrate why South Korea should be critical in the reformulation of US 

Indo-Pacific policy after COVID-19, this article will first provide a brief overview of the FOIP strategy, the limitations to Seoul’s participation under this 

structure, and how South Korea’s contributions toward goals shared with the 

United States are currently undervalued. The article will then outline why the 

needed changes to the US regional approach after the coronavirus will be most 

effectively pursued by greater cooperation with South Korea—or at the very least 

better recognizing Seoul’s positive role in the region.

Before COVID-19

The Trump administration’s FOIP strategy was first introduced during the November 2017 APEC summit in Vietnam.1

 It is intended to enhance cooperation 
The United States and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific after COVID-19

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 99

with countries in the Indo-Pacific region to uphold the values and rules of the 

existing regional order, to include “free, fair, and reciprocal trade, open investment 

environments, good governance, and freedom of the seas.”2 The strategy is built on 

the three pillars of economics, governance, and security and is augmented by close 

coordination with Japan, Australia, and India—collectively known as “the Quad.” 

While it is officially inclusive and does not require states to choose between partners, the vision has largely been perceived as urging countries in the region to pick 

either Washington or Beijing.

That a rising China is the impetus for the FOIP strategy is no secret. Though 

some official documents refer to the China challenge indirectly, using references 

such as freedom from coercion and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, 

others are more direct in calling out Beijing as a revisionist power.3 To be sure, 

many countries in the region, including South Korea, share the same concerns 

shaping the FOIP strategy, but there are added complications that make the picture less clear-cut.

Constraints

South Korea knows the drawbacks of a more assertive China all too well. In 

July 2017, Washington and Seoul announced the decision to deploy a US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense battery to South 

Korea. Concerned that the system was intended to defend against threats from 

China rather than North Korea as the allies stated, Beijing took a series of retaliatory economic measures against South Korea intended to compel the government 

to reverse its decision. Starting in fall 2016, China took aim at South Korean 

consumer and entertainment exports, tourism, and Lotte—the company that sold 

the land to base the THAAD battery to the government.4 The collective damage 

to the South Korean economy was substantial, with some industries and firms 

never fully recovering even after the “three noes” agreement between Seoul and 

Beijing was signed in October 2017 to ostensibly end the dispute. Some estimates 

put the financial losses as high as 25 billion USD.5 Still, Seoul cannot completely 

abandon the pursuit of close ties with Beijing for two reasons in particular.

The first is South Korea’s economic dependence on China through trade. South 

Korea’s exports represent around 45 percent of GDP, making it second only to 

Germany in terms of export dependence among the world’s 20 largest economies.6

 In 2019, South Korea’s 136.2 billion USD in merchandise exports to 

China—by far the largest destination of goods—represented a quarter of all exports.7

 So, in effect, exports to China last year represented over 8 percent of South 

Korea’s total GDP—a remarkably high amount. This dependence not only presents economic risks to South Korea as COVID-19 and the trade war between the 
100 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Ferrier

US and China in recent years has made clear but also provides Beijing significant 

leverage over Seoul as demonstrated by the THAAD incident.

There are, however, several mitigating factors to this dependence. A significant 

portion of South Korean exports to China are intermediary goods, meaning that 

final demand for a product comes from outside China, and thus lowering the 

ceiling for Beijing’s direct interference in bilateral trade. Additionally, COVID-19 

is causing many multinational firms to rethink their reliance on supply chains 

running through China, which could catalyze Seoul’s ongoing efforts to diversify 

its trade partners. Nonetheless, South Korea’s economic prospects will likely continue to be closely tied to China, at least in the near-term, with the knowledge 

that getting on Beijing’s bad side could prove costly.

The second reason Seoul is not looking to rock the boat with Beijing is because 

of China’s close ties with North Korea. China is North Korea’s closest ally and by 

far its largest trading partner according to official statistics. Despite the limits of 

transforming this influence into changed policy direction, China’s sway with 

North Korea has been on clear display in recent years, as diplomatic activity between Pyongyang and Washington has increased. Between March 2018 and June 

2019, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Chinese president Xi Jinping met 

five times.8 These summits and other senior-level meetings coinciding with the 

broader effort by South Korea and the United States to engage with North Korea 

is reflective of Beijing’s importance in making diplomatic—and ultimately political, economic, and security—progress with Pyongyang. For South Korea, faced 

with the brunt of the North Korean security issue and whose ultimate goal is reunification of the peninsula, China can either be a competitor or collaborator for 

influence in Pyongyang. Posing a direct challenge to Beijing elsewhere possibly 

risks critical support north of the border.

 Consequently, the ROK has been hesitant to formally endorse the FOIP 

strategy. Seoul has been especially reluctant to get more involved in the security 

areas where the disagreement between Washington and Beijing is more overt, 

such as the South China Sea. South Korea has keenly avoided freedom-ofnavigation operations through the disputed waters that the United States and 

several key allies have been conducting. This is highlighted by a September 2018 

incident in which a South Korean naval destroyer entered waters claimed by 

China to avoid a typhoon, sparking a minor incident with Beijing in which Seoul 

adamantly denied the action was part of a larger political maneuver.9 Even for 

areas where there are clear overlapping interests—such as the Blue Dot Network 

launched in November 2019 by the United States, Japan, and Australia to advance 

high-quality infrastructure projects—Seoul has kept away from initiatives that 

could be perceived as containing China.10
The United States and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific after COVID-19

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 101

Opportunities

Where there has been more room for direct cooperation in the region is on issues not as directly aimed at China, such as those that fall under the governance 

and economics umbrellas of the FOIP strategy. Under South Korean president 

Moon Jae-in’s “New Southern Policy” (NSP), Seoul has been pursuing deepened 

ties in South and Southeast Asia along the lines of the “Three Ps”—peace, prosperity, and people—mirroring US efforts in many ways.11 During the June 2019 

Moon–Trump summit, President Moon stated, “Under the regional cooperation 

principles of openness, inclusiveness and transparency, we have agreed to put forth 

harmonious cooperation between Korea’s New Southern Policy and the United 

States’ Indo-Pacific Strategy.”12

As one would expect, this cooperation has mainly come outside of the military 

realm. Before the outbreak of the coronavirus, both countries agreed to expand 

development cooperation in the region through a September 2019 memorandum 

of understanding between their respective development agencies.13 A November 

2019 joint statement resulting from a senior bilateral economic dialogue outlined 

areas for further cooperation in the region, including development, infrastructure, 

science and technology, digital connectivity, energy, and smart cities.14 Additionally, both the joint statement and a joint fact sheet issued earlier that month specifically mention examples of cooperation on climate change and the environment, such as working with Pacific Island nations to secure climate financing, as 

well as on health, including capacity-building in Cambodia through the Global 

Health Security Agenda.15

 Even when the two countries are not in direct cooperation with one another, 

South Korea can still be seen as a “values multiplier” for the United States in the 

Indo-Pacific region.16 As one of the countries that has benefited the most from 

the rules-based order, South Korea has a vested interest in its continued success, 

shaping the country’s outreach beyond the peninsula. Though the impetus for the 

NSP is to make new inroads into South and Southeast Asia while simultaneously 

weaning the economy off of China, the values underpinning the agenda generally 

align with those the United States is seeking to promote. This is embodied in the 

joint statement produced from the 2019 ASEAN-ROK Commemorative Summit, which reads similarly to what one might expect from the United States when 

referencing the FOIP strategy. This includes lines such as “[we] agreed to continue 

working closely together in support of global peace, security, prosperity, and sustainable development.”17

In practical terms, this augments US efforts in the region. South Korea’s cooperation with smaller, less developed economies that are potentially more suscep-
102 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Ferrier

tible to coercion from Beijing—offering expertise in areas such digital infrastructure as well as financial assistance—represents material resources being directed 

toward the same ends that Washington is pursuing. Though both the ROK and 

the United States have been slow to ramp up funding to meet the massive development needs of the region, Seoul has been ambitious in its outlook, planning to 

double its grant aid to ASEAN members by 2022.18

The benefits from Seoul working with other regional partners outside of coordination with Washington also extends into the defense realm. As a 2019 RAND 

report concludes, “South Korea’s growing regional defense cooperation has been 

and is commensurate with US interests in the Indo-Pacific.”19 The report particularly emphasizes how South Korea’s arms exports to partners such as Indonesia 

and the Philippines help limit the spread of Russian and Chinese influence20—

both countries that the Pentagon has referred to as revisionist powers. South Korea’s participation in multilateral exercises, such as the Rim of the Pacific, that 

include regional partners as well as military hardware transfers like the donation 

of a Pohang-class corvette to the Philippines, which has been deemed “the most 

powerful ship” in the Philippine Navy, also furthers US goals in the region. 21

In short, despite the clear limitations, South Korea has been an important 

player for the United States in the Indo-Pacific region. The tragedy of the pandemic and the corresponding changes it has highlighted as necessary for the US 

approach toward the region, however, suggest Seoul will need to feature more 

prominently in Washington’s regional outlook in the near future.

After COVID-19

The Need for Change

The novel coronavirus was far from a black swan event as some have argued. To 

use the parlance of former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, it was a 

“known unknown” that was underestimated. In the short time since COVID-19 

has become a pandemic, there have been widespread calls to rebalance US national security priorities and trepidation about using the virus to heighten the rivalry with China.

A prevailing narrative among notable foreign policy pundits and former senior 

US government officials alike is public spending will need to be shifted from the 

military to health and other nontraditional security areas. Former US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power encapsulated this sentiment in a 14 April Time

article, stating, “the shared enemy of a future pandemic must bring about a redefinition of national security and generate long overdue increases of federal in-
The United States and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific after COVID-19

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 103

vestments in domestic and global health security preparedness.”22 Others have 

elaborated on this funding claim, pointing out that the Trump administration’s 

proposed increase of the war-related budget for next year to 1.2 trillion USD 

while cutting from the Department of Health and Human Services was “spectacularly ill-timed.”23

Another warning that has emerged is a widening rift between the United States 

and China, supported by former top officials in Beijing and Washington. In April, 

former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wrote in the Financial Times, “Strategic competitors and adversaries struggle to find common ground even when it 

is in their self interest. But there will be no lasting recovery if the largest economies, especially the US and China, cannot find a workable strategic framework.”24

Fu Ying, former vice foreign minister for China, expressed similar sentiments in 

the Economist only a few weeks later.25

As some have pointed out, this pivotal moment of reevaluating priorities and 

the US–Sino relationship is also an opportunity to direct more attention toward 

another “known unknown”: climate change. Much like the pandemic, climate 

change has the potential to destabilize the existing rules-based order, especially if 

not addressed more seriously in the near future. As China is the world’s largest 

emitter of carbon dioxide, sufficiently tackling this issue will not be possible without cooperation from Beijing.26

To be certain, both the pandemic and climate change have been on the US 

government’s radar—including the Department of Defense.27 But, given the impact of the current coronavirus outbreak and what it portends about the potential 

scope of future shocks to the system from nontraditional security issues, now is 

the time to critically rethink US foreign policy and defense priorities. This particularly holds true for the Indo-Pacific region, which will clearly play a major 

part in shaping the twenty-first century.

In increasing attention to nontraditional security areas like health and climate 

as well as dialing back a blanket zero-sum approach toward Beijing, Washington 

would, in effect, be opening the door for more regional cooperation with Seoul. 

This would not be cooperation for its own sake; rather it would tangibly buttress 

US interests in the region, due to South Korea’s proven expertise and capability in 

these areas as well as its ability to facilitate and even lead discussion among regional partners.

South Korea on Global Health

How South Korea went from being the global epicenter of the COVID-19 

outbreak in mid-February to zero locally transmitted cases by the beginning of 

May is one of the most significant bright spots of the global pandemic. The gov-
104 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Ferrier

ernment’s fast and broad efforts to contain the virus through testing and contact 

tracing helped to curb the spread of the virus after an explosion of new cases 

linked to a religious community in Daegu. Although there are concerns of a second outbreak after initial measures to reopen the country saw a jump in new cases, 

containment efforts do not seem to be losing steam. The ROK’s success, however, 

has far reaching implications beyond the peninsula.

Seoul’s handling of COVID-19 has become one of the key models for countries around the world to follow, made all the more significant by how it is most 

often contrasted with Beijing’s efforts. Both countries have been able to dramatically limit new infections but have pursued very different paths. After initial measures to cover up the virus, the CCP’s enforced quarantines and quick buildup of 

health infrastructure has been touted as a triumph of the authoritarian system.28

Though there are clear holes in this narrative, it nonetheless raised questions about 

the efficacy of democratic political systems over authoritarian ones against the 

backdrop of retrenching democracy and pluralism around the world.29

The Moon administration’s response to the virus—emphasizing openness, 

transparency, and civic engagement—has been credited with limiting the impact 

of COVID-19 and held up as a model for effectively combating pandemics.30 As 

New York Times columnists Max Fisher and Choe Sang Hun summarized, there 

are four key takeaways from South Korea’s pandemic response: intervene fast, 

before it is a crisis; test early, often and safely; contract tracing isolation and surveillance; and enlist the public’s help.31 Additionally, South Korea’s accountable, 

competent bureaucracy, and transparent daily disclosure of COVID-19 cases 

further highlight how key democratic institutions can help successfully contain 

the virus. While it may already be too late for many countries to apply this model 

to the ongoing crisis, South Korea is taking an active leadership role to help others 

with COVID-19, both within the region and around the world.

As South Korea’s experience has proven the importance of testing for the disease in ultimately containing it, Seoul is actively working to send its diagnostic 

tests abroad. Faced with mounting demand from foreign governments, the Moon 

administration has actively engaged with private local producers of COVID-19 

testing kits to help support exports.32 These efforts have largely been fruitful. In 

March, South Korea sent around 24 million USD worth of test kits overseas, expanding to just over 200 million USD in exports in April.33 Tests have so far been 

exported to 117 countries, including those in the Indo-Pacific region, such as 

Vietnam, China, Australia, and Thailand.34 More than just through commercial 

sales, Seoul is also striving to donate tests to important partner countries with less 

domestic capacity to handle the virus. Within the region, this has notably in-
The United States and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific after COVID-19

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 105

cluded the donation of 50,000 kits to Jakarta through the South Korean conglomerate LG and its manufacturing operations in Indonesia.35

Beyond bilateral cooperation, South Korea has also played an active role in 

helping to coordinate multilateral responses to the virus in light of limited leadership elsewhere. Whereas the G-20 served as the main focus of multilateral cooperation during the global financial crisis, the institution has been slow to muster a 

strong, collective response in the face of COVID-19—at least in part due to the 

China–US rivalry.36 For its part, South Korea has been actively working with 

other international institutions to stem the growth of the disease. In early May, 

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Park Han-ki spoke with 

NATO leadership to discuss cooperation on the pandemic.37 Around the same 

time, Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa spoke with the South Korean envoys to 

major international organizations, such as the UN and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, emphasizing the importance of multilateralism and asking them to utilize the country’s success in managing the virus to 

help build on this cooperation.38

Seoul’s leadership has also been clear at the regional level through ASEAN+3—

consisting of ASEAN members, China, Japan, and South Korea. In a special 

ASEAN+3 summit on 14 April, Moon expressed South Korea’s full support for 

ASEAN and that his government would be looking to utilize the ASEAN-ROK 

Cooperation Fund—totaling over 110 million USD—to help combat COVID-19.39

Moon also stressed the importance of keeping the flow of economic and peopleto-people exchanges open.40

Perhaps the most noteworthy acclaim for the South Korean government’s response has come from UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. During a press 

conference in late April, Guterres praised South Korea for not only its handling 

of COVID-19 but also its continued emphasis on climate change—stating the 

country is a “remarkable example” of how “the two things can be put together.”41

Indeed, South Korea’s approach to climate change—both prior to the pandemic 

and its plans for after—suggests that it will have an important role to play on the 

regional and global stages in the near future.

South Korea on Climate Change

South Korean leaders from both ends of the political spectrum have pursued 

policies to limit the country’s carbon footprint in recent decades. Former president Lee Myung-bak was one of the first world leaders to embrace “green growth” 

as a development strategy, when he was elected in 2008. During the 2008 global 

financial crisis, 80 percent of the government’s fiscal stimulus plan went to green 

growth projects. The Lee administration also initiated a Five-Year Plan in 2009, 
106 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Ferrier

committing 2 percent of annual GDP to strengthening the use of sustainable 

technologies, such as goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent 

through 2020.42 These climate-conscious efforts were not just limited to the peninsula. Lee’s Global Green Growth Institute was launched in 2010 and, only two 

years later, was transformed into an international treaty-based organization.43

The current Moon administration has taken a similar path on climate. The 

cornerstone of Moon’s efforts is his Renewable Energy 3020 Plan, intended to 

increase the renewable energy portion of the country’s energy consumption from 

where it currently stands—nearly 8 percent—to 20 percent by 2030.44 Of course, 

this is not without its challenges, as South Korea faces an uphill battle in moving 

away from coal.45 But, there is some early evidence to suggest that the general 

public is willing to accept the trade-off of higher prices in exchange for the benefits of renewables.46

The outcome of the National Assembly election in April stands to make the 

country’s turn toward fighting climate change all the sharper. The big victory for 

Moon’s Democratic Party, winning a majority of seats, has provided them with the 

political space to pursue their platform of enacting a “Green New Deal.”47 Released 

in the leadup to the election, the plan aspires to make South Korea carbon neutral 

by 2050, the first pledge of its kind in East Asia. To meet its ambitious goals, the 

plan includes large investments in renewable energy, the creation of a carbon tax, 

and the establishment of center to help workers transition to green jobs.48

Though there is still much work ahead in terms of implementation, that South 

Korea could be the first country in Asia to enact sweeping climate-oriented policies amid the pandemic is certainly noteworthy. Much as Lee proved over a decade ago, South Korea would be showing other leaders in the region that it is 

possible to still incorporate climate into efforts designed to fight the current crisis. 

More than just a model, however, the current inflection point provides an opportunity to build on South Korea’s existing cooperation within the Indo-Pacific 

on climate change.49

It is not just the ROK’s values, expertise, and emphasis on diplomacy that make 

it an attractive partner for countries in the region and, therefore, an indispensable 

actor for Washington. South Korea’s position in the Indo-Pacific allows it to be 

seen as a more impartial player, which comes with its own set of advantages.

South Korea as a More Neutral Regional Middle Power and Facilitator

The structural limitations South Korea faces can also be seen to provide key 

structural benefits. While the regional balance of power places clear boundaries 

on Seoul’s ability to more openly engage in efforts to counter Beijing, these same 

dynamics endow South Korea with less political baggage for partners in the Indo-
The United States and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific after COVID-19

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 107

Pacific. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the enduring Sino–Japanese 

rivalry in the region tint cooperation with Beijing and Tokyo in a way that does 

not affect Seoul. Additionally, South Korea’s efforts to shape itself as a middle 

power, both on the global and regional stages, has cemented its position as an effective diplomatic convenor.

Over the past two decades, each South Korean president has undertaken their 

own respective approaches to building the country’s middle-power image. Starting in the early 2000s, Roh Moo-hyun conceptualized South Korea as a regional 

balancer between China and Japan, also serving as a hub for security and economic cooperation. President Lee’s agenda looked beyond the region under the 

“Global Korea” slogan and operationalized South Korea’s middle-power role 

through international institutions, most notably the G20.50 Though the country’s 

middle-power branding faltered under Park Geun-hye’s agenda of “Trustpolitik,” 

Moon’s NSP can be seen as an extension of previous middle-power pursuits in the 

Indo-Pacific region.51

One of the clearest examples of the efficacy of South Korea’s middle-power 

diplomacy is enshrined in the regional financial governance. When ASEAN+3 

countries were in talks to create a new multilateral currency swap arrangement 

after the 2008 financial crisis proved the existing Chiang Mai Initiative ineffectual, the rivalry between Beijing and Tokyo proved a considerable obstacle. With 

both sides vying for greater voting power than the other in the new organization, 

Seoul broke the deadlock by proposing a quota system that now forms the structure of the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization.52 China and Japan are on 

equal footing with the largest voting shares as the biggest would-be donors, South 

Korea’s quota amounts to half of what is allotted to each of its larger neighbors, 

and ASEAN members have various smaller quotas.

South Korea’s commitment to mutually beneficial cooperation and serving as 

an honest broker in the region shows no signs of letting up in the face of the 

pandemic. If anything, the country’s successes in managing the virus appears to be 

redoubling these commitments as previously highlighted. In the face of a worsening US–China rivalry, South Korea’s continued ability to fulfill this role is all the 

more important in light of diminishing goodwill and the need for coordination 

on key transborder issues like health and climate.

For Washington, this is crucial—not only because it ensures progress in these 

areas while its efforts may be concentrated elsewhere but also because South Korea could help serve as a bridge with China on these important, potentially less 

contentious issues. How difficult this appears to be in the current geopolitical 

environment only underscores how critical this role would be when thinking 

about the potential costs of a disjointed response in these areas.
108 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Ferrier

Conclusion

No matter who is in the White House come January, there is now a clear and 

pressing need to update the US approach to the Indo-Pacific region. The scale of 

the impact of COVID-19 so far seems to only be outdone by the implications for 

how it will shape the future. The most obvious necessary changes to the current 

FOIP strategy—namely greater emphases on global health and climate change—

also require the reevaluation of an agenda toward the comprehensive containment of and decoupling with China. In light of these needs, Washington’s path 

forward with the region after the pandemic naturally runs more through Seoul 

than it has in recent years.

Moving forward, the first step for Washington’s post-COVID-19 Indo-Pacific 

policy should be to amplify efforts on global health and climate change to include 

China where possible. There are clear limitations to what this would entail in 

terms of tangible outcomes as the US government continues to try to stop the 

spread of the virus at home and great-power competition intensifies, but effectively communicating this shift would engender its own benefits. While the 

United States should still look to make advancements with South Korea in these 

areas as a natural partner, voicing the importance of these issues carries its own 

weight, as it will effectively reaffirm the work Seoul is already doing.

In the short- to medium-term, differing priorities on traditional security concerns in the region will likely continue to prevent the ROK from officially joining 

a US regional approach that is perceived to be geared toward containing China. 

Even within a policy agenda consisting of mixed efforts to push back against 

Beijing in some areas and engage with it in others that this article advocates for, 

Seoul’s endorsement would still not likely be forthcoming, due to existing concerns over its reliance on China for trade and influencing North Korea. However, 

there should be broader recognition of how Seoul’s outreach in the Indo-Pacific 

region furthers the same values the United States is pursuing in the region, 

whether it is working directly with Washington or not—especially when it comes 

to formulating policy at the bilateral level.

US military strength in the region is a means to an end, not an end in itself. As 

the “free and open” modifiers of the current US strategy suggest, the promotion of 

values is its chief goal. In this sense, South Korea’s diplomacy should not only be 

viewed as upholding shared values in the region but also as a values multiplier. This 

is ultimately worth just as much toward US goals as military cooperation and will 

likely be more so given the major nontraditional security challenges that lie ahead.

Consequently, Washington’s second step in building a post-pandemic regional 

approach should be a shift from a piecemeal to more comprehensive view of the 
The United States and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific after COVID-19

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 109

ROK in the Indo-Pacific. The effective lack of support for Seoul in the face of 

Chinese economic retaliation over THAAD and recurrent demands for South 

Korea to dramatically increase its financial commitments in military burdensharing negotiations suggest there is a disconnect between how South Korea is 

viewed at the regional and bilateral levels and what Washington’s stated regional 

objectives are.53 In practice, this would involve little more than reassessing the 

value of South Korea’s existing work in the region to the United States that may 

be more intangible as well as fall outside the realm of direct cooperation with 

Washington. However, doing so will help better realize Seoul’s existing contributions to US regional interests and make the most of opportunities to further 

shared regional interests in the face of major new challenges. 

Kyle Ferrier

Mr. Ferrier is a fellow and director of academic affairs for the Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI), where 

he manages KEI’s efforts to foster collaboration between the academic and policy communities. In this role, Kyle 

also writes on US–Korea relations, South Korean foreign affairs, South Korean domestic and international economic policy, and the political economy of the Asia-Pacific. He holds an MSc in international political economy 

from the London School of Economics and a BA in economics and government and international politics from 

George Mason University.

Notes

1. “Remarks by President Trump at APEC CEO Summit, Da Nang, Vietnam,” The White House, 10 

November 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/.

2. US Department of State, A Free and Open Indo-Pacific: Advancing a Shared Vision, 4 November 2019, 

4, https://www.state.gov/.

3. Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American 

Military’s Competitive Edge, US Department of Defense, 19 January 2018, https://dod.defense.gov/.

4. China’s Response to U.S.-South Korean Missile Defense System Deployment and its Implications, US–China 

Economic and Security Review Commission, 26 July 2017, https://www.uscc.gov/.

5. Troy Stangarone, “Did South Korea’s Three Noes Matter? Not So Much,” The Diplomat, October 30, 

2019, https://thediplomat.com/.

6. “Exports of Goods and Services (% of GDP),” World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/.

7. “K-Statistics,” Korea International Trade Association, http://www.kita.org/.

8. AFP, “Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un hail immortal ties,” Straits 

Times, 6 October 2019, https://www.straitstimes.com/.

9. Jeremy Page and Andrew Jeong, “South Korean Warship Sails by Disputed South China Sea Islands,” 

Wall Street Journal, 28 September 2018, https://www.wsj.com/.

10. US Department of State, “2019 Indo-Pacific Business Forum Showcases High-Standard US Investment,” 3 November 2019, https://www.state.gov/.

11. “New Southern Policy, Vision,” Presidential Committee on New Southern Policy, http://www.nsp.go.kr/.

12. “Opening Remarks by President Moon Jae-in at Joint Press Conference Following Korea-U.S. Summit,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea, 30 June 2019, http://www.mofa.go.kr/.

13. US Department of State, A Free and Open Indo-Pacific, 8.

14. “Joint Statement on the 4th ROK-U.S. Senior Economic Dialogue,” U.S. Embassy and Consulate in 

the Republic of Korea, 6 November 2019, https://kr.usembassy.gov/.
110 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Ferrier

15. “U.S. & ROK Issue a Joint Factsheet on their Regional Cooperation Efforts,” US Embassy and 

Consulate in the Republic of Korea, 2 November 2019, https://kr.usembassy.gov/.

16. Kyle Ferrier, “Monetizing the Linchpin: Trump’s Foreign Policy Versus the U.S.-Korea Alliance’s 

Value to Washington,” Korea Economic Institute of America, 9–16.

17. “Partnership for Peace, Prosperity, and People,” Co-chairs’ statement of the 2019 ASEAN-Republic 

of Korea Commemorative Summit, 26 November 2019, https://asean.org/.

18. Ibid., 7.

19. Scott W. Harold, Derek Grossman, Brian Harding, Jeffrey W. Hornung, Gregory Poling, Jeffrey 

Smith, and Meagan L. Smith, The Thickening Web of Asian Security Cooperation: Deepening Defense Ties Among 

U.S. Allies and Partners in the Indo-Pacific (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2019), 108, https://www.rand.org/.

20. Ibid., 353–54.

21. Third Anne Peralta-Malonzo, “Navy’s ‘most powerful ship’ arrives from Korea,” SunSar Manila, 19 

August 2019, https://www.sunstar.com.ph/.

22. Samantha Power, “Samantha Power: How the COVID-19 Era Will Change National Security Forever,” Time, 14 April 2020, https://time.com/.

23. Catherine Lutz and Neta C. Crawford, “Fighting a virus with the wrong tools,” The Hill, 28 March 

2020, https://thehill.com/.

24. Henry Paulson, “Henry Paulson: Save globalization to secure the future,” Financial Times, 17 April 

2020, https://www.ft.com/.

25. Fu Ying, “Fu Ying on why China and America must co-operate to defeat covid-19,” The Economist, 

29 April 2020, https://www.economist.com/.

26. Robert Rapier, “The World’s Top 10 Carbon Dioxide Emitters,” Forbes, 4 December 2019, https://

www.forbes.com/.

27. See for instance Michael T. Klare, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change

(New York: Metropolitan Books, 2019); and “Pandemic Influenza and Infectious Disease Response,” USNORTHCOM Branch Plan 3560, 6 January 2017, https://www.scribd.com/.

28. Yaroslav Trofimov, “Democracy, Dictatorship, Disease: The West Takes Its Turn With Coronavirus,” 

Wall Street Journal, 8 March 2020, https://www.wsj.com/.

29. “Freedom in the World 2020: A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy,” Freedom House, https://

freedomhouse.org/.

30. “How the Republic of Korea flattened the COVID-19 curve: openness, transparency and democracy,” 

UNESCO, 22 April 2020, https://en.unesco.org/.

31. Max Fisher and Choe Sang-Hun, “How South Korea Flattened the Curve,” New York Times, 23 

March 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/.

32. Joohee Cho and Hakyung Kate Lee, “South Korea’s Coronavirus Test Makers in High Demand,” 

ABC News, 4 April 2020, https://abcnews.go.com/; and “First Meeting of Related Ministries for Overseas 

Entry Support of Corona19 Quarantine Goods,” (In Korean) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea, 

26 March 2020, http://www.mofa.go.kr/.

33. Minu Kim, “S. Korea’s COVID-19 Test Kit Exports Jump More Than Eight-Fold in April from 

March,” Maeil Business News Korea, 7 May 2020, https://pulsenews.co.kr/.

34. “S. Korea Exporting COVID-19 Tests to 117 Countries,” Arirang News, 21 April 2020, https://www.

youtube.com/ ; and “K-Statistics,” Korea International Trade Association, http://www.kita.org/.

35. Shin Ji-hye, “LG Donates 50,000 Coronavirus Test Kits to Indonesia,” Korea Herald, 31 March 2020, 

http://www.koreaherald.com/.

36. Matthew P. Goodman, Stephanie Sega, and Mark Sobel, “Assessing the G20 Virtual Summit,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 27 March 2020, https://www.csis.org/.

37. “S. Korea’s Top Military Commander, NATO Military Chief Vow Cooperation against Coronavirus,” 

Yonhap News, 4 May 2020, https://en.yna.co.kr/.

38. “FM Kang Discusses Anti-virus Cooperation with Envoys,” Yonhap News, 6 May 2020, https://

en.yna.co.kr/.
The United States and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific after COVID-19

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 111

39. “Status of the ASEAN-Republic of Korea Cooperation Fund,” ASEAN-Korea Cooperation Fund: 

Collaborate, Communicate, Coexist, https://www.aseanrokfund.com/.

40. Lee Chi-dong, “In Video Summit, Moon Vows Full Support for ASEAN on Coronavirus Response,” 

Yonhap News, 14 April 2020, https://en.yna.co.kr/.

41. AFP, “UN Chief Praises South Korea’s Simultaneous Fight against COVID-19, Climate Change,” 

Channel News Asia, 1 May 2020, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/.

42. “Korea’s Global Commitment to Green Growth,” The World Bank, 3 May 2012, https://www

.worldbank.org/.

43. “About GGGI,” Global Green Growth Institute, https://gggi.org/.

44. June Park, “Renewable Energy in Trade Wars: Solar Power in South Korea’s Energy Mix and the 

Impact of Protectionism,” Korea Economic Institute of America, 2 January 2019, http://www.keia.org/ ; and 

“Announcement of Renewable Energy 3020 Implementation Plan,” (in Korean) Ministry of Trade, Industry, 

and Energy, 20 December 2017, https://www.gov.kr/.

45. June Park, “Renewable Energy in Trade Wars.”

46. Ju-Hee Kim, Sin-Young Kim, and Seung-Hoon Yoo, “Public Acceptance of the ‘Renewable Energy 

3020 Plan’: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Study in South Korea,” Sustainability 12, no. 8 (2020): 3151.

47. “[General Election Pledge-Environmental Energy Division] We Will Realize a Sustainable Lowcarbon Economy with a Green New Deal!”(in Korean) Democratic Party of Korea, 16 March 2020, https://

theminjoo.kr/.

48. Chloe Farand, “South Korea to Implement Green New Deal after Ruling Party Election Win,” Climate Home News, 16 April 2020, https://www.climatechangenews.com/.

49. For examples see “ASEAN-Republic of Korea Plan of Action to Implement the Joint Declaration on 

Strategic Partnership for Peace and Prosperity (2016-2020),” 8–9, 14–16, https://asean.org/.

50. Sung-Mi Kim, South Korea’s Middle-Power Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges (London: Asia Program, Chatham House, June 2016), https://www.chathamhouse.org/.

51. Lucio Blanco Pitlo III, “South Korea as a Middle Power for ASEAN,” Pacific Forum, 5 December 

2019, https://pacforum.org/.

52. Kaewkamol Pitakdumrongkit, Negotiating Financial Agreement in East Asia: Surviving the Turbulence

(London: Routledge, 2015).

53. Kyle Ferrier, “The Double Standard for South Korea in the Indo-Pacific Strategy,” The Diplomat, 1 

February 2019, https://magazine.thediplomat.com/.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed or implied in JIPA are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the 

official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other 

agencies or departments of the US government or their international equivalents.
112 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

DIGITAL-ONLY FEATURE

Confronting China’s Maritime 

Expansion in the South China Sea

A Collective Action Problem

Dr. Stephen Burgess

A collective action problem prevents the United States and its ally and 

partners from effectively countering Beijing as China moves forward in 

the South China Sea. The United States is unable to provide sufficient, 

appropriate security goods that would enable the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, 

and Indonesia to work together with America to stop China’s advance, bring 

Beijing to the negotiating table, and force China to abide by international law. On 

a positive note, these four countries have taken collective diplomatic action in 

leading the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2020 to recognize the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as the 

basis for resolving disputes. US freedom of navigation (FON) and overflight operations over China’s outposts in the South China Sea (SCS) have caused protests 

and made the US position clear. Washington continues to provide security assistance and cooperation to the four countries and hold multilateral joint exercises 

with their armed forces. However, China continues to advance in the SCS and 

erode US credibility. If the US were to adopt a strategy of targeted denial, America’s credibility could rise and the four countries’ rights restored. China could be 

compelled by US-led collective action to negotiate a solution to the impasse.

The Collective Action Problem

For more than a decade, China has vigorously staked a claim to most of the 

SCS as its sovereign territory, within the so-called “nine-dash line.” The rising 

power has been encroaching on territory within the 200-mile exclusive economic 

zones (EEZ) of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia; threatening 

force against US military intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) activities in China’s EEZ; and protesting against US FON and overflight operations 

near People’s Liberation Army (PLA) outposts well outside China’s EEZ. In 

particular, Beijing has encroached by using China’s powerful coast guard, armed 

fishing fleet and militias, backed by an even more powerful PLA Navy (PLAN). 

Together, these measures have methodically pushed back the weaker maritime 

forces of Vietnam and the Philippines from parts of their EEZs and challenged 
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 113

those of Malaysia and Indonesia. In addition, China has constructed artificial islands and positioned PLAN and PLA Air Force (PLAAF) units and surface-toair (SAM) and surface-to-surface missiles in the Spratly and Paracel Islands, 

thereby expanding the antiaccess, area denial (A2/AD) capability that threatens 

the US and its allies and partners in the SCS. For more than two decades, China 

has harassed US naval and air operations and, since 2015, has protested US overflight and freedom of navigation operations (FONOP) in the Spratly and Paracel 

Islands. Today, China’s maritime expansion activities enable it to potentially interfere with oil and gas exploration, and its antiaccess/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities pose a challenge to the US Navy and Air Force operations and to maritime 

and air traffic. In sum, China poses a potential threat to trade flows, resource extraction, and military operations in a highly strategic body of water.

This article argues that a collective action problem impedes the United States 

and its allies and partners from effectively confronting China in the SCS.1 The 

problem is that the United States, as a great power, can provide appropriate security goods for the four smaller regional states to block creeping maritime encroachment by China. However, the wider US grand strategy and US Indo-Pacific 

Command (USINDOPACOM) theater strategy hamper the provision of appropriate security goods to those allies and partners. US deterrence of aggression by 

China with escalation “off-ramps” in Northeast Asia prevents the adoption of a 

more assertive strategy that would include working alone or with allied and partner forces in denying China’s advances in the SCS.2

 Instead, the United States has 

settled for FONOPs, overflight ops, and security assistance and cooperation, 

which have not deterred China from expansionist activities. The problem is that 

the United States acting unilaterally or with others in denying China’s expansion 

against the four countries could lead to escalation and destabilize the entire IndoPacific theater. However, if Washington does not act more assertively, its allies and 

partners will increasingly question US credibility and become more susceptible to 

China’s influence campaign.3

The second aspect of the collective action problem is that without sufficient 

supply of US security goods and a more assertive strategy, the four Southeast Asian 

states are too weak and divided in terms of interests, positioning, and capabilities 

to work together to stop encroachment. Vietnam has one of the strongest militaries in the region but has a land border and extensive trade ties with China and must 

counter expansion on its own, while exercising caution and confining interaction 

with US forces to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) exercises.4

Malaysia is further away than Vietnam but weaker militarily, has been seeking to 

cooperate with the United States and Vietnam in countering China in the Spratly 

Islands, but remains reluctant to expand its military partnership with the US be-
114 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

yond HA/DR and search and rescue (S&R) exercises. The Philippines is a US ally 

but is the weakest of the four militarily; the PLA has pushed back the Armed 

Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in the Spratly Islands and consolidated control 

over Scarborough Shoal. To counter China, the AFP has sought to work with the 

United States in moving to a more assertive stance with enhanced security assistance and cooperation in preventing further expansion, but Pres. Rodrigo Duterte 

moved the country closer to China in 2016 and threatened to cut or reduce certain 

ties with the United States. Indonesia is strong militarily, furthest away from China 

geographically, and has been trying to stand up to Chinese forces’ challenges in the 

North Natuna Sea (adjacent to the SCS) and around Natuna Island. However, 

Jakarta is not engaged in the Spratly Islands, has little incentive to lead the other 

three states in confronting China, and is nonaligned and the leader of the ASEAN, 

which means that it is limited in security cooperation activities with the United 

States.5 Cooperation and leadership by Indonesia and Vietnam could provide some 

capability to stand up to China, but both are reluctant to work too closely with 

Washington and are hundreds of miles away from each other.

If Southeast Asian countries are to stand up to China and help solve the collective action problem, they require stronger national leadership and will, as well 

as US commitment. In addition, they need more capable navies and coast guards 

as well as air forces and marines to deter aggression and deny expansion. For 

developing countries, the associated weapons systems are expensive to acquire 

and maintain and require constant training to operate and upgrade. Pro-army 

bias often stands in the way of maritime and air force development. Armies 

dominate in all four countries, with Vietnam’s land border with China requiring 

a large and capable army and with the other three countries waging counterinsurgencies of varying intensity.

Concerning US allies, Japan has constitutional barriers that prevent it from 

even the most minimal actions in the SCS that could be interpreted as offensive. 

Australia has politico-economic constraints, as the decades’ long beneficiary of 

massive mineral exports to China. Both countries cannot participate in overflight 

and FONOPs, much less denial operations.6 In sum, even if the United States 

took the lead in such operations, the four Southeast Asian states, Japan, and Australia would find it difficult to follow suit.

My argument that US power and influence in Southeast Asia are not enough to 

overcome the growing collective action problem in the SCS must be viewed in the 

context of East Asia expert David Shambaugh’s analysis; 7 he asserts that China 

has not become hegemonic in Southeast Asia and that the United States has the 

advantage in soft power, foreign direct investment (with large US companies), naval power, and alliances and partnerships in the region. He points out that China 
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 115

has the edge over the United States in proximity to Southeast Asia and in infrastructure development and lending. There is also considerable evidence that China 

tends to be heavy-handed, which has alienated several countries and their publics. 

Despite the remaining US advantages, most Southeast Asian countries—even 

partners and allies—now must hedge in their relations with the United States and 

a rising China, which makes collective action in the SCS increasingly difficult.

In contrast to my argument that China will be able to continue expanding in 

the SCS and make it increasingly difficult for the United States and the four 

Southeast Asian nations to stop, Michael Beckley, in a 2017 International Security

article,8 asserts that China will be unable to dominate most of the SCS and exclude the United States and Southeast Asian countries from the area within the 

nine-dash line, including the sea lanes. He argues that the United States and its 

Southeast Asian partners can take collective action or act individually to deter 

China from using military force to gain control of most of the SCS. The armed 

forces of Southeast Asian countries have the defensive advantage, as they are 

closer to home than PLAN and PLAAF forces based on Hainan Island and the 

southern China mainland. Furthermore, the armed forces of Vietnam, Indonesia, 

Malaysia, and Philippines have A2/AD capabilities. Most have SAMs and fighter 

aircraft armed with antiship missiles, as well as submarines and mobile antiship 

missiles and mines.9 With the United States as a partner, their advantage is potentially even greater.10 The flaw in Beckley’s analysis is in his principal question—

does China have the capability to take over Taiwan?11 He fails to acknowledge 

that a creeping takeover of the SCS is much less difficult for China to achieve 

than a successful attack on Taiwan.12 Southeast Asian countries can use their A2/

AD capabilities to defeat a Chinese attack on their land masses, but they cannot 

use them to block China’s expansion in the SCS. In addition, Beckley argues that 

Japan, India, and Australia as well as the United Kingdom and France could work 

with Southeast Asian countries and the United States to guarantee FON and 

overflight. However, these countries have not been willing to engage more assertively to stop or slow China’s maritime advance. Finally, US overflight and 

FONOPs have only amounted to symbolic protests against expansion.

In a May 2020 article, Oriana Skylar Mastro assesses different scenarios for 

military and diplomatic actions by China and the United States in the SCS.She 

starts from the premise that Pres. Xi Jinping may escalate military activity in the 

SCS to divert attention from the aftereffects of the COVID-19 health and economic crisis. China could “intensify coercive strategies” that it has already been 

pursuing or “change the military balance of power” by deploying more forces and 

sophisticated weaponry to the SCS or “take military action” against the United 

States and its ally and partners, which could lead to conflict escalation. The United 
116 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

States can respond by choosing “deterrence by punishment” through sanctions or 

proportionate military retaliation. Alternatively, it could choose “deterrence by 

denial” by thwarting China’s expansionist activities. Finally, Washington could 

“accommodate China’s objectives” and see the SCS become Beijing’s “lake.” Mastro sees deterrence by denial as the most effective option but doubts the willingness of Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia to risk their relations with 

China.13 I delve more deeply into deterrence by denial as an effective option and 

the collective action problem preventing the United States and the four Southeast 

Asian nations from pursuing this option.

The collective action problem in the SCS is more problematic than the one that 

has existed in NATO since its founding in 1949. In the beginning, the United 

States was willing to pay for the preponderance of inclusive public goods for “regional security through deterrence” against the Soviet Union.14 NATO member 

states were a relatively “privileged group,” and the issue of burden-sharing grew 

more contentious as US economic dominance declined and as West European 

states grew richer. In contrast, US efforts to provide collective security goods 

against communist expansion to poorer states through the Southeast Asian Treaty 

Organization, 1954–77, collapsed after the Vietnam War. The ASEAN rose in its 

ashes as an organization to resolve disputes among member states and not to provide collective security against a rising China in the SCS. Only Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia have the level of interest in the SCS to lead the 

way in ASEAN diplomatic collective action. Furthermore, US interests in denying 

China’s expansion in the SCS are not as great as those in deterring the Soviet 

Union in Europe. The result is a lack of appropriate collective security goods.

A Different Approach

I examine the collective action problem by synthesizing the results from field 

research and previous articles and the works of Shambaugh, Beckley, Mastro and 

others.15 First, I assess China’s motivations, strategy, and tactics and demonstrate 

how China is using carrots and sticks in moving forward in the region. Second, I 

appraise US grand strategy in the Indo-Pacific and focus on the shortcomings of 

Washington’s SCS strategy, FONOPs, and overflight operations that are not deterring China from methodical expansion. Third is an examination of the characteristics and weaknesses of each of the four Southeast Asian states and diverging 

strategies and capacities, as well as the gaps between them and the United States.16

Fourth is a synthesis of the two parts of the collective action problem, demonstrating the strategic mismatch that is not stopping China from inexorably 

achieving Beijing’s goal of taking over most of the SCS. Finally, I assess a denial 

strategy that might slow or even stop China’s expansion and meet American in-
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 117

terests and those of its allies and partners, as well different obstacles that stand in 

the way of such a strategy.

Besides collective action theory, my analysis draws on structural realism, which 

has been used to analyze China’s changing behavior.17 I argue that, after two decades of a “peaceful rise” grand strategy and largely defensive posture in the SCS 

and East China Sea (ECS), a rapidly growing China had the power to switch to a 

methodical offensive strategy in 2009 and challenged Japan in the Senkaku Islands 

and Southeast Asian states in the SCS and US credibility (after the Iraq War and 

2008 financial crisis had weakened US power) and stepped up its influence campaign.18 When China realized that Japan would defend the islands and the United 

States promised to come to Tokyo’s defense if Japanese forces were attacked, Beijing did not escalate but continued to press China’s claim with periodic military 

maneuvers. Instead, Beijing realized that China had greater power to challenge the 

weaker Southeast Asian states in the SCS and that the collective action problem 

limited the options of the United States and US allies and partners.19

What Is China Actually Doing in the SCS? Sticks and Carrots

For five decades, China has been working to control increasing parts of the 

SCS, but this campaign accelerated in the 2010s. In the 1970s and 1980s, China 

took over control of much of the Paracel Islands in the northern SCS and Johnson South Reef in the Spratly Islands in the southeast quadrant of the SCS, both 

in Vietnam’s EEZ. In 2009, a rising China switched to a more muscular grand 

strategy and asserted its nine-dash-line claim partly in reaction to a deal between 

Vietnam and Malaysia that divided their EEZs and continental shelves. Since 

then, Beijing has been carrying out a strategy to eventually secure sovereign control of the SCS by working to control the Spratly Islands, extending China’s A2/

AD capabilities and pushing back the United States. By advancing while avoiding 

conflict, China has been moving toward gaining a dominant position in the SCS 

and diminishing the role of the United States. China could continue to expand its 

claims in the SCS and become a dominant power without threatening FON and 

overflight. This appears to be the course China’s leaders have followed, with occasional outbursts of aggressive behavior.20

Since 2001, when PLAAF fighter aircraft forced a US P-3 surveillance aircraft 

over international waters to land on Hainan Island, China has chipped away at 

US influence in the region, while only occasionally engaging in provocative actions. China is engaged in active defense of its interests and rejects US military 

activities near its coast and in its EEZ. In particular, China interprets UNCLOS 

to mean that ISR activities are “unlawful” within its EEZ and has taken measures 

against US electronic surveillance of the PLA’s Southern Command and nuclear 
118 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

submarines around Hainan Island.21 China’s posture toward the United States 

became even more confrontational when Beijing switched to more assertive 

strategy and tactics. In 2009, PLAN, PLAAF, and paramilitary forces intercepted 

the USS Impeccable and attempted to sever its towed sonar array 125 kilometers 

(75 miles) off Hainan Island. This started regular harassment of US Navy vessels 

within China’s EEZ. For instance, in 2014, PLAAF combat aircraft flew close to 

a US Navy P-8 surveillance aircraft within China’s EEZ, approximately 200 kilometers (120 miles) off the Chinese coast. China could eventually impose an air 

defense identification zone (ADIZ) over part or most of the SCS, which would 

follow the ADIZ it declared in 2013 in the ECS. Evidence for this comes from 

warnings that have been given by the PLA against US military aircraft that have 

been flying over PLA outposts in the Spratly Islands. 22

China’s leaders have viewed the US strategy in Asia with concern for years, 

especially with the US Department of Defense’s 2010 Air-Sea Battle operational 

concept—renamed the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global 

Commons ( JAM-GC) in 2015—including the option of air strikes over China’s 

mainland to counter its A2/AD capabilities. In addition, Beijing has feared that 

the United States is pursuing a containment policy, starting with the 2011 “Rebalance to Asia,” which had to be thwarted. Also, Chinese leaders have suspected 

that Washington has been behind challenges to China launched by the Philippines, Vietnam, and Japan as part of a containment strategy.23

In maneuvering to secure greater control over Beijing’s interests in the SCS, 

China has used “gray zone” tactics, leading with its coast guard, militias, and armed 

fishing fleet, with the PLAN as a backup force against those of the Philippines, 

Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia.24 This approach serves two purposes, enabling 

China to: (1) flood an area with many armed actors to stop economic activities of 

adversaries and make an armed response as difficult as possible and (2) claim that 

its forces are carrying out “domestic policing” actions within the nine-dash line and 

that retaliation by adversaries’ navies are escalatory and warrant using the PLAN 

in “self-defense.” In particular, China’s forces prevent Hanoi from operating in 

much of Vietnam’s EEZ in the Paracel Islands and parts of the Spratly Islands. In 

addition, China has been harassing Vietnam-backed oil and gas exploration in the 

Spratly Islands with little resistance. In recent years, China has been pushing Philippine forces out of positions in the Spratly Islands and, since, 2012, blocking access to Scarborough Shoal in Manila’s EEZ, as the PLA prepares to possibly establish a military base there. The PLAN and China Coast Guard (CCG) continue 

harassing access to the BRP Sierra Madre, an LST-542-class tank landing ship 

built for by the US Navy during World War II—now in possession of the Philippine Navy, the rusting hulk was deliberately run aground on Second Johnson Atoll 
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 119

in Manila’s EEZ and manned by Philippine Marines to assert Manila’s sovereignty 

in the country’s dispute with China over ownership of the Spratly Islands. In Malaysia’s EEZ, China is challenging oil and gas exploration.

China continues to expand exploration activities in the SCS as part of its hunt 

for much-needed energy and is now receiving oil and gas from the SCS. Chinese 

experts estimate that there is five times more oil and gas in the SCS than US 

Energy Information Agency estimates. 25 The Chinese National Offshore Oil 

Company (CNOOC) has been exploring for oil and gas in the EEZs claimed by 

Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, which has caused concern in those countries. CNOOC has been working with Russian oil and gas companies as well as 

other multinational corporations. In addition, Chinese fishing vessels now operate throughout the SCS to meet the country’s rising demand for protein, and 

Chinese authorities are concerned about overfishing and force Chinese fishermen 

from the EEZ around Hainan Island into the EEZs of the Philippines and Vietnam, which leads to confrontations.

From 2013 to 2018, Beijing undertook major island-building projects on seven 

outposts and constructed military bases on them, improving China’s strategic position, installing missiles, building runways, and enhancing its A2/AD capabilities. China continues to put pressure on other Philippine and Vietnamese outposts 

in the Spratly Islands. Furthermore, China has annexed the seven outposts and 

the area within the nine-dash line as part of “Sansha County” of Hainan Province, 

even though the Spratly Islands are more than 700 miles south of Hainan Island. 

In recent years, China has sent its fishing fleet, backed by the CCG and PLAN, 

into Indonesia’s EEZ in the North Natuna Sea (just south of the SCS) and around 

Natuna Island. Jakarta responded by sending the Indonesian Navy, which caused 

the fishing fleet and CCG to retreat, but both inevitably returned. The fact that 

China is willing to challenge Indonesia in the farthest reaches of the nine-dash 

line indicates Beijing’s intentions to eventually control the entire sea.

In 2013, President Xi presented his “Chinese Dream,” which brought a more 

robust use of sticks and carrots.26 China is using carrots, including aid and investment, to win over ASEAN countries. The first breakthrough came when China 

provided aid, trade, and investment to Cambodia and Laos, which led Phnom 

Penh and Vientiane to break with the ASEAN consensus on a Code of Conduct 

for the SCS in 2012. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which offers infrastructure development projects and loans, is the most prominent carrot. Malaysia, 

Indonesia, and other ASEAN states have welcomed the BRI.27 China has 

launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), rivaling the World 

Bank. All 10 ASEAN states, Britain, France, and other US allies have joined the 

AIIB. In addition, China has countered Japanese efforts to promote the Trans-
120 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

Pacific Partnership (abandoned by the United States in 2017) by pushing for the 

Regional Comprehensive Economic Program, which excludes the United States. 

Besides the examples of Cambodia and Laos, China’s offer of loans, infrastructure 

development, and other goods helped to undermine the resolve of the Philippines 

to insist that China abide by the 2016 UNCLOS ruling and helped to influence 

President Duterte to move the Philippines closer to Beijing and away from Washington. Also, China’s imports from Australia keep Canberra from taking a stronger stand on the SCS.

In conclusion, China could interrupt military and commercial traffic by the 

four countries in the SCS if it wished to do so but realizes that such action would 

bring escalation by the United States and the disruption of oil and gas imports 

from the Middle East. China’s gray-zone actions are such that it can maintain its 

military bases in the Paracel and Spratly Islands and advance in the area and know 

that it will not incite US countermeasures or collective action with allies and 

partners to deny expansion. As Beijing moves to take control of the waters in and 

around the Spratly Islands in the center of the SCS, China strengthens its position to control the sea lanes. Also, the United States is not sufficiently challenging 

China as the latter influences the four countries to lean toward Beijing and eventually accept the nine-dash line, dismantle their outposts, and renounce their 

EEZs. China cannot stop the US military from ISR activity near Hainan Island 

and FONOPs and overflight ops but will continue to intensify the threat environment to create greater uncertainty. At issue is how to counteract China’s strategy 

and tactics now before it pushes Southeast Asian countries and the United States 

back further and assumes a more dominant position in the SCS.

US Strategy and Collective Action Obstacles

US strategy in the Indo-Pacific has prioritized Northeast Asia and the defense 

of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan above commitments in Southeast Asia, except 

during the Vietnam War, 1964–73.28 The US strategy is to be prepared to defeat 

China if it attacks Japan and Taiwan and North Korea if it invades South Korea. 

This will be accomplished through massive conventional forces backed by nuclear 

weapons, providing deterrence as well as off-ramps to prevent escalation. Therefore, the United States has based most of its forces in Northeast Asia to prepare 

for war there. In addition, the United States, as a large distant power, has problems 

with resource deployment and sustainment, strategy and tactics, and credibility in 

the Indo-Pacific. Beijing knows the US strategy and its shortcomings and has 

designed its approach to coerce and influence US allies and partners without 

causing the United States to flow forces from the homeland to the SCS and 

elsewhere in the region.
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 121

The US traditional reliance on a “hub and spoke” alliance structure has limited 

Washington’s ability to organize and activate collective security against a rising 

China in the SCS and ECS. In the latter area, the United States has left it up to 

Japan to deny a Chinese takeover of the Senkaku Islands, and US forces are only 

prepared to come to the defense of Japanese forces if China uses a clash in the 

islands to escalate into a wider war with the Japanese Self-Defense Force. In the 

SCS, the United States did not come to the defense of its ally, the Philippines, in 

2012 when China took over Scarborough Shoal and is not prepared to defend its 

ally’s claims in the Spratly Islands. While the United States welcomed the UNCLOS decision, Washington continues to abide by the ruling that none of the 

features in the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal qualify as islands and will not 

defend the Philippines there. The US failure to take more robust action to help its 

allies and partners deny China’s advances has weakened some countries’ faith in 

US credibility and allows for its competitor’s continued expansion.

In conclusion, China’s carrots and sticks and the US approach have eroded the 

latter’s credibility and could eventually cause some partners to bandwagon with 

China and submit to Beijing’s will. On a positive note, US Navy FONOPS demonstrate defense of international law principles, that the US Navy can sail where 

it wants, and that the prospect of the PLA interfering with naval and other maritime traffic in the SCS is still a remote possibility. The same applies to US military 

overflight operations and freedom of air travel. However, these operations have 

not stopped China’s methodical advances in the SCS. China continues to push 

forward, not recognizing the UNCLOS ruling, the ASEAN Code of Conduct, 

and related principles. Therefore, in the short to medium term, the United States 

will be able to defeat China if Beijing blocks the SCS or escalates to war, but ultimately the PLA could escalate and stop military and/or commercial traffic in 

the SCS and achieve Beijing’s larger strategic goal of dominating the region.

Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia 

and Collective Action

Each of these Southeast Asian states has different interests, politics, and relationships with the United States and China, varying positions in the SCS, and 

divergent capabilities that must be overcome to enable collective action.29 They also 

require more capable navies, coast guards, and other forces, as well as effective ISR 

over the SCS, if they are to stand up to China and its diverse and powerful forces. 

However, there is a basis for collective action in which the United States could 

become more involved. Manila, Kuala Lumpur, and Hanoi share interests in the 

Spratlys and in preventing China from expelling them from their outposts and 
122 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

EEZs. Vietnam and Malaysia already have developed diplomatic cooperation in 

dividing their EEZs between them and are expanding them to include their continental shelves. The four states interact diplomatically and militarily through the 

ASEAN and bilaterally and support the UNCLOS ruling on the illegality of the 

nine-dash line. At the June 2020 ASEAN Summit, Vietnam led the way in regenerating consensus among the 10 Southeast Asian states in a strong statement that 

“UNCLOS should be the basis of sovereign rights and entitlements in the SCS.”30

Let us examine in greater detail each country’s interests and capabilities.

Vietnam

Vietnam is located in the northwestern SCS, bordering China, and has overlapping claims with China over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. The country has 

long featured a strong nationalist movement, especially with armed resistance 

against France, the United States, and China. In addition, Vietnam has experience in waging low-level conflict with China over the Paracel Islands and SCS, 

with outbreaks in 1974,31 1979, 1988, and 2014.32 China’s unilateral season fishing ban (from May to August) around the waters of the Paracels and oil exploration and militarization of the SCS continue to be sources of friction. Shambaugh 

classifies Vietnam as a “balanced hedger.”33 It defends its land boundary, maintains 

significant economic relations, and manages its long-running dispute over the 

Paracel and Spratly Islands with China, as well as fostering a growing strategic 

partnership with the United States. While Vietnamese favor the United States 

over China (80 percent to15 percent according to a US source),34 the ruling Communist Party of Vietnam is cognizant of the need to balance relations with both 

Washington and Beijing. Vietnam’s security strategy centers around the “three 

Nos”: no alliances, no foreign bases on its territory, and no reliance on any country 

to combat others. Consequently, there are currently limits to the strategic partnership with the United States, and Vietnam will have to continue to confront China 

in the Paracel and Spratlys largely on its own.35 At the same time, Hanoi has been 

reaching out to the United States and other countries to seek security partnerships and diplomatic support in its struggle against China. In May 2016, Washington lifted the lethal weapons ban against Vietnam, signaling strategic commitment and opening the door for greater security assistance and cooperation and 

arms sales.36 In addition, Vietnam has diversified its arms suppliers and recently 

made purchases from India, Spain, and Japan, moving away from heavy reliance 

on Russian equipment.

One of the Vietnam People’s Armed Forces’ priorities is to guarantee sovereignty and ensure it has the capabilities necessary to protect the nation’s interests 

and enforce laws in the maritime territory Hanoi claims, including its SCS EEZ 
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 123

and 21 small features, with two airstrips and mobile missiles, which it occupies in 

the Spratly Islands. The country has a rising GDP and relatively high state capacity, exemplified by a history of popular mobilization to defeat invaders, which has 

enabled the regime to increase the defense budget and expand procurement for all 

three services and its coast guard.

Concerning maritime capabilities and the SCS, the Vietnam People’s Navy 

has 26 ships, including six Kilo-class submarines, purchased from Russia, which 

it has been operating for more than five years, as well as two mobile antiship 

cruise missile batteries with a 200-mile range that it can use as a deterrent threat 

in a confrontation with China.37 Vietnam has been building up its coast guard, 

and the United States has provided Vietnam with excess defense articles, including a decommissioned US Coast Guard cutter in 2016. This opens the way for 

US–Vietnam coast guard security cooperation, particularly in HA/DR exercises 

and perhaps S&R. Above all, Vietnam can use the cutter for the Ministry of 

National Defense mission in the Spratly Islands and perhaps in the Paracel Islands. In addition, Japan has provided six multirole maritime response vehicles 

worth 40 million USD.38

Vietnam has enough capabilities to defend its mainland in case maritime conflict escalates to a wider war. Beckley estimates that the Vietnam Air DefenseAir Force (ADAF) SAMs, including the SPYDER from Israel and the S-300 

from Russia, can take down PLAAF fighter aircraft over Vietnam’s mainland, 

exacting heavy losses. While much of the ADAF’s aircraft are approaching obsolescence and still suffer serious limitations in areas of command and control 

(C2), domain awareness, and airlift, the air force provides credible support role 

of land and naval forces. The ADAF has no rapid deployment role other than 

providing routine air defense and troop reinforcement to the Spratly Islands. 39

The United States is supplying the ADAF with T-6 trainer aircraft, which could 

develop into Vietnam’s procurement of F-15Es or F-16s. At present, the ADAF 

is handicapped by pilots who are unable to fly in bad weather or at night.40

Nevertheless, despite the ADAF’s shortcomings, its SAMs remain capable of 

providing air superiority over its landmass.

In conclusion, Vietnam is acquiring the capabilities to defend its outposts and 

EEZ in the Spratly Islands but is limited to unilateral efforts in dealing with 

China’s expansion. China has more maritime assets and is able to mostly control 

the Paracel Islands and continue challenging Vietnam in the Spratly Islands. 

Concerning the collective action problem, the United States is confined to security cooperation and assistance, diplomatic support, and HA/DR exercises with 

Vietnam. Southeast Asian states can only provide diplomatic support, as witnessed at the 2020 ASEAN Summit in Hanoi.
124 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

The Philippines

The Philippines is located in the northeast SCS, and its military installations at 

Subic Bay and Basa Air Base are 600 miles from China’s on Hainan Island. The 

country has had an alliance with the United States for more than seven decades, 

which seemed to be strengthening at the time of the 2016 UNCLOS victory over 

China. However, in July 2016, President Duterte took office and immediately 

sought lucrative deals with a China that was offering economic carrots. As a result, the Philippines backed off from its UNCLOS triumph over China. In 2016, 

the Obama administration pressured Duterte to stop extrajudicial killings and the 

regime’s other human rights abuses, which caused relations to fray. Duterte curtailed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) in 2016 with the 

United States and threatened to cancel the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in 

February 2020. In 2018, Shambaugh observed that the Philippines had become a 

“tilter” toward China because of President Duterte’s actions.41 Until 2022, President Duterte will continue to be influenced by Beijing and protest against US 

human rights sanctions, and his hand-picked successor will probably continue to 

do so. The fact that the Philippines swings every six years or so from challenging 

China to appeasing Beijing is indicative of elite corruption and state weakness.42

In contrast to Duterte, the AFP remains fully committed to maintaining the 

US alliance, resisting China’s expansionist activities, and engaging in the EDCA 

to jointly develop bases. Ultimately, Duterte signed off on a limited implementation of the EDCA, which ensured joint construction of a few military bases and 

backed off terminating the VFA. In 2020, the defense and diplomatic establishment finally succeeded in pressuring Duterte to challenge China in the SCS instead of seeking deals.43 Despite the Philippines’ more assertive stance, the AFP 

will struggle against China’s “salami-slicing” tactics in the SCS and remain dependent on the United States for defense. Given the political situation and Philippine weakness, Washington will be compelled to weigh its interests in the SCS 

and the value of its alliance with the Philippines against justly punishing the regime for human rights abuses.

Concerning the maritime and other capabilities necessary to confront China’s 

encroachment against the Philippine’s nine outposts and its EEZ and seizure of 

Scarborough Shoal, the AFP will be constrained by defense spending that is less 

than 5 billion USD per annum because of weak state capacity and inability to tax 

elites in addition to decades of dependence on the United States for defense. In 

addition, the Philippine Army remains dominant over the Navy and Air Force, 

and the AFP remains internally focused on counterinsurgency and HA/DR and 

requires US support to do both. Consequently, the Philippines has been slow to 
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 125

develop its maritime and air forces and has no missile-armed ships or combat 

aircraft that can challenge China’s forces.44 The Philippines is developing its Coast 

Guard, which now has 24,000 personnel compared to the Navy with 16,000. 

However, the Philippine Coast Guard has no gray-zone tactics training to confront China’s forces and cannot focus solely on the SCS, given the security challenges in the Philippine archipelago. The Navy has acquired new warships from 

the United States and has used them to make voyages in defense of the Sierra 

Madre on Pag-asa Island in the Spratly Islands. In case of conflict escalation with 

China, the Philippines does not have an air defense system like Vietnam’s and will 

have to rely upon the United States.

The Philippines is struggling to defend itself and its EEZ and requires its US 

ally for defense of the homeland. The prospect of regaining its rights in Scarborough Shoal is remote, and standing its ground in the Spratlys is a struggle. If the 

United States were to adopt a more assertive strategy of denial, the Philippines 

might be able to take a stronger stand and regain its rights. Manila would be even 

stronger if Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia were to go beyond diplomatic support and provide military backing along with the United States.

Malaysia

Malaysia is located in the central and southern SCS and a thousand miles away 

from Hainan Island. For decades, Malaysia and Indonesia have cooperated in 

policing the Strait of Malacca, and Kuala Lumpur has a defense arrangement 

with the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore and has become a security partner with the United States. However, in 2018, Shambaugh 

characterized Malaysia as an “aligned accommodationist” with China, because 

Beijing had used aid, investment, and other incentives to influence the administration of Prime Minister Najib Razak.45 His administration tried to suppress 

media attention regarding China’s activities in Malaysia’s waters. In 2018, former 

prime minister Mahathir Mohamed led a coalition that ended the six-decadeslong reign of the National Party and formed a government that moved away from 

deals with China and toward the United States. In 2019, political instability developed, which weakened the government and its opposition to China’s expansion. Political battles between government and opposition have made it difficult 

for Malaysia to take a strong stand on the SCS. In March 2020, Prime Minister 

Muhyiddin Yassin assumed office and continued Malaysia’s peaceful diplomacy, 

calling for adherence to UNCLOS and a binding code of conduct for the SCS.46

Since 2012, Chinese actions claiming sovereignty over Malaysia’s EEZ have 

caused concern in Kuala Lumpur, especially among military leaders. There was 

also dismay due to China’s hard line over the Malaysian Airlines MH370 disap-
126 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

pearance in March 2014. In contrast, cooperation between the Malaysian and US 

militaries grew in the search for the airliner. In addition, Chinese oil-and-gas 

exploration and outpost construction has been moving southwest in the Spratly 

Islands for years, conflicting with Malaysia’s EEZ and energy exploitation plans. 

In 2014, China and CNOOC occupied Luconia Shoal in Malaysia’s EEZ to stop 

Shell and other companies moving northward to explore for oil and gas. At the 

time, Kuala Lumpur announced that the nation’s oil and gas resources constituted 

the red line that China should not cross. However, Malaysia has sought not to 

provoke Beijing and has not pushed China for acceptance of the Code of Conduct for the SCS. In 2020, Malaysia is using the UNCLOS SCS ruling to expand 

its continental shelf claim. Also, both Malaysia and Indonesia oppose US naval 

patrols in the Strait of Malacca due to the sensibilities of the local populations.

The Malaysian military is dominated by the army, and security forces are concerned with violent extremist organizations (VEO), transnational criminal organizations, and smuggling. Malaysia has been focused on fighting insurgencies, 

particularly against rebel groups in East Sabah, which regularly cross over from 

the Philippines. In contrast, the military does not pay as much attention to China, 

the SCS, or the Spratly Islands. Concerning maritime capabilities, Malaysia’s navy 

is small and outdated, 47 and the coast guard has recently been strengthened with 

US and Japanese assistance. However, neither service is capable of patrolling the 

vast maritime EEZ that the country claims. The government has been increasing 

its defense budget and buying new equipment, but Kuala Lumpur takes care not 

to provoke concern in its neighbors: Indonesia and Singapore. Malaysia has established three outposts in the Spratlys and developed a marine corps and a naval 

base at Bintulu in Sarawak in response to the claims made in 2014 by China’s 

PLAN on James Shoal in Malaysia’s EEZ. Malaysian–US cooperation over the 

MH370 search created some basic interoperability with the US Navy’s maritime 

and air reconnaissance forces. Malaysia relied heavily on US P-3s, P-8s, and satellite imagery. Since 2014, Malaysia has been improving its air defense weaknesses 

exposed in the MH370 disappearance and has been developing ISR capabilities 

as well as an electronic communications link between maritime and air. Exercises 

with US forces included a focus on developing amphibious capabilities, which led 

Malaysia to consider buying attack helicopters.

Kuala Lumpur will continue to challenge China in the SCS through diplomatic means and claiming more of Malaysia’s continental shelf as its EEZ. It has 

improved its ISR to keep track of China’s activities. However, Malaysia will not 

join the United States in denying Chinese expansion in the Spratly Islands, even 

though China has been intruding in Malaysia’s EEZ for much of the past decade. 

In April 2020, US Navy ships and an Australian frigate intervened when Chinese 
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 127

vessels were harassing an oil-and-gas exploration vessel in Malaysia’s EEZ,48 but 

the government looked upon a more assertive United States with anxiety, because 

escalation would be disruptive to the economy.

Indonesia

Southeast Asia’s largest nation is leading in promoting an ASEAN “rules-based 

international order,” independent of the United States and China, and Shambaugh calls nonaligned Indonesia an “outlier.”49 It is cool toward China for cultural reasons (due in part to public hostility toward the Chinese-Indonesian 

merchant class) but remains nonaligned and does not want an alliance with the 

United States—just a partnership. Indonesia’s human rights abuses in the East 

Timor conflagration of 1999 caused a rift in the security partnership with Washington that is still being repaired. Nevertheless, Indonesia provides the United 

States more potential for defense engagement and strategic partnership than any 

other Southeast Asia, given the country’s size, control of the Strait of Malacca, 

ASEAN leadership role, and the current development of its forces.

In 2016, Pres. Joko Widodo introduced the “maritime fulcrum” to strengthen 

both internal and external security, including Indonesia’s EEZ, which extends 

into the Natuna Sea on the southern edge of the SCS. China’s aggressive activities 

around Natuna Island led Jakarta to develop a strategy to defend Indonesian interests. Recently, Indonesia lodged its strongest protest against China and an incursion by the CCG, referencing the 2016 UNCLOS ruling in favor of the Philippines and against China’s nine-dash line.

Concerning maritime capabilities, Indonesia has home-field advantage 

against China and the PLAN, as Indonesia’s Natuna Island is more than a 

thousand miles away from Hainan Island and takes several days for PLAN 

ships to travel to the Natuna Sea.50 Indonesia has two bases within 300 miles of 

the island and four bases within 500 miles. It has established new bases on 

Natuna itself and has stationed air and maritime forces there as a deterrent, but 

the base is not well-maintained. Jakarta has also constructed a base at Mempawah, which is less than 200 miles from Natuna. The Indonesian Navy sank a 

Chinese fishing vessel near Natuna in 2016, following through on warnings to 

respect the country’s EEZ. However, China has not been deterred from pressuring Indonesia in the Natuna Sea.

Indonesia is developing its forces, including major weapons purchases for the 

Navy, which already has five submarines with 35 years’ operational experience 

and antiship missiles.51 Indonesian Air Force (TNI-AU) engagement in the Natuna Sea will help provide ISR as well as deterrence with combat aircraft. The 

TNI-AU is expanding into an operationally coherent and sustainable force and 
128 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

is building its air defenses.52 However, the TNI-AU must cover 2,500 miles from 

Sumatra to Irian Jaya (Papua) and has only one squadron each for Commands 

West, Central, and East. 53

Jakarta is mainly concerned with ASEAN solidarity and Indonesia’s EEZ in 

the Natuna Sea as well as internal defense against VEOs and separatists. It is 

another country that could work with the United States to overcome the collective action problem and challenge Chinese entry into its EEZ and those of Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines. However, it will not join the United States 

in denying Chinese expansion in the Spratly Islands and elsewhere within the 

nine-dash line.

An Alternative Strategy: Targeted Denial

To effectively counter China’s strategy and tactics, Washington could adopt a 

more assertive approach to selectively deny its competitor’s moves. Such a change 

is in line with recent US elevation of China as a strategic threat that needs to be 

met.54 The ends of a new strategy would be to deny China’s forces in their efforts 

to pressure the ally and partners of the United States, take over more of their 

EEZs, and, most importantly, erode US credibility. From the start, the United 

States, its partners, and the Philippines would hold out the possibility of a negotiated settlement. The goal would be a binding SCS Code of Conduct, demarcation 

of EEZs in accordance with UNCLOS, and an end to the nine-dash line, as well 

as FON and overflight.

The ways would involve the US Navy, backed by the US Air Force, selectively 

countering China’s aggressive maritime maneuvers by shadowing Chinese vessels and working with the navy and coast guard of its ally—the Philippines—to 

block attacks on Philippine fishing fleet, forces, and oil-and-gas research vessels 

and platforms, particularly around Pag-asa Island in the Spratlys and Reed 

Bank.55 The US and the Philippine defense and foreign affairs establishment 

would have to convince President Duterte to agree to such actions, and lately 

they and public opinion have been causing him to back the navy and coast guard 

in taking a stronger stand. China could react in several ways: by protesting as it 

has with US FONOPs; by agreeing to pause activities and negotiate; or by retaliating and escalating in the SCS and elsewhere.56 If this way fails to pause 

China’s behavior and bring Beijing to the negotiating table, the next step would 

be for the US Navy to back the Philippines Navy and Coast Guard as they push 

back Chinese forces around Pag-asa and secure the area, ending Chinese pressure there. In addition, the United States could beach a decommissioned ship on 

Pag-asa to replace the Sierra Madre. To deter Chinese retaliation and escalation 
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 129

in the Spratlys and the vicinity, the United States could place antiship missiles 

on nearby Palawan Island.

After advancing Philippine rights in the Spratlys, the ultimate step would be 

US support of Philippine forces as they take back rightful control of Scarborough 

Shoal, which could provoke China to escalate.57 I propose these ways, because the 

Philippines has an alliance with the United States, and the Mutual Defense Treaty 

and the UNCLOS ruling provide a legal basis; whereas US partnerships with 

Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia do not. Supporting an ally—the Philippines—

in accordance with treaty obligations would do the most to boost US credibility. 

Washington could also follow up on its effort to protect a Malaysian research 

vessel by intervening on behalf of other ones belonging to Vietnam and Malaysia, 

even if the two countries do not openly approve.

The means would be a sufficient number of US and Philippines navy and coast 

guard ships capable of intervening and blocking Chinese forces and backed by 

other surface ships, patrol boats, submarines, and aircraft. Philippine vessels would 

lead the way, backed by a US force. Targeted denial operations would require 

training and joint exercises, as well as improved ISR, communications, and interoperability. The United States would also boost air defenses on the Philippine 

mainland to protect against Chinese escalation. Finally, US and Philippine diplomats would have to work to gain and sustain approval at each step by the Philippine government and bring China to the negotiating table. Ultimately a maritime 

peacekeeping force might be required to police any agreement. The resource problem of a more assertive US strategy of targeted denial in the SCS would be the 

requirement to relocate ships and aircraft that are needed elsewhere.

Conclusion

The preceding analysis and evidence confirm that a collective action problem 

prevents the United States and its ally and partners from effectively countering 

China as it moves forward in the SCS. The United States is unable to provide 

sufficient, appropriate security goods in the SCS that would enable the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia to work together with America to stop 

China’s advance, bring it to the negotiating table, and force Beijing to abide by 

international law. The primary reason is the divergent interests of the United 

States as a global power, which is concerned about FON and oversight and containing China, and the four Southeast Asian states, which are protecting their 

EEZs. The larger US Indo-Pacific strategy inhibits more authoritative action.

 The secondary factor is the disparate foreign policies of the four Southeast 

Asian states and their leaders’ susceptibility to China’s use of carrots and sticks. 

“Free riding” on the US provision of security goods by its ally, the Philippines, has 
130 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

left Manila defensively weak and susceptible to China’s encroachment in the 

Philippines’ EEZ. The other three countries have not gone beyond partnerships 

with the United States and are struggling with China on their own. Furthermore, 

the four Southeast Asian states require larger and more capable forces to stop 

China, maintain the status quo, and regain parts of the EEZs that they lost.

On a positive note, the four countries have taken collective diplomatic action in 

leading ASEAN in 2020 to recognize UNCLOS as the basis for resolving the 

SCS dispute. FONOPs and overflight operations over China’s outposts in the 

SCS have caused protests and made the US position clear. The United States 

continues to provide security assistance and cooperation to the four countries and 

hold multilateral joint exercises with their armed forces. Despite this activity, 

China continues to advance in the SCS and erode US credibility. Therefore, the 

US strategy of protest has not deterred China and could require change to a 

strategy of targeted denial. If Washington were to adopt such a strategy, credibility could be restored and the four countries’ rights upheld. China could be compelled by US-led collective action to negotiate a solution to the impasse in accordance with international law.

Structural realists predicted that a rising China would expand beyond its 

boundaries and seek regional hegemony, which could cause war. China has expanded, seeking to change the regional status quo, making sweeping claims based 

upon debatable historical evidence, and acting upon them by encroaching on the 

EEZs of four countries in defiance of international law. A stronger Japan and 

Taiwan, backed by the United States, have been able to thwart China’s ambitions 

in Northeast Asia. However, China has been able to push forward against the 

weaker Southeast Asian countries where Washington has chosen not to guarantee 

their maritime security interests but protest against China based upon international law. China, as the weaker power, has been careful to act in such a way as to 

avoid bringing into these disputes the stronger status quo power—the United 

States—which could lead to escalation and war. If Washington was to carefully 

ratchet up its strategy from protest to targeted denial in alliance with the Philippines, China would probably not launch a war and could be brought to the negotiating table. However, any such calibrated actions are not without risk. Greatpower competition in the Indo-Pacific between the United States and China is 

here to stay, and war is always possible in the future. 

Dr. Stephen Burgess

Dr. Burgess is a professor of international security studies at the US Air War College, Air University, Maxwell AFB, 

AL. The views expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 

the US Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 131

Notes

1. Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 

1965). The collective action problem refers to the better-endowed actors failing to provide the bulk 

of the collective goods to overcome the problem of some of the weaker ones “free riding.”

2. U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) Area of Responsibility strategy https://

www.pacom.mil/: “In concert with other U.S. government agencies, USINDOPACOM protects 

and defends the territory of the US, its people, and its interests. With allies and partners, USINDOPACOM is committed to enhancing stability in the Asia-Pacific region by promoting security 

cooperation, encouraging peaceful development, responding to contingencies, deterring aggression, and, when necessary, fighting to win. This approach is based on partnership, presence, and 

military readiness.” The USINDOPACOM strategy in defense of Japan and Taiwan is to threaten 

defeat of Chinese forces, while offering off-ramps to prevent escalation. The same applies to the 

defense of South Korea from North Korea.

3. Interviews with US defense officials in Manila, Philippines; Hanoi, Vietnam; and Jakarta, 

Indonesia, June–July 2019.

4. Interviews with US defense officials in Hanoi, Vietnam, June 2019. Vietnam considers even 

search and rescue (S&R) exercises with the United States to be too provocative.

5. China was able to influence Cambodia and Laos, and they weakened the “ASEAN way” 

consensus on the SCS starting in 2012. At the 2020 ASEAN Summit in Hanoi, Vietnam and 

other states persuaded Cambodia and Laos to agree to the joint statement that UNCLOS should 

be the basis for resolving SCS disputes and that the nine-dash line was invalid.

6. Nicholas Huynh, “U.S. Navy, Royal Australian Navy team up in the South China Sea,” 

Commander, US Pacific Fleet, 21 April 2020, https://www.Cpf.navy.mil. Recently, the Royal 

Australian Navy joined the US Navy in shadowing Chinese “research vessels” that have been 

harassing Southeast Asian research and oil exploration craft, which is a step beyond FONOPS 

and closer to a denial approach.

7. David Shambaugh, “U.S.-China Rivalry in Southeast Asia,” International Security 42, no. 4 

(Spring 2018): 85–127. He finds that Brunei tilts more toward China, as they are jointly developing energy resources. Malaysia was tilting toward China under former Prime Minister Najib 

Razak, but his successor, Mahathir Mohamed, moved the country away from Beijing’s influence. 

Thailand was an “aligned accomodationist” with China until the Trump administration lifted 

sanctions in 2017 and renewed alliance commitments.

8. Michael Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” International Security 42, 

no. 2 (Fall 2017): 78-119. He observes that China could dominate the northeast SCS near the 

Philippines (e.g., Scarborough Shoal) with its air and maritime forces.

9. Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” 99. the Group of Five are Malaysia, 

Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

10. Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” 100. US Navy carriers plus air 

bases in Guam and the Marianas provide the United States with massive airpower to deter 

China from attacking US installations and allies such as Japan. In addition, Beckley asserts that 

the United States has contingency access at 100 airfields in five Southeast Asian states. He estimates that one USAF wing could destroy half of the PLAAF’s strike aircraft in three weeks, and 

two wings could do so in six days. With no air cover, the United States could destroy the PLAN. 

US sea-launched antiship cruise missiles have a 1,000-mile range, and USAF/US Navy airlaunched antiship cruise missiles have a 570-mile range that would attack the PLAN. Finally, US 
132 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

Navy submarines can outlast their PLAN counterparts, and the United States has the upper 

hand in antisubmarine warfare.

11. Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” 101. Taiwan has the A2/AD capabilities that deter a Chinese invasion and estimates that the PLA faces an offense-defense ratio of 

50:1 concerning the precision guided munitions needed to prevail against the United States and its 

allies and partners. Concerning the PLAAF taking out missile sites, Beckley points out that the 

USAF failed in attempting to take out missiles in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 and Yugoslavia in 1999. 

Finally, China has a slowing economy and homeland security concerns that could hamper or end 

its SCS campaign.

12. However, like Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia in the Spratly Islands, Taiwan does 

not have the ability to stop China’s creeping expansion in the SCS that could eventually lead to a 

PLA takeover of Taipei’s Itu Abu outpost.

13. Oriana Skylar Mastro, “Military Confrontation in the South China Sea,” Council on Foreign Relations, 21 May 2020, https://www.cfr.org/. Mastro concludes by recommending the following for the United States: (1) increase the tempo of military operations with its allies and by 

greater use of the USAF and send ships to patrol the EEZs and prevent takeover of Scarborough 

Shoal; (2) respond immediately and proportionately to each aggressive act; (3) improve the quality 

of partner ISR; (4) couple escalation with a proposal for a way out of the ensuing crisis; (5) promote a binding code of conduct for the SCS; and (6) appoint a special envoy.

14. John R. Oneal and Mark A. Elrod, “NATO burden sharing and the forces of change,” International Studies Quarterly 33, no. 4 (1989): 435–56.

15. Interviews with Vietnamese, Filipino, Indonesian, and US officials and security experts, 

June–July 2019.

16. In addition, China is encroaching on the EEZ of the Sultanate of Brunei, which could 

qualify it for inclusion in this analysis, but the latter has acquiesced to China’s actions and has not 

sought US security assistance.

17. John J. Mearsheimer, “China’s Unpeaceful Rise,” Current History 105, no. 690 (2006): 160–62.

18. Zhang Baohui, “Xi Jin Ping, ‘Pragmatic’ Offensive Realism and China’s Rise,” Global Asia

9, no. 2 (Summer 2014): 71–79. See also Dingding Chen and Xiaoyu Pu, “Correspondence: Debating China’s Assertiveness,” International Security 38, no. 3 (Winter 2013/2014): 177–80.

19. Stephen F. Burgess, “The Changing Balance of Power in the Asia-Pacific Region and Optimum US Defense Strategy and USAF Strategic Posture” (Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Institute 

of National Security Studies, US Air War College, December 2015). Based on research in Hong 

Kong, Taiwan, and Japan, the report points out the change in China’s strategy from defense of 

Hainan Island and other assets to “offensive assertiveness” in 2010 with the struggle over the 

Senkaku Islands with Japan and the rise to power of Pres. Xi Jinping in 2013. See also Chen and 

Pu, “Correspondence,” 177–80.

20. Rockford Weitz, “Military Activities in an EEZ,” in Law of the Sea: A Policy Primer, Tufts 

University, Fletcher Schools L.LM. In International Law and Maritime Studies Program, 2018, 

Chapter 4, https://sites.tufts.edu/.

21. Andrew Erickson, “Make China Great Again: Xi’s Truly Grand Strategy,” War on the Rocks, 

30 October 2019, https://warontherocks.com/. China may eventually want to conduct electronic 

surveillance off the coast of Guam or India, so its questionable claim of a 200-mile EEZ zone off 

Hainan Island may cause problems in the future.

22. Weitz, “Military Activities in an EEZ.”
Confronting China’s Maritime Expansion in the South China Sea

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 133

23. Peter Lee, “It’s official: America has a China-containment policy,” Asia Times, 17 June 2015.

24. Toshi Yoshihara, “The 1974 Paracels Sea Battle: A Campaign Appraisal,” Naval War College Review 2, no. 6 (2016), https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/. China began using gray-zone 

tactics involving paramilitary forces in the 1974 clash over Woody Island with the forces of South 

Vietnam (defunct in 1975).

25. The US Energy Intelligence Agency estimates that the South China Sea has about 11 

billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas rated as proved or probable reserves. 

See Chris Horton, “China Zeroes in on Energy Potential of the South China Sea,” New York 

Times, 28 October 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/.

26. Erickson, “Make China Great Again.”

27. Andrew Browne, “After Chinese Stock Plunge, a Hole Shows in Xi’s ‘China Dream’,” Wall 

Street Journal, 15 July 2015. While Beijing seems to be making major multilateral moves to gain 

influence in Asia, China has not always followed up on its pledges of aid. For example, China actually transferred only 6 percent of 66 billion USD in pledged aid to Pakistan from 2003 to 2011.

28. US DOD Indo-Pacific Strategy, 2018.

29. Shambaugh, “U.S.-China Rivalry in Southeast Asia,” 85-127.

30. Jim Gomez, “ASEAN takes position vs China’s vast historical sea claims,” Associated 

Press, 27 June 2020.

31. Yoshihara, “The 1974 Paracels Sea Battle.” The 1974 clash over Woody Island was between 

the forces of South Vietnam and China.

32. Jane Perlez, “China and Vietnam Point Fingers after Clash in South China Sea,” New York 

Times, 28 May 2014. In 2014, Vietnam sent small boats to harass China’s attempts to erect an oil 

rig in the Paracel Islands. Also, Vietnamese rioted against ethnic Chinese in the country.

33. Shambaugh, “U.S.-China Rivalry in Southeast Asia,” 102.

34. US Embassy officials, Hanoi, Vietnam, interviewed 26 June 2019. The 2014 attempt by 

China to situate a giant oil rig in the Paracel Islands was met by violent protests in Vietnam and 

pushed Hanoi closer to the United States. Also, China’s construction of seven military bases in the 

Spratly Islands also pushed Vietnam closer to Washington.

35. US Embassy officials, interview.

36. US Embassy officials, interview. The US programs of working with Vietnam and its 

Coast Guard in developing its force and the Air Defense and Air Force (ADAF) in developing 

its T-6 trainer force will be the keystones of the strategic partnership in the near future and 

need to be managed carefully. These programs are part of helping Vietnam move away from 

dependence on Russian weapons and China’s influence and will bear fruit in the ongoing and 

future strategic partnership.

37. Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” 100. Vietnam is acquiring the 

Russo-Indian Brahmos missiles with a 190-mile range and that fly at 2,300 miles per hour.

38. US Embassy official, Hanoi, Vietnam, interviewed 26 June 2019.

39. Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” 100. The ADAF has 35 SU30MK2V combat aircraft with Kh-31 antiship cruise missiles and 18 bases.

40. Mark Cozad and Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga, “People’s Liberation Army Air Force 

Operations over Water: Maintaining Relevance in China’s Changing Security Environment,” 

RAND Corporation, 2017, https://www.rand.org/. “Recent over-water flights have been termed 

as normal operations and part of the natural development of the Chinese military, but authoritative military commentary suggests that the utility of these flights extends beyond simply training 
134 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Burgess

for maritime missions, as they are sometimes also intended to convey strategic signals to relevant 

countries during times of political tension with China.”

While the PLAAF has poor navigation skills over ocean and in bad weather, some PLAAF 

pilots and aircraft can fly at night, and the PLAAF can launch more than 1,000 fighter aircraft 

from nine bases in southern China that could eventually overwhelm the ADAF.

41. Shambaugh, “U.S.-China Rivalry in Southeast Asia,” 101.

42. Interviews with US defense officials in Manila, July 2019.

43. Richard Javad Heydarian, “Philippines challenging China in South China Sea,” Asia Times, 

27 June 2020. The Philippines is attempting to open Reed Bank (between the Spratlys and Manila) to oil-and-gas prospecting without China’s participation or interference.

44. In 2014, the Philippines acquired KA/FA-50 light fighter aircraft from South Korea and 

rejuvenated the 5th Fighter Wing.

45. Shambaugh, “U.S.-China Rivalry in Southeast Asia,” 101.

46. Ivy Kinek and Chew Ping-Hoo, “Malaysia’s Rationale and Response to the South China 

Sea,” Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative Update, 29 May 2020, https://amti.csis.org/.

47. Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” 104. The Malaysian Navy has two 

French submarines that it has maintained for years and is experienced in operating. In addition, it 

has 10 frigates and 12 patrol boats and Kh-31 antiship missiles. The Malaysian Air Force has eight 

airfields and 36 fourth-generation fighters, including 18 Su-30s.

48. Even though US and Australian navy ships backed Malaysia in April–May 2020, Malaysia 

still voiced concerns about great-power conflict and escalation. In addition, US Navy presence in 

the SCS and surrounding waters has increased. In May 2020, China ended its operation against 

oil exploration operations in Malaysia’s EEZ.

49. Shambaugh, “U.S.-China Rivalry in Southeast Asia,” 101.

50. Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” 103. At present, the PLAAF has 

only 13 tankers, 16 AWACS, and two aircraft carriers with 24 fighters, which means that it would 

struggle to sustain an attack to seize Natuna Island and fight off the Indonesian forces.

51. Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” 103. The Indonesian Navy also has 

12 frigates, 20 corvettes, and 30 patrol boats.

52. Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” 103. The TNI-AU has 49 fourthgeneration fighters, with 33 F-16s (and is acquiring 25 more), 11 Su-30s, and five Su-27s.

53. Interviews with US defense officials, Jakarta, July 2019. Also, TNI-AU pilots have difficulties flying in bad weather and at night.

54. “The United States Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China,” The White 

House, 26 May 2020. https://www.whitehouse.gov/.

55. Pag-asa is the second-largest island in the Spratlys, the largest administered by the Philippines, and 280 miles west of Palawan Island.

56. Beckley, “The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia,” 101. The Spratly Islands are more 

than 700 miles from Hainan, and retaliation against hostile action would require 30 PLAAF 

fighters over the Spratly Islands at any one time—plus air refueling. Therefore, escalation could be 

difficult for China, leaving the PLAN and CCG alone to do so.

57. One US SCS expert that I interviewed in the Philippines in July 2019 recommended that 

the US Navy quarantine one of China’s militarized outposts in the Philippines EEZ in the Spratlys until Beijing agrees to negotiate. A more provocative suggestion was US Marines landing on 

an outpost and handing it over to Manila.
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 135

DIGITAL-ONLY VIEW

Building the Next Generation of 

Chinese Military Leaders

Roderick Lee

How does the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) People’s Liberation Army 

(PLA) treat senior military leadership development? This article answers 

this question by looking at what the PLA views as a good leader, how it 

develops such leaders, and when the new generation of PLA leaders will emerge.

But why does it matter? US Department of Defense operational concepts such 

as joint all-domain operations, multi-domain operations, and distributed maritime operations require our joint force to execute harder, better, and faster than 

our opponents. However, our opponents, namely China, are not static forces. 

China is also trying to build a military “system of systems” that will execute harder, 

better, and faster than ours. It is relatively easy to observe and measure how different hardware components of the PLA function. Measuring how the “software”1

functions is a more difficult but equally important part of determining how well 

the system as a whole will operate. The leaders of the PLA are in some ways the 

operating systems of the PLA as a whole.

While we do not have access to canonical literature discussing the specific 

question of “How the PLA views senior leadership development,” we can extrapolate themes based on publicly available, native-language literature written by 

the PLA on the subjects of command and leadership. In an effort to break down 

the aforementioned question into more tractable terms, we look at the following 

three subquestions:

1. What does the PLA view as a good leader?

2. How does the organization develop such leaders?

3. When will these leaders show up?

The bottom line is that the PLA views a “good leader” as an expert strategic war 

fighter who always listens to orders. They plan to get there by first deliberately 

selecting only desirable officer candidates and second inducting them through a 

rigorous professional military education (PME) process focused on skill building. 

The PLA can expect their efforts to pay off between roughly 2035 and 2050.
136 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Lee

Complicating Factors

To fully understand what the PLA wants out of its senior leaders, there are 

three complicating factors unique to the PLA that have major implications for 

the leadership within the PLA:

1. Military leaders in the PLA operate within a collective CCP leadership 

mechanism. This makes it difficult to find direct analogues to US military 

leadership concepts.

2. Until 2012 and possibly as recently as 2017, the PLA often promoted 

leaders based on a corrupt “pay-to-play” system rather than anything 

that resembled merit-based promotions. As such, the PLA cannot presently assume all its senior leaders possess competence in basic military 

leadership skills.

3. Current PLA leaders have a narrower range of experiences to draw on 

compared to US counterparts, because PLA career paths up to the present day emphasize depth of knowledge rather than breadth of knowledge.

The subsequent sections discuss these three factors in greater detail.

Factor One: Party, Collective, and Dual Leadership

True leadership over the PLA is entirely derived from the CCP and thus the 

Party core (presently Xi Jinping).2 Stemming from that, the PLA operates within 

the larger CCP ideology that views unified leadership and central authority as key 

tenants of its philosophy.3 In some ways, one can view the PLA as the militant 

wing of a centralized religion with an individual leader representing the vanguard 

of that ideology (e.g., a highly centralized Catholic Church).

Within this centralized leadership mechanism, the PLA practices a form of 

collective leadership known as the “military and political dual-leadership system.” Under this system, a unit’s commander and the political officer serve as 

co-equals.4 Political officers and unit commanders share joint responsibility for 

issuing orders, giving directions to lower levels, and overseeing all daily unit 

work.5 The political officer and unit commander also share responsibility for 

leading their unit’s Party committee and usually serve as the Party committee 

secretary and deputy secretary, respectively.

The unit’s Party committee, of which both the political officer and the unit commander are members (along with varying numbers of other unit officers, all CCP 

members), holds the power at the heart of the command-and-control mechanism 

of the PLA. It is the embodiment of the CCP’s overall leadership over the PLA 

and thus is the formal decision-making mechanism for each PLA unit.6
Building the Next Generation of Chinese Military Leaders

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 137

Typically, decisions within a unit’s Party committee are made through democratic centralism, wherein each committee member may voice opinions and vote 

on a decision, but once the committee makes a decision, it is the responsibility of 

all committee members to support that policy. In the event of a time-sensitive 

decision, the individual best suited to make a decision (typically the unit commander in a combat situation) is permitted to make a unilateral decision. However, the unit’s party committee still shares collective responsibility for that individual’s decision. As a result, the committee is likely to review such unilateral 

decisions at an appropriate time.

Factor Two: Corruption

The CCP’s arrest of Central Military Commission (CMC) Vice-Chairmen Xu 

Caihou and Guo Boxiong in 2014 as well as CMC members Fang Fenghui and 

Zhang Yang in 2017 on corruption charges represents a much larger problem 

within the PLA. President Xi’s anticorruption campaign implicated dozens if not 

hundreds of PLA general and flag officers (GFO), many of whom were responsible for personnel appointments and promotions.7

Because the CMC must approve all GFO promotions, between 2002 and at 

least 2012 during the tenures of the corrupt officers Xu Caihou and Guo Boxiong, 

it is reasonable to assume that most GFOs promoted in that period paid for that 

promotion. 8 Although no complete “price list” is available, anecdotal evidence 

through official People’s Republic of China (PRC) state media and unofficial press 

outlets suggests that a promotion to an O-9 or O-10 equivalent cost between 1.4 

to 2.8 million USD.9 Unofficial sources claim that O-7 and O-8 promotions ran 

roughly 700,000 USD.10 To fund these promotions and the bribes necessary to stay 

in the good graces of senior officials, this system had a trickledown effect, wherein 

even field grade officers were forced to pay into the system.11 This system may have 

persisted into 2017, when the PLA arrested CMC members generals Fang Fenghui (the officer in charge of overall military operations in the PLA) and Zhang 

Yang (the officer in charge of overall personnel issues in the PLA).12

The end result is a system that promoted individuals into senior leadership 

positions based on cash amounts rather than talent or competence. The handful of 

competent senior leaders in the PLA succeeded in climbing the ladder in spite of 

the system during this time—not because of it.

Factor 3: Lacking in Breadth of Experience

All PLA officers up to the present day are likely to have had a stove-piped career. Aviators will have only served almost exclusively in aviation units, likely of 
138 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Lee

the same type, until they reach roughly the O-6 equivalent level. The same can be 

said about submarine officers, tankers, surface warfare officers, and infantrymen.13

This trend is not only an observable career tendency in most PLA officers but also 

codified in official career trajectories. The PLA Air Force Officer’s Handbook and 

PLA Navy Officer’s Handbook both stipulate that, up to an O-6 equivalent level, 

an officer is expected to remain within the same discipline for virtually his or her 

entire career up to that point.14

Making matters worse was the total lack of joint assignment opportunities until 

2016.15 Prior to 2016, the PLA had virtually no joint organizations and, thus, no 

opportunities for officers to gain joint experience. The closest equivalents the PLA 

had to institutionalized joint assignments were cross-service assignments, wherein 

an officer from one service (e.g., the Navy) would take up a position in another 

service (e.g., the Air Force). However, this was a rare occurrence.

This lack in career diversity results in exceptional depth in knowledge but little 

in the way of breadth. While this is advantageous early in one’s career, it becomes 

a major handicap later in one’s career. This major deviation in the career experiences that senior leaders in the PLA draw from versus the experiences that senior 

US military leaders draw from factors into how the PLA is now looking to develop its leaders going forward.

What Is a Good Leader in the PLA?

I feel that no matter how the system is adjusted and how missions change, we should all 

be politically sound, align with the Party, listen to the Party’s command, and work hard 

to improve the joint operational command capability under realistic combat conditions.

—PLA National Defense University 

Senior Officer’s Course student in 2017

The PLA regularly talks about deficiencies within its force—many of which are 

associated with its people rather than its technical systems. The most commonly 

discussed deficiencies are seen below:

“Five Inabilities”16 “Five Weaknesses”17 “Two Insufficients”18

Inability to analyze a situation Ability to adapt to the circumstances Insufficient ability to fight 

modern wars Inability to understand the higher 

echelon’s intent Ability to manage and coordinate

Inability to make a decision on a 

course of action Ability to operate equipment Insufficient ability of 

cadres at all levels to 

command modern 

combat

Inability to deploy forces Ability to command operations

Inability to handle unexpected 

situations Ability to organize training
Building the Next Generation of Chinese Military Leaders

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 139

While the inverse of some of these deficiencies suggest desirable leadership 

traits (e.g., inability to analyze a situation implies they want leaders who are good 

at analyzing situations), the PLA also discusses desirable traits that it wants its 

leaders to have. A survey of publicly available PLA literature since 2015 reveals 

the following broad trait categories that the PLA views as desirable in its leaders:

Politically Loyal: A PLA military leader’s worldview is in lockstep with the 

CCP, and they understand their role within the CCP.

The PLA views politics as being an integral part of its identity and tradition. 

Understanding political factors within the scheme of the CCP is not just a fundamental skill that is necessary for leaders in the PLA. Military commanders in 

the PLA must always put ideological and political development first and foremost. This can be accomplished by strengthening political beliefs in communism, 

reiterating the philosophy of serving the people, and emphasizing the Party’s absolute leadership in all matters. 19

Strategically Aware: A PLA military leader should have a solid understanding 

of how what they are doing fits into the bigger picture, how various different parts 

interact, and how actions will play out over time.

Given that the PLA is moving toward becoming an “informatized force,” 

wherein overall force effectiveness is determined by the extent to which the force 

is networked with access to information, the PLA not surprisingly sees strategic 

awareness as a crucial element that its leaders must have. Specifically, it wants its 

leaders to have a holistic understanding of where they fit in within the overall 

strategy, possess the skills to determine how different factors will interact with 

each other, and have the foresight to understand how a situation will evolve.20 This 

also leads to PLA leaders being able to conduct mission command to a certain 

degree, wherein they are able to continue operating absent of direct command 

guidance based on their understanding of the situation.

Skilled in Military Affairs: A PLA military leader should have the requisite 

skills to command combat operations at their respective level of war.

As indicated in the section discussing the problem of corruption and breadth 

of experience, the PLA is essentially starting over in terms of military skills. Skills 

that the US military would consider prerequisites such as understanding joint 

operations, operational art, integration of new technical capabilities, and the importance of information superiority often must be taught to senior PLA leaders.21

The PLA views leaders that already possess such fundamental skills as extremely 

desirable, not just minimally successful.

Appropriate Military Culture: A PLA military leader adheres to a particular 

set of intellectual achievements, beliefs, and norms that the PLA collectively regards as canonical.
140 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Lee

The PLA does not want leaders who are just there for the paycheck. It wants 

leaders who are passionate about military affairs and the PLA’s legacy. This means 

it wants officers who are actively interested in combat command, the newest 

military literature and theory, and the overall art of war.22 The PLA also wants a 

“genetic inheritance,” so to speak, wherein its current generations of leaders pull 

from the experiences of “past PLA greats.”23 Contemporary examples of “famous 

generals” include Peng Dehuai, Liu Bocheng, and Xu Xiangqian. Although the 

PLA’s National Defense University lists the Chinese intervention in the Korean 

War as a “famous modern campaign,” all the famous “contemporary” generals 

listed are better known for their actions during the Chinese Civil War.24

Adaptive: They can respond to new circumstances, develop innovative ideas, 

and incorporate new methodologies.

Not surprisingly, the PLA wants its leaders to be adaptive and innovative. 

Specifically, it wants leaders to learn new methods and military developments 

from other countries, incorporate future technologies that have not yet operationalized, and be more creative.25 There is also a reasonably new emphasis on 

finding officers who are reasonably independent and willing to take the initiative 

on their own (within reason).26

Other Intangible Traits: In addition to the aforementioned leadership traits, 

the PLA also discusses the value of leadership concepts that are intangible or not 

typically associated with the military. Examples include charisma, institutional 

leadership, leading from behind, flexible leadership, and intercultural leadership.27

However, there is an absence of evidence regarding whether the PLA is systemically trying to implement such concepts across the force or not.

Development

Many of these desirable leadership traits are new to the PLA, but systematic 

implementation of mechanisms to promote such traits is an even more recent 

phenomenon. Although the PLA is relatively opaque when it comes to ongoing 

efforts to improve the force, leadership development within the PLA can be 

broken down into two categories. First, the PLA selects what it views as the 

optimal officer candidates. Second, it implements a fairly stringent series of 

PME requirements.

The Right Material

Before the PLA begins to mold officers into future senior leaders, the organization wants to ensure that the “material” that they are working with is appropriate. 

Specifically, PLA officer candidate prerequisites are designed to identify politi-
Building the Next Generation of Chinese Military Leaders

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 141

cally reliable individuals who have character traits aligned with some of the “soft” 

desirable leadership traits mentioned above. The PLA accomplishes this by conducting a series of unspecified psychological, political, and personality testing.28

There is virtually no information on the PLA’s psychological and political testing, 

but the PLA provides broad guidelines for desired personalities.

The PLA currently uses a Myers–Briggs Type Indicator to filter out certain 

types of personalities. Persons who test as “INFP” (introverted, intuitive, feeling, 

and prospecting) are immediately flagged, while individuals who test as “ENFP” 

(extroverted, intuitive, feeling, prospecting), “INTJ” (introverted, intuitive, 

thinking, judging), or “ISTP” (introverted, sensing, thinking, prospective) require additional screening. The implication of this personality screening is that 

the PLA is trying to filter certain “undesirable” personalities, “INFP” being the 

archetype.29

Professional Military Education

The aim of the PLA’s PME system likely is to build and develop military skills 

required to lead the next level of combat operations. There is little evidence to 

suggest that the PLA PME system is designed to inculcate habits of the mind, 

critical thinking, or intellectual integrity. This view is based predominantly on 

PME requirements for PLA officers and limited information about graduate programs at PLA PME institutions.

PLA PME requirements focus on training officers to conduct combat operations at the tactical and then operational level.30 PME requirements can be met 

by attending any number of military academic institutions, but there are few opportunities for officers to attend higher-quality civilian institutions. Field grade 

officers attend a series of multimonth courses at military academies covering 

single-service and then combined arms tactics. Some junior and field grade officers that will be assigned to a larger headquarters staff will attend courses on 

campaign-level staff work.31 Senior officers will receive PME in single-service 

campaigns then joint campaigns at either their service’s command academy or the 

PLA’s National Defense University.32

The concentrations and prerequisite readings at degree-granting programs 

intended for senior officers reflect the probable emphasis on building skills for 

war fighting. Most degrees issued are in military affairs, with concentrations in 

fields of military science, strategy, tactics, operational command, and military 

operations research.33 The prerequisite readings cover military strategy, operations, and tactics exclusively.34
142 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Lee

Notes

1. Software in this case refers to factors such as personnel quality, training, doctrine, and 

proficiency.

2. This authority is typically manifested by the CCP Central Committee’s Central Military 

Commission.

3. Yang Xiaolin [杨晓霖], “Key Questions and Answers: How to Understand ‘The Core Essence of Adhering to the Party’s Commands” [要点问答:如何理解“坚持党的领导的核心要

义], 21 November 2019, http://www.81.cn/.

Looking Forward

The PLA is clearly making efforts to fast-track the presence of some of these 

aforementioned desirable traits within its current generation of leaders. Through 

the massive culling of corrupt officers, institution of rigorous testing, and investment in PME, the hope is that the competent leaders of the current generation 

will form at least a solid basis for subsequent generations. However, a full generational shift in the PLA’s officer corps is likely necessary before it observes substantive change in the quality of its senior leaders. Using standard trajectories for PLA 

officers, we can extrapolate how long that might take.

The starting point for the PLA is roughly 2017, when the PLA’s anticorruption 

efforts peaked and the organization reformed its command-and-control structure 

to allow for joint operations and modernized its PME system to develop a new 

generation of human talent. Officers entering the “new-generation” PLA are more 

likely to be promoted based on merit rather than money, have a wider range of 

career experiences to inform their worldview, and undergo much more rigorous 

academic training. Based on standard career trajectories for PLA officers, officers 

in this new generation will reach their first major field commands around 2035 

and their first senior commands around 2050.

Incidentally, 2035 and 2050 are broader benchmarks for the PLA’s overall 

modernization. According to the PRC’s 2019 Defense White Paper, the PLA is 

expected to, “basically complete the modernization of national defense and the 

military by 2035 and to fully transform the People’s Armed Forces “into worldclass forces by the mid-21st century.”35 Not only does this translate to a PLA 

that will be better equipped, trained, and networked but also a PLA that will be 

better led. 

Roderick Lee

Mr. Lee is the director of research at the Air University’s China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI). Prior to joining 

CASI, he served as an analyst with the United States Navy, covering Chinese naval forces. He earned his MA degree 

from The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
Building the Next Generation of Chinese Military Leaders

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 143

4. Jeff Benson, Zi Yang, “Party on the Bridge: Political Commissars in the Chinese Navy”, Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, 29 June 2020, https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/.

5. Cheng Baoshan, ed., The Fundamental Laws and Regulations of Military Political Work in 

the New Century and New Era—Studying the Newly Revised and Promulgated ‘Regulations of the 

Chinese People’s Liberation Army on Political Work [新世纪新阶段军队政治工作的根本法规—

学习新修订颁布的《中国人民解放军政治工作条例》] (Beijing: Military Science Press, 2004).

6. Wang Weidong [王卫东], Li Yongfei [李永飞], et al., “Grasp Work Methods and Improve 

Leadership Art” [掌握工作方法 提高领导艺术], 9 March 2016, http://www.81.cn/.

7. Derek Grossman, “Envisioning a ‘World Class’ PLA- Implications for the United States 

and the Indo-Pacific” CT-514 (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1 July 2019), https://www.rand.org/.

8. Central Military Commission [中央军委], “Chinese People’s Liberation Army Active Duty 

Officer Regulations on Appointment and Dismissal” [中国人民解放军现役军官职务任免条

例], 16 September 2009, http://www.mod.gov.cn/.

9. Han Jianping [韩建平], “A Major General’s Insider Story into Xu Caihou’s Selling of Positions: A Military Region Command Costs 20 Million” [少将曝徐才厚卖官内幕:大军区司令

行贿两千万], 10 March 2015, http://www.xinhuanet.com/.

10. Clive Hamilton, Silent Invasion: China’s Influence in Australia (Richmond, Victoria: Hardie 

Grant Books, 2018). Note that GFO promotions are much more valuable than field and midgrade officer promotions. Under old PLA retirement regulations, GFOs had access to a wider 

range of benefits, including ownership of housing held at the GFO level. For example, if a GFO 

assigned to City 1 is lateralled or promoted to an assignment at City 2, they were allowed to keep 

the housing unit in City 1 in addition to getting new housing unit in City 2. Given the housing 

boom in China, these benefits were rather significant in terms of financial gains. For additional 

details on housing, see Marcus Clay, Understanding the “People” of the People’s Liberation Army

(Maxwell AFB, AL: China Aerospace Studies Institute, 2018), https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/.

11. Li Wenlong [李文隆], “Vice Admiral Yang Shiguang Pleads Guilty and Exposes the Fallen 

Zhang Shutian” [海军中将杨世光自称罪该万死 曝张树田已落马], 20 July 2017, https://www

.secretchina.com/.

12. Nie Chenjing [聂晨静], “Fang Fenghui Sentenced to Life Imprisonment” [房峰辉被判处

无期徒刑], 20 February 2019, http://www.xinhuanet.com/.

13. CASI, internal database of PLA Officer Career Histories, 1 January 2020.

14. Du Jingchen [杜景臣], Handbook for Officers and Enlisted of the Chinese PLA Navy [

中国海军军人手册], 143, Haichao, 2012; and PLA Air Force Soldier Handbook [解放军空军士

兵手册], Lantian Chubanshe [蓝天出版社], Beijing, 2006.

15. People’s Daily Online [人民网-中国共产党新闻网], “Xi Jinping as the Newly Appointed 

Military Commander in Chief Fully Lays Out National Defense Reform” [习近平新任军委联指

总指挥 全面布局国防军改], 21 April 2016, http://cpc.people.com.cn/.

16. Wang Leiping [王雪平], “Focusing on the Commander’s ‘Five Cannot’ Problem” [着力破

解指挥员“五个不会”问题], 18 June 2019, http://www.81.cn/.

17. Zhou Jian [周剑 ], Zhang Xiaolong [张晓龙], and Cai Yichen [蔡宜臣], “Joint Training 

Achieves Rapid Implementation of Capabilities” [合训到分流 实现能力素质弯道超车], 1 June 

2018, http://www.js7tv.cn/.

18. Li Chunli [李春立], “Focus on Solving the Problem of ‘Two Insufficient Capabilities’” [着

力破解“两个能力不够”问题],30 December 2014, http://www.81.cn/.
144 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Lee

19. Liu Wei [刘伟], “Molding a Strong Foundation for a Military Commander’s Leadership 

Art” [铸造军事指挥员领导艺术的坚强基石], Leadership Science Journal [领导科学], 1 August 

2005; and Guo Qiang [郭强], “Building of Strategic Leadership is Essential” [战略领导力建设

至关重要], 28 December 2016, http://www.81.cn/.

20. Lu Zhisheng [陆知胜], “How to Improve a Commander’s Command Ability” [如何提升指

挥员指挥能力], 20 November 2018, http://www.81.cn/; Liu Wei [刘伟], “Molding a Strong Foundation for a Military Commander’s Leadership Art” [铸造军事指挥员领导艺术的坚强基石], 

Leadership Science Journal [领导科学], 1 August 2005; and Guo Qiang [郭强], “Building of Strategic Leadership is Essential” [战略领导力建设至关重要], 28 December 2016, http://www.81.cn/.

21. Xia Dongxu [夏东旭], Huang Hongqiang [黄宏强], and Gao Qingsen [高清森], “How to 

Improve Combat Command Abilities” [如何提升作战指挥能力], 8 August 2019, http://www.81.

cn/; Lu Zhisheng [陆知胜], “How to Improve a Commander’s Command Ability” [如何提升指

挥员指挥能力], 20 November 2018, http://www.81.cn/; and CCTV-7, “Military Report” [军事

报道] 22 March 2017.

22. Xia Dongxu [夏东旭], Huang Hongqiang [黄宏强], and Gao Qingsen [高清森], “How to 

Improve Combat Command Abilities” [如何提升作战指挥能力], 8 August 2019, http://www.81.

cn/; and Yang Yan [杨帆], “Military News Commentary—Accelerate the Improvement of Command Ability” [军报评论 加快把指挥能力搞过硬], 27 October 2018, http://www.81.cn/.

23. Lu Zhisheng [陆知胜], “How to Improve a Commander’s Command Ability” [如何提升

指挥员指挥能力], 20 November 2018, http://www.81.cn/.

24. PLA National Defense University [国防大学], “Famous Chinese Military Strategists” [中

国著名军事家], PLA National Defense University (website), http://www.cdsndu.org/.

25. Liu Wei [刘伟], “Molding A Strong Foundation for a Military Commander’s Leadership 

Art” [铸造军事指挥员领导艺术的坚强基石], Leadership Science Journal [领导科学], 1 August 

2005; and Guo Qiang [郭强], “Building of Strategic Leadership is Essential” [战略领导力建设

至关重要], 28 December 2016, http://www.81.cn/.

26. Brendan Mulvaney, lecture at PACAF Commander’s Symposium, China Aerospace Studies Institute, 17 April 2020.

27. Cheng Gang [程钢], “New Features and Trends in Modern Leadership” [现代领导的新特

点新趋势], Strategic Vision Journal, 1 March 2017; and Guo Qiang [郭强], “Building of Strategic 

Leadership is Essential” [战略领导力建设至关重要], 28 December 2016, http://www.81.cn/.

28. PLA General Staff Department, PLA General Political Department, PLA General Logistics Department, “Physical Examination Standards for Recruiting Students into Military 

Academies” [中国人民解放军军队院校招收学员体格检查标准], 18 December 2019, http://

zsb.ccit.edu.cn/.

29. MBTI guides typically describe INFPs as “Quiet, open-minded, imaginative, and apply a 

caring and creative approach to everything they do.”

30. Du Jingchen [杜景臣], “Handbook for Officers and Enlisted of the Chinese PLA Navy” [

中国海军军人手册], Haichao, 2012; and “PLA Air Force Soldier Handbook” [解放军空军士兵

手册], Lantian Chubanshe [蓝天出版社], Beijing, 2006.

31. PLA [解放军], “2020 National Defense University Graduate Student Brochure” [2020年

国防大学硕士研究生招生简章], 1 January 2020, https://yz.chsi.com.cn/.

32. PLA [解放军], “2020 National Defense University Graduate Student Brochure” [2020年国

防大学硕士研究生招生简章], 1 January 2020, https://yz.chsi.com.cn/.; PLA [解放军], “2019 

Navy Command College Admissions Guide” [海军指挥学院2019年硕士研究生招生简章], 1 
Building the Next Generation of Chinese Military Leaders

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 145

January 2019, China Postgraduate Student Recruitment Information Network [中国研究生招生信

息网]; and PLA [解放军], “2020 Air Force Command College 2020 Graduate Student Admissions 

Guide” [空军指挥学院2020年硕士研究生招生简章], 2 October 2019, https://www.sohu.com/.

33. People’s Liberation Army Navy [解放军海军], “2019 Naval Command Academy Admissions Guide” China Postgraduate Student Recruitment Information Network [中国研究生招生

信息网]; and PLA [解放军], “2020 National Defense University Graduate Student Brochure” 

[2020年国防大学硕士研究生招生简章], 1 January 2020, https://yz.chsi.com.cn/.

34. 姚远 [Yao Yuan], “Navy Command College 2017 Student Graduate Admissions Guide” [

海军指挥学院2017年军事学博士研究生招生简章], 22 September 2016, http://www.chinamil

.com.cn/.

35. PRC Ministry of National Defense, “China’s National Defense in the New Era,” Xinhua, 

24 July 2019, http://www.xinhuanet.com/.
146 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

DIGITAL - ONLY COMMENTARY

India’s Indian Ocean Region Strategy

Priyanjoli Ghosh

The Indian Ocean has emerged as a critical conduit for trade, commerce, and 

energy. The waters of the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) have become a 

home for economic developments, disputes, conflicts, and competition for 

regional influence by regional and extraregional powers. All major powers, such as 

the United States, Australia, Japan, United Kingdom, India, and China have sought 

stakes in the security of the IOR. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union wanted 

direct access to the IOR; now, China is looking for the same. The India Ocean 

remains a pivot, being the world’s busiest trade route. Around 80 percent of the 

world’s maritime oil trade passes through the IOR. The rise of China across the 

maritime region has compelled nations (including India) to reshape their maritime 

strategies. This commentary aims at looking at the geostrategic importance of the 

IOR for India, China’s presence in the region, and counterbalance strategies.

Geostrategic Importance of the IOR

The Indian Ocean, which lies at the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Australia, 

houses a number of littorals that play critical roles in the region. The IOR is a 

vital sea lane with choke points such the Strait of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, 

Bab-el Mandeb, and so forth. These choke points are of immense strategic importance, as huge volumes of trade pass through them. These choke points are exposed 

to piracy, international disputes, political dissents, and accidents. To ward off such 

threats and to gain/maintain a strong foothold in this resource rich region, regional and external powers flex their muscles.

The islands in the Indian Ocean also work significantly to shape security architecture of the IOR. These islands play a vital role along the sea lines of communication (SLOC) by giving easy access to navies continued presence and allowing 

them to patrol and secure SLOCs during the time of peace and war. The Indian 

Ocean acts as an intersection for the transport of oil from the Middle East. This 

is also the reason why external powers are trying to strengthen their footholds, 

making it a region for them to showcase their vigor and potentiality.

When talking about the geostrategic importance, “security dynamics” in the 

IOR play an equally pivotal role. In the view of the same, the Persian Gulf in the 

Arabian Sea (northern Indian Ocean) also plays an equally important role for the 

security perspective of India. The main aim of India in this area is to protect the 

SLOCs, which are laden with piracy threats in the Horn of Africa and the Red 
India’s Indian Ocean Region Strategy

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 147

Sea. The Indian Navy has warships deployed in the Gulf of Oman and Persian 

Gulf to provide safe passage for Indian-flagged vessels operating in the region. 

India has also set up the Information Fusion Centre–Indian Ocean Region (IFC–

IOR) to keep a close watch on the movement of ships in the region. The IFC–

IOR engages with partner nations to develop comprehensive maritime domain 

awareness and share information on vessels of interest.

Chinese Presence in the Backyard

The Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean remains a major concern across the 

region. Beijing is eager to have strong footholds in the IOR, Africa, and other 

island nations, through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The presence of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and other Chinese commercial vessels in the Indian Ocean, the Chinese interpretation of the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, and so forth remain challenges to those who 

subscribe to the ideal of a free and open Indo-Pacific.1 The geopolitical theory of 

the “String of Pearls” explains China’s potentials and intentions of establishing 

commercial and infrastructural projects in India’s backyard. China has invested in 

several projects from the Horn of Africa to the ASEAN nations and the Pacific 

Island nations.

The revival of the Chinese Maritime Silk Route can be seen through China’s 

investment in the port of Hambantota in Sri Lanka, which Beijing gained control 

of through debt-trap lending, and the development of Pakistan’s Gwadar Port as 

a part of China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).2 In the Maldives, China 

had financed the China–Maldives Friendship Bridge, linking Malé to the island 

of Hulhumale and Hulhule. It is the first sea-crossing bridge for the Maldives and 

could play a vital role in the island nation’s long-term economic development. The 

Maldives has also leased an uninhabited island, Feydhoo Finolhu, to a Chinese 

enterprise for 50 years at a price of around 4 million USD, with plans to develop 

infrastructure for tourism.3 Along the African coastal belt, one-quarter of all Chinese investment is concentrated in Nigeria and Angola. Nigeria has received relatively large funds from China for railways. Abuja also hopes that China will support peacekeeping in the Niger Delta region, which would better secure oil 

investments there. Beijing is backing two major rail projects—one from Lagos to 

Kano and the other from Lagos to Calabar.4

China’s ambitious BRI,5 a 1 trillion USD investment project, is aimed at infrastructural developments. However, many have criticized Beijing’s promises to 

build roadways, railways, and ports to revive the trade route linking China to Asia, 

Africa, and Europe as based upon debt-trap lending that financially burdens comparatively weak economies, allowing China to essentially gain sovereignty over 
148 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Ghosh

portions of these countries. The CPEC, which is a BRI project, has been a great 

concern for India, as it passes through the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. China has 

often enticed leaders from countries with unstable economies to allow Chinese 

investment in their territories. However, India has always dissented against the 

same on grounds of security concerns.

Counterbalancing the Dragon on the Seas

The Chinese dragon might be obstructing India on land, disputing New Delhi’s 

claim of the Line of Actual Control (LAC). However, Beijing’s predominant geopolitical strategy of the great game lies in the Indian Ocean, where China has 

engaged in massive infrastructure projects for some time now. To counter the rise 

of China, India needs to up its game in the maritime sphere. New Delhi has been 

increasing India’s military investments since the Modi government first came to 

power in 2014.

In the Bay of Bengal (BoB), India has modernized facilities in the Andaman 

Islands and at a base in Campbell Bay in the Nicobar Islands. In 2019, an infrastructure development plan worth 56.5 billion INR aimed at allowing additional 

warships, aircraft, troops, and drones to be stationed in the Andaman and Nicobar 

Islands was finalized. On 24 January 2019, the Indian Navy commissioned the 

new naval station INS Kohassa in the BoB islands.6 While there has been a lot of 

stir claiming that this upgrade was aimed at countering the Chinese expansion at 

the IOR, Ding Hao, deputy director of the Asian–African Military Affairs Office 

of the Foreign Military Studies Department of the Chinese People’s Liberation 

Army’s Academy of Military Sciences, said the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are 

overseas territories of the Dominion of India and that it is a normal move for the 

Indian military to establish military bases there. Beijing has defended China’s 

moves in the IOR by stating that it aims for peace and stability in the region.

To counter the rise of China in the Indian Ocean, India needs to emerge as a 

strong maritime power, which would be possible with support from the island 

nations in the region. India has recently undertaken infrastructure development 

projects with dual-use logistics facilities in Mauritius and Seychelles. India aims 

to upgrade facilities on the Agaléga Islands of Mauritius. In 2015, India and 

Mauritius had signed a MoU to improve air and sea facilities at the Agaléga Island.7

 Even though the Agaléga islanders know that construction of naval base 

would lead to their displacement, the Mauritian government have ignored this as 

they want India to continue routing its money through Mauritius, which is their 

largest source of FDI. India can take this to its advantage and get logistic helps 

from Mauritius as well. The 87 million USD project has been awarded to two 

companies: Afcons Infrastructure Limited and Rail India Technical And Eco-
India’s Indian Ocean Region Strategy

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 149

nomic Services (RITES) Ltd., a Government of India enterprise. As per a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed in 2015 by Indian prime minister 

Narendra Modi and his Mauritian counterpart, India would set up infrastructure 

for improving air and sea connectivity.8 Even though construction of the naval 

base would lead to the displacement of Agaléga Islanders, the Mauritian government is eager for India to continue routing its money through Mauritius, as it 

represents the nation’s largest source of foreign direct investment. New Delhi can 

use this to India’s advantage to gain logistical assistance from Mauritius as well.

With Seychelles, India has agreed on developing infrastructure on Assumption 

Island. India has also helped Victoria with ocean mapping to protect Seychelles 

exclusive economic zone and has donated aircraft and launched a radar project.9

However, it is also important to note that Mauritius and Seychelles, being the 

small islands that they are, may not align with India to the point of isolating 

China completely in the IOR. The United States, on the other hand, can definitely provide India with logistics. The Logistics Exchange Memorandum of 

Agreement (LEMOA) between Washington and New Delhi would enable India 

to gain logistical support from the many US facilities located throughout the 

Indo-Pacific.10

India is a part of several bilateral and multilateral military exercises in the Indian 

Ocean. Naval Exercise MILAN, hosted by the Indian Navy and most recently held 

on 8 November 2019, was attended by delegates from 17 foreign navies. The 2020 

edition of the exercise has been postponed in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic but 

is expected to be the largest iteration of the exercise, with the projected participation 

of 30 foreign navies. Exercise Malabar is a trilateral maritime event between India, 

Japan, and the United States and aims at strengthening cooperation and enhancing 

interoperability among participants. In 2020, India prepared to expand the grouping by including Australia as well. Previously, India had been reluctant to invite 

Australia as it would appear to be connected to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue 

(Quad), an informal strategic forum among these same four nations, aimed straightforwardly against the China’s rise. However, given the June 2020 Sino-India clashes 

at the LAC in eastern Ladakh’s Galwan Valley, India is expected to make the decision of inviting Australia and in doing so enhance its strategic position vis-à-vis 

Beijing. Military exercises in the IOR are significant due to the increasing Chinese 

threat. Separately, in June 2020, the Indian Navy increased its surveillance and operational deployment in the IOR, with the Galwan clash as a backdrop. The Indian 

Navy also held an important exercise with its Japanese counterparts in the IOR, 

where Chinese naval vessels and submarines make persistent incursions. China’s 

ventures in the IOR are seen as one of the most vital reasons for the Indian Navy to 

assert its preparedness to ward off security threats in the region.
150 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Ghosh

Conclusion

As a move to strengthen itself at the IOR, India has increased its military capacity from operating only in the neighborhood to operating in the entire region—from the Malacca Strait to the waters off the African coasts. In the wake 

of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the world order is expected to witness a geostrategic shift, India will aim at further strengthening its presence in the IOR. In 

this dynamic, India will look forward to building up the gambit with Indian 

Ocean littorals such as Sri Lanka, Maldives, Mauritius, and Seychelles to scrutinize the rise of China. India is also likely to develop a strategic plan with the 

United States, without overtly professing such measures as “anti-Chinese moves.”

The Indian Ocean will remain one of the world’s most strategic locations, with 

more than 75 percent of the world’s maritime trade and 50 percent of daily global 

oil transfers passing through the region. As a result, India’s primary aim will be to 

maintain a stable and peaceful India Ocean, with a focus toward economic and 

military alterations obviating the menacing Chinese threat. 

Priyanjoli Ghosh

Ms. Ghosh works as a risk analyst at a risk management consultancy firm, India Bound. She focuses on politics 

and geopolitics and has worked on business continuity plans for clients in the oil and energy sector, professional 

services, insurance providers, and IT sector. She holds a master’s degree in international studies from Christ University, Bangalore. Her areas of interests are national security, maritime studies, diplomatic relations, and economic development.

Notes

1. Arun Prakash, “Rise of the PLA Navy and Its Implications for India,” Indian Defence Review, 6 April 2017, http://www.indiandefencereview.com/.

2. Tuneer Mukherjee, “China’s Maritime Quest in the Indian Ocean: New Delhi’s Options,” 

The Diplomat, 24 April 2018, https://thediplomat.com/.

3. Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, “President-elect Ibu Solih may look at halting BRI projects in 

Maldives,” Economic Times, 19 October 2018, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.

4. Mariama Sow, “Figures of the week: Chinese investment in Africa,” Africa in Focus (blog), 6 

September 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/.

5. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, “Belt and Road Initiative,” https://

www.ebrd.com/.

6. Indian Navy, “INS Kohassa- A New Brid’s Nest in the Andamans,” press release, 24 January 

2019, https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/.

7. http://www.govmu.org/

8. Suhasini Haidar, “Indian Project in Mauritius faces protests,” The Hindu, 27 October 2018, 

https://www.thehindu.com/.

9. Jean Paul Arouff, “India in pacts to develop infrastructure in Mauritius, Seychelles,” Reuters, 

12 March 2015, https://in.reuters.com/.

10. Dinakar Peri,. “What Is LEMOA?,” The Hindu, 30 August 2016, https://www.thehindu.com/.
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 151

DIGITAL-ONLY CADET PERSPECTIVE

Avoiding Thucydides’ Trap in 

the Western Pacific through 

the Air Domain

Cadet Colonel Grant T. Willis

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has arguably exercised the 

most powerful global military imbalance the world has ever seen. This domination; 

however, is perceived to be fading in the wake of a new possible contender. The 

tension and likelihood of conflict between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has risen in recent decades. The inevitability of conflict has 

taken root in many academic and strategic forums such as 92nd Street Y with 

Graham Allison and Gen David Petraeus (US Army, retired), The Belfer Center, 

the US Army War College, and many others. The term “Thucydides’ Trap” has 

echoed in many discussions among leading strategic, military, intelligence, and 

political science analysts. This is the notion of one rising power seeking to take its 

place in the sun by replacing the perceived declining power, which has caused 

many to fear a new kind of war. Dr. Graham Allison identified 16 scenarios over 

the past 500 years in which two nations competed within the parameters of 

“Thucydides’ Trap,” and of those scenarios, 12 have resulted in war.1 At a war likelihood of 75 percent, the odds do not seem to be in Washington’s or Beijing’s favor.

The Pivot

Under the Obama administration, the United States formulated the “Pivot” 

policy, but these strategic redeployments have not fully taken shape. This strategic 

shift out of Europe and into the Indo-Pacific have shown the strategic danger 

China has represented, and many would argue resulted in a swift buildup of Chinese military capability unlike ever before. From a reorganization of naval capability to a revolution in long-range munitions, Beijing has demonstrated China’s 

national will and determination to compete at the American level. The United 

States must adapt to a new method of thinking in the air domain to counter the 

potential reach by China for its place in the sun. American scholars like Dr. John 

Mearsheimer recognize that the current status of American grand strategy and 

the current commitment to NATO will be impacted by the rise of China and the 

potential for great-power competition between the United States and the PRC 

for global influence. This pivot out of Europe by American forces and the redeployment of massive American assets into the Indo-Pacific have become neces-
152 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Willis

sary to counter a rising China. According to Mearsheimer, “The U.S. is faced with 

a possible near peer competitor. And that power is in Asia and the United States 

will have to go to extraordinary lengths to contain it [China].”2 This rise will force 

the United States to pivot out of Europe and into East Asia in a massive movement of troops and materiel to contain the PRC. The outcome of any future 

conflict between the United States and China will be determined not only by the 

men and women operating the newest weapons and information systems but also 

by each side’s ability to identify weaknesses to exploit on day one of the fight.

AirSea Battle and Joint Concept for Access and 

Maneuver in the Global Commons

With the threat of a rising China reaching great-power rivalry status, it has 

become necessary to counter this rise through military planning in the undesired 

likelihood of hostilities. These plans require doctrine and assets to meet objectives 

and capabilities that are essential to any modern war plan. Analysts and experts in 

the theater have been highly critical of the AirSea Battle (ASB) doctrinal concept. 

The newly established Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global 

Commons (JAM-GC) doctrine, formed out of the AirSea Battle concept, has 

recognized some of that criticism and attempted to redesign the concept to meet 

realistic antiaccess/area denial (A2/AD) threats posed by the PRC in the Western 

Pacific and to reestablish sea control in the area. These concepts are flawed to a 

degree. The notion of retaining or regaining sea and air control in the Western 

Pacific is unrealistic against the current power we face there. This is not Iraq, Iran, 

or even Russia. China presents the United States and our partners in the region 

with a completely different situation.3 ASB doctrine harps upon the ability for the 

United States to project significant power across all domains into the Western 

Pacific against the PRC to counter the adversary’s various A2/AD threats. It seeks 

to gain decision and information superiority to bring assets to the battlefield first 

with the necessary mass to achieve tactical and operational success. ASB emphasizes “getting on the same net” and decreasing the amount of time it takes to bring 

information to the combatant commanders. Multi-domain integration into realtime intelligence, information, and integration sharing is fundamental to this battle 

doctrine. For example, the integration aspect can be illustrated through the ability 

to train a USAF F-22 or F-35 pilot to take control and direct a US Navy-launched 

Tomahawk cruise missile. While this needs to be a priority for “the pivot” strategy, 

the concept of an offensive and deep-fires capability is flawed.4 This is not 1984 

Western Europe. We are not dealing with a Soviet-equipped mass of forces along 

a physical border of significance. AirLand Battle doctrine defined the ability for 
Avoiding Thucydides’ Trap in the Western Pacific through the Air Domain

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 153

thinkers like Gen Don Starry and Col John Boyd to integrate air and land power 

to achieve a conventional blocking strategy to defeat Soviet and Warsaw Pact conventional forces behind the first echelons of Eastern Bloc category A (front line 

units such as Guards Tank or Guards Motorized Divisions) and category B (second echelon, reserve tank and motorized divisions) units. ASB and the modified 

JAM-GC concepts attempt to do the same in relation to air and sea integration, 

while also utilizing all other domains to create a joint environment in which decision making and information is shared instantly across all units. In the case of an 

American and PRC confrontation in the Western Pacific, this concept is heavily 

focused on an offensive mind-set without a significantly concentrated force that 

possess the necessary numbers to compete with China.

The Thucydides’ Trap is not a prophecy that an offensive strategy can avoid. A 

major confrontation and battle for air, cyber, and sea control between the United 

States and a rising China is a war unlike any our society has ever experienced. We 

are slowly growing into an era in which no power can exercise complete sea control and the risk involved in placing surface forces into proximity of A2/AD assets 

grows. It is commonly accepted that the United States can project power on a 

scale rarely experienced in world history; however, that should not be taken for 

granted. It does not matter how much combat power can be projected off the 

African coast, in the Mediterranean, in the Persian Gulf, or in Europe. What 

matters in this case is how much power the United States can project in the 

Western Pacific against an integrated and deep A2/AD environment. For a moment, imagine a formidable and seemingly hostile foreign naval presence in the 

Caribbean or off the East or West coast of the United States. In this case, the 

United States would be able to deny or threaten any significant enemy naval force 

attempting to exercise control over the air or sea in proximity to North America. 

The United States would consider any power attempting to exercise this control 

as a threat to our national security. This scenario mirror’s China’s perspective of 

developments in the Western Pacific. ASB, as originated, is reliant on American 

offensive and preemptive action to lessen the threat imposed against American 

naval assets by A2/AD platforms. This posture is inherently dangerous and raises 

the likelihood of confrontation without the necessary mass to dominate the battlespace. JAM-GC identifies this problem and attempts to lessen the amount of 

risk to our assets by focusing on defeating the enemy’s plan and intent, rather than 

disrupting and destroying his capability.5 We must identify what our strategic 

objectives are and how we can achieve them through operational and tactical superiority. We must identify what victory looks like in this scenario of sea control 

and breaking access denial. The objective cannot openly be regime change in Beijing. An embrace of human rights and a shift in Beijing’s thinking toward totali-
154 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Willis

tarianism can be a focus; however, the PRC’s nuclear umbrella clearly limits our 

options of influence. If regime change were the case, we have little capability to 

project power to prosecute a land campaign against the People’s Liberation Army. 

So, to be realistic, an obtainable goal is to counterbalance the growth of the PRC 

and provide a strategy that places doubt and uncertainty in the minds of Chinese 

leadership about external expansion. The ASB concept seems to identify an operational concept without a strategic context. The JAM-GC is a great improvement, but I would propose we go further to increase the amount of risk on the 

PRC to aggressively pursue external objectives and to hinder their ability to capitalize on their geographical and timing initiative in the first island chain.

Lessons to Consider

History has shown that perceived military weakness can motivate an aggressor. 

This example can be seen in June 1967. The overwhelming Israeli success over the 

armed forces of the combined Arab armies during the Six-Day War was birthed 

through the ability of Israeli Air Force (IAF) to overcome its perceived weakness 

in numbers of aircraft and available pilots. The Arab world had received a staggering number of aircraft from the Soviet bloc, and the combined Arab armies were 

poised to attack Israel. The Israelis took advantage of a perceived overconfidence 

and launched a crippling first strike against the powerful air arm of the strongest 

air force in the Middle East, Egypt.6 Operation Focus had been rehearsed for 

years prior to the launch of the Six-Day War to provide the Israeli Defense Forces 

with the critical element of air supremacy for a lightning ground offensive into 

the Sinai.7 The IAF had trained their ground personnel in the essential art of 

maintaining a fast turnaround rate for launching sorties of aircraft. With its small 

air force, Israel was able to gain the element of surprise over the Egyptian air 

crews and destroyed all major air bases in Egypt at the same time. The Israelis had 

chosen to destroy the Arab aircraft on the ground just as the Egyptian combat air 

patrols (CAP) had landed and started breakfast. The fog of war descended heavily 

on Egyptian command and control. Their inability to adapt and organize after the 

crippling Israel strike on their air forces led to the Arab defeat on the ground.8

Learning from this example, the United States must maintain and continue its 

practice of integrated combat turns (IGT) and increase drills in the region to 

maintain a high state of readiness to produce the maximum number of sorties 

possible to respond to an offensive action in the Western Pacific.9 The numerical 

and geographical advantage of the PRC presents a problem to any commander 

attempting to exercise control over the air and sea domains in the Western Pacific 

and the ability for American ground crews to turn aircraft will be decisive.
Avoiding Thucydides’ Trap in the Western Pacific through the Air Domain

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 155

We Have Seen This Before

This notion of a fast and effective surprise attack is not new to the United 

States. Americans are aware of the consequences that result from a highly effective conventional attack on strategic assets in the theater of operations. The fear of 

such a disastrous beginning to a conflict has weighed heavily on war planners 

since the end of World War II. At Pearl Harbor, the American Pacific Fleet and 

her battleships were the symbol of American power in the Pacific. The mighty 

force along battleship row had represented the old doctrine that had shaped the 

power projection of the early twentieth century, and its destruction symbolized 

the innovation in doctrine that would come to define modern warfare in the Pacific. At Clark Field in the Philippines, the United States Army Air Forces Far 

East was similarly destroyed on the ground after their morning patrols, just as the 

Egyptians would be destroyed nearly two decades later.10

Limited War with an Unlimited Outcome

The possibility of a crippling first strike by the PRC against our forward bases 

near the first island chain may not only bring the world into a disastrous conflict 

but also extremely inhibit our ability to respond. The ability for the PRC to win a 

limited political victory by launching an effective first strike on our bases and assets in the region could destabilize the economic and geopolitical situation across 

East Asia and open the possibility of communist and nationalist Chinese unification through force.

The Sino–Russian Alliance

To take in the full possibility of another Great Pacific War, we must account for 

the Russian ability to project joint power in the Pacific. The Russian Pacific Fleet 

and the many air and ground assets available to the Russian Far East is not a force 

to take lightly in a possible confrontation between the allies and China. The introduction of Russian Far Eastern naval and air assets may be deemed as irrelevant 

regarding their effectiveness against the US and its allies but would nevertheless 

be welcomed by Beijing in any conflict. More Russian assets from the Baltic and 

Northern Fleets could be expected to make the necessary journey to reinforce the 

North Pacific and would require additional allied assets to deny them entry or 

engage them. The development of this relationship also provides the Chinese and 

Russians with the ability to share technologies and proliferate joint capability 

against our forces in the region. With Russia’s introduction of hypersonic missiles 

to some operational units, the likelihood of Chinese missiles of similar class to be 

introduced to the theater is high. The ability by the aggressor to effectively land a 
156 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Willis

decisive blow early in the contest is key to victory in a limited offensive. During 

the Cold War, it was necessary to bring massive firepower and effective fires on 

the enemy in the forward edge of the battle area (FEBA).11 Hypersonic munitions 

can avoid radar, fly low and fast, and maneuver at over 20 times the speed of 

sound. A conventional version of these missiles may determine the outcome of a 

highly concentrated and lighting strike on our bases in the FEBA near the first 

island chain. Such a strike by these weapons would render our ability to effectively 

stop an aggressive move by the PRC useless and vulnerable to further fires while 

the allied forces are rallying from around the world to respond and counterattack. 

Our forces must be alert and well-dispersed to avoid heavy concentration and 

destruction by a surprise attack. The PRC will employ the art of maskirovka or 

deception at all levels of diplomacy, information, military, economic (DIME) in 

such a war plan, and we can expect Russia to be more than willing to assist its 

Chinese comrades in implementing this art of operational surprise.12

Flexible and Integrated Response

It is essential that the United States and our partners in the Indo-Pacific reorganize our joint doctrine and that the United States Air Force play a key role in 

implementing adaptations to fill another layer in deterrence, beyond nuclear. This 

deterrence stems from the ability of the United States and our allies to exercise a 

wide array of flexible response and dispersion capability. We must be prepared to 

disperse our forces to make it more difficult for a PRC war plan to strike all the 

necessary targets to achieve success. This would require our forces to be placed on 

air bases in Thailand, the Philippines, our various territories in the Pacific, and 

northwestern Australia. I also believe in a renovation and addition to military 

installations in the Marianas as well as the introduction of more mobile and elusive naval airpower.

The Carrier Problem

During World War II, the US Navy outproduced their Japanese counterparts. 

The fleet carriers symbolized American resolve and industrial might over the 

Imperial Navy’s inability to compete. The fleet carrier still carries the main weight 

of American naval airpower projection, but this asset is well-known to be vulnerable in a possible engagement with China. According to an article in IBD Weekly, 

Gillian Rich argues, “. . . aircraft carriers are one of the most potent weapons in 

America’s arsenal. But they are also more vulnerable today as new ship-killing 

missiles threaten to turn these $13 billion war machines into sitting ducks.”13 The 

Chinese DF-21 and DF-26 missiles have the capability of destroying the pride 
Avoiding Thucydides’ Trap in the Western Pacific through the Air Domain

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 157

of America’s navy, and if one were to be sunk by a Chinese land-based missile, a 

deep blow to American pride and self-confidence would limit the use of carriers 

in the remainder of such a conflict as a liability. The destruction and loss of one 

of our carriers would likely trigger another response: the possible unleashing of a 

nuclear exchange. We must find a way to allow the carrier’s air wing to participate in the delivery of standoff munitions and within range of the employment 

of naval airpower to the battle area on day one without risking the escalation 

their loss may bring to the conflict. The solution may be long-range drone tankers and the deployment of another light support asset, like smaller and moremaneuverable carriers, to offset the ease of targeting large, expensive, and highly 

populated national assets.

Another key aspect to mobile and effective American airpower in the World 

War II were the so-called “jeep carriers” or escort aircraft carriers. These were light 

and fast, short-deck carriers that held a small but wide array of aircraft fulfilling 

bomber, fighter, torpedo bomber, antisubmarine, and reconnaissance roles. This 

class of warship may seem useless and outdated in modern warfare; however, I 

would argue that it is a valid necessity to maintain a mobile and rapid response 

capability to support the joint fight in the event of war in the Indo-Pacific. The 

jeep-carrier concept would envision a new class of ship that has both defensive 

and offensive capabilities, while utilizing the advantage of speed and mobility. The 

USS America (LHA-5), known as the “Lightning Carrier,” is a promising start to 

this sort of initiative.14 However, this amphibious assault ship is not solely a carrier. It also acts as a platform to launch Marines in amphibious assault craft, transport helicopters, and attack helicopters. The F-35Bs assigned to this carrier can 

project power for the amphibious task force; however, the ability to project airlaunched standoff weapons onto the battle area from fast and mobile ships could 

be a decisive deterrent. The PRC’s land-based missiles would need to be able to 

track and destroy multiple smaller targets with significant air defense and escort 

opposed to large task groups.

Land-Based, Long-Range Precision Strike

The US Marines are introducing their continued contribution to long-range, 

precision-strike capabilities to the joint fight. The service is requesting Congressional approval of land-based antiship missiles. Two types of antiship missiles are 

being considered, including a “venerable” version of the US Navy’s Tomahawk 

missile and an adaptation of the Navy’s stealthy strike missile.15 In a recent National Interest article, David Axe stated, “Now anti-ship units are the Marines’ top 

priority, the service told the U.S. Senate in written testimony associated with the 

budgeting process for 2021.”16 This capability will allow the United States to for-
158 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Willis

ward deploy land-based antiship assets in theater to provide joint support to a 

future fight. This may also serve as an integral part of conventional deterrence by 

providing another capability and dispersed unit that is necessary for consideration 

by any PRC offensive.

The Unsinkable Aircraft Carriers Are Sinkable

The various US and allied installations in the Indo-Pacific and within range of 

the first island chain must be maintained at full readiness, but many potential sites 

across the Indo-Pacific must be thoroughly analyzed and constructed to meet the 

need for a rapid introduction of forces with the ability to generate an immediate 

capability to launch and recover aircraft. The current installations are vulnerable 

and within striking range from Chinese, North Korean, and Russian standoff 

weapons.17 These islands may serve as “unsinkable aircraft carriers;” however, it is 

vital that they maintain a dense array of air defense capability. The US Army Air 

Defense Artillery as well as Marine and Air Force security troops should be given 

full capability to provide adequate antimissile and antiair batteries on these installations. Some examples of antiaircraft artillery we must update and deploy in 

larger numbers are the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the 

Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM) systems. The same must be 

considered for the airstrips and installations on other US possessions and allied 

territories to implement a credible dispersal and retaliatory capability. These island airfields are vital, but if they are not numerous and well-defended, they can 

be made ineffective to respond to a short and limited PRC thrust.

Dispersion and Mutual Support

Of course, various numbers of well-dispersed allied aircraft responding to any 

crisis within the first island chain would also support these naval forces. Just as 

the Israelis perfected the art of ground crew turn around rates, the USAF ground 

crews will have to perform as quickly and efficiently to obtain the maximum 

number of sorties. The allied aircraft, well-dispersed, must reintroduce a high 

level of quick reaction alert (QRA) standards. This will be key within the B-52, 

B-1, B-2, and future B-21 communities, along with other long-range standoff 

delivery platforms. I suggest that the strategic bomber force in the Indo-Pacific 

maintain well-dispersed and alert crews that are not easy money for a Chinese 

missile strike on Guam. I propose they be spread to multiple locations with multiple crews on standby alert. I also propose that we increase the numbers of 

standoff weapons delivery platforms in the area to increase our response capabilities. All these measures play into a role of deterrence. According to Diana 
Avoiding Thucydides’ Trap in the Western Pacific through the Air Domain

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 159

Stacy Correll, “Although the move signifies the close of a 16-year mission as part 

of the Continuous Bomber Presence mission, the change doesn’t mean strategic 

bombers won’t operate in the Indo-Pacific anymore, the Air Force said.” According to the article, Air Force Global Strike Command put out the following statement, “U.S. strategic bombers will continue to operate in the Indo-Pacific, to 

include Guam, at the timing and tempo of our choosing.”18 The removal of the 

continuous bomber presence in Guam presents Beijing with a new degree of 

uncertainty. The United States does not have all its eggs in the same basket in the 

Pacific, and this decision allows the US bomber force to exercise a more flexible 

and unpredictable response to any contingency. Any war plan constructed by the 

PRC would now have to adapt to a new reality. The American B-52s and B-1Bs 

will no longer be relied on to have a large percentage of their available assets on 

one island, within range of Chinese missiles.

It must be made clear in the minds of the Chinese Politburo that territorial 

expansion, even limited, would be too costly and too uncertain to execute. This 

method must work in conjunction with the alliance and other branches to create 

a credible, flexible, and assured conventional response capability.

The South Atlantic Example

In April 1982, Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF) launched a bombing raid against 

the Argentine-occupied Stanley Airport in the Falkland Islands under the operational code name, “Black Buck.” The Falklands War is an excellent case study to 

illustrate the importance of land-based airpower having the proper training to 

conduct antishipping operations. The Argentine Air Force’s ability to launch air 

strikes from Stanley Airport against the British Task Force and their carriers 

would present the possibility of Argentine fighter bombers to threaten the Royal 

Navy’s carriers, which comprised the only air component of the task force. The 

small number of Harrier fighters provided the sole fixed-wing air cover for the 

task force against a significantly larger Argentine Air Force and Naval Air Arm of 

attack and fighter aircraft.19 The RAF’s elderly Vulcans, remnants of the once 

formidable “V-Force,” prepared for a bombing raid that would render Stanley 

Airport useless to the Argentinians and would force the Argentine strikers to take 

off from air bases in Argentina to strike targets against the British task force. A 

significant number of Royal Navy ships were sunk or damaged by the end of the 

conflict, but the lack of antiship training and the loss of Stanley Airport as a usable forward base allowed the British to establish a beachhead at San Carlos and 

eventually clear the skies of Argentine aircraft. The stunning performance by the 

Israeli trained, Argentine pilots displayed to the Royal Navy that, despite their 

technology and history, they remained vulnerable to highly motivated and daring 
160 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Willis

aircrews.20 The success of Operation Black Buck illustrates the importance of air 

defense and airstrip multiplicity in one’s area of operations. It would have been 

significantly more difficult for the RAF Vulcan force, in 1982, to mount longrange bombing raids against multiple airbases from their base at Ascension Island. 

It is essential to note that the Stanley Airport was not the only operable airfield 

in the Falklands, but at other sites the Argentinians had only placed Pucara light 

tac-prop ground attack aircraft, providing no ability to project the much-needed 

strike capabilities to interdict the British carrier force and her escorts. The complexities of air, naval, and amphibious engagements in the South Atlantic may 

provide many lessons to be applied in the first island chain of the Western Pacific.

Chinese Marines

According to Capt Michael A. Hanson, USMC, “While the Chinese state has 

approved the reduction of its army by 300,000 soldiers, it plans to grow its marine 

corps by 400 percent, from 20,000 marines to more than 100,000 and the People’s 

Liberation Army amphibious units will be folded into the PLANMC [People’s 

Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps].” 21 This is a significant increase in amphibious assault capability and may signal Beijing’s future strategic intentions that 

involve the use of these units to exercise operations well beyond the borders of 

mainland China. From an air domain perspective, amphibious assaults are extremely difficult and complex operations and to do them successfully requires 

much preparation and logistical coordination. Controlling the air during an amphibious landing is vital to the operation’s success, and the Falklands War of 1982 

is a prime example as to what a lack of air superiority can do to any landing force 

and its escorts. US land-based and naval air assets must retain and modernize 

their capabilities to conduct joint antiamphibious air operations to deter such a 

build-up and ensure in the minds of the aggressor that an amphibious assault will 

be heavily contested at the water’s edge by long-range precision strike against 

landing and logistics shipping. A key to signal an increase in PRC offensive strategic intentions will be shown through their expanded shipbuilding of vessels that 

provide an amphibious capability, and a joint angle the air must deter China’s use 

of such assets in the Western Pacific and beyond.

Release the Gremlins

Another addition to an active defense of the Pacific would introduce the “Gremlin.” In the article “DARPA’s Semi-Disposable Gremlin Drones Will Fly by 2019,” 

Evan Ackerman describes the new drone as “nearly disposable UAVs [unmanned 
Avoiding Thucydides’ Trap in the Western Pacific through the Air Domain

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 161

aerial vehicles] that could launch and be retrieved from flying aircraft carrier motherships in mid-air.”22 Dynetics, the drone’s manufacturer, describes their concept:

The Dynetics solution involves deploying a towed, stabilized capture device below and away from the C-130. The air vehicle docks with the device much like 

an airborne refueling operation. Once docked and powered off, the air vehicle is 

raised to the C-130, where it is mechanically secured and stowed. The key technologies can be straightforwardly adapted to allow under-wing recovery and bay 

recovery by other cargo aircraft.23

This new capability for the C-130 can significantly shift US allies’ abilities to 

respond rapidly against any PRC initiation of hostilities. C-130 squadrons on 

QRA and a light undisclosed number on routine airborne alert can provide another conventional deterrent that can swarm the battle area and could target any 

amphibious or air forces that are used in an offensive within the first island chain. 

The Gremlins could serve as another uncertain threat in the minds of PRC war 

planners and provide an excellent platform to seek out and destroy Chinese amphibious groups. These drones would not only act as a strike capability but could 

also serve as escorts to the C-130s that are tasked with delivering them as well as 

any other allied aircraft called upon to respond.

Indian and Allied Cooperation

Recent border clashes between PLA and Indian forces along the disputed 

Sino-Indian border in the Galwan Valley have resulted in the deaths of several 

soldiers on both sides and much speculation as to future developments in the region. This is not the first border clash between the two nuclear-armed powers in 

the region and may serve as an opportunity to solidify the US-Indian relationship 

regarding PRC aggression in the Indo-Pacific. The recent border clash could motivate further cooperation and joint planning between US, allied, and Indian air 

and naval forces in the region and can provide the PRC with yet another factor to 

consider when planning or conducting future offensive operations in the region. 

The addition of Indian naval and air strength as well as cooperative bases could 

prove to be another headache for any war planners in Beijing.24 Although the 

Indian relationship with Russia as an arms supplier could prove difficult in any 

relationship-building efforts with Washington, India’s recent arms procurements 

from the United States may prove to open the door to many possibilities for cooperation to counter the PRC. For example, it was recently reported that “India’s 

cabinet cleared $2.6 billion purchase from Lockheed Martin Corp. of 24 multirole MH-60R Seahawk maritime helicopters to Indian navy. The State Department has also approved a potential sale to India of $1.8 billion in arms, including 
162 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Willis

air-defense radars and missiles, rifles and other equipment, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced.”25 The Indian Air Force will also be receiving AH-64 Apache attack helicopters as a result of the deal.26 The introduction of American military equipment into the Indian armed forces may prove to 

shift a future balance in the region regarding Russian supply and cooperation. The 

door to a stronger partnership of likeminded and democratic nations may provide 

the Indo-Pacific with a stronger web of alliances that will create problems for any 

Chinese first strike in the Western Pacific.

Too Fast and Too Costly to Respond

The ability for the allies to respond with maximum flights of combat aircraft 

and standoff munitions will be vital to the outcome of any PRC offensive. The 

PRC will have a key advantage with its short lines of supply and operational initiative. Any allied doctrine in the Indo-Pacific will be defensive in nature but also 

must be able to take the offensive to liberate any territory a PRC amphibious 

force may attempt to seize. This conventional avenue of deterrence is just as important as the nuclear element. After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the United 

States and the NATO alliance took a hard look at their war gaming scenarios and 

projections in Central Europe.27 The Egyptian and Syrian thrusts against the Israelis in the Golan Heights and Sinai proved that a limited war in West Germany 

by the Warsaw Pact would be too quick and costly for the reserves to respond. The 

concept of active defense and eventually the evolution of AirLand Battle took 

root to provide a counter to the growing Soviet military capabilities.28 With the 

introduction of this new doctrine we saw a shift in the minds of Soviet leadership. 

By the late 1980s, it was well-understood that any conventional Soviet attack 

would be too costly and too uncertain due to allied superiority in both technology 

and doctrine. The Western alliance had learned the lessons it could not afford to 

in a time that tactically favored the Soviets.

Thucydides Trap and COVID-19

Cui bono? Does China benefit from the corona virus, and does its military 

readiness and response to the pandemic indicate any long-term game plan? Can 

this game plan encompass a short jab at taking air and sea control of South China 

Sea while Beijing’s adversaries rally to confront the current health and economic 

crisis? Richard Javad Heydarian of the Asia Times points out a significant increase 

in Chinese activity as a result of the outbreak: “While some see China’s nationalistic messaging as a bid to rally its people during difficult Covid-19 times, others 
Avoiding Thucydides’ Trap in the Western Pacific through the Air Domain

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 163

view the increasingly aggressive naval maneuvers as a bid to exploit America’s 

weakened condition to secure new advantage in the hot spot theater.”29

COVID-19 presents an opportunity to take advantage of the global economic 

and health crisis and political division within the United States during a critical 

election year. Military exercises in the South China Sea and mock drills planned to 

simulate an invasion of Taiwan suggest an increase in PRC readiness. According to 

the Reuters, “The Chinese military is planning to conduct a large-scale landing drill 

off Hainan Island in the South China Sea in August to simulate the possible seizure of the Taiwanese-held Pratas Island in the future, Chinese sources familiar 

with the matter have said.”30 With the introduction of a second fleet carrier, the 

Chinese will be able to exercise joint air, naval, and amphibious capabilities on a 

large scale relatively close to the area of operations. Many planned military operations have developed from “training” or “exercises” and can quickly develop into a 

real-world attempt to seize these islands by force during these turbulent times—

with little immediate reaction possible from the allied powers in the region. With 

the Shandong and Liaoning carriers able to combine with other surface assets, comprising their own air groups, along with land-based assets providing cover, the 

ability for the United States to respond effectively would be a difficult feat.31

In the media, the American public has seen firsthand what the virus can do to 

military readiness. Recently, the outbreak on board American naval assets created 

much consternation within domestic politics and fostered negative perceptions, at 

times false, but nonetheless damaging to the confidence in American ability to 

react in the Western Pacific. According to Brookings, “The naval services have 

been particularly careful not to let sailors and Marines got to sea if sick, since as 

we all know, ships are the perfect petri dishes for the virus’s spread. Not all of these 

measures can be sustained indefinitely. The armed forces will face an increasingly 

challenging path forward through the rest of the calendar year and into 2021.”32

In particular, the focus of the spread of the virus within the fleet has been our 

aircraft carriers. The USS Theodore Roosevelt has seen much media coverage due to 

its outbreak on board and the relieving of its captain due to a breach in the chain 

of command concerning the safety of the crew. The perception that this coverage 

creates in the eyes of the PRC can generate miscalculation when planning for 

future operations in the Western Pacific. The danger that these stories create is a 

possibility to take advantage of a “quarantined fleet.” The PRC, regardless of if its 

own readiness or problems with the virus, can regulate its media coverage to conceal and restrain information from getting out to possible adversaries.

The introduction of the virus into the global commons, regardless of the intent 

or lack thereof by the PRC, has created an opportunity for China to expand its 

influence. Such expansion may take the form of economic growth or an increase 
164 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Willis

in political reliability on the world stage compared to a perception of division 

within the United States over race relations and public health crises. Putting 

politics aside, the military situation in the Western Pacific is at a crucial crossroads 

within the Thucydides’ Trap theory. Doors to conflict must open for the trap to be 

sprung, and a global pandemic combined with a domestic identity crisis at home 

may provide the PRC with the chance, in its leaders’ minds, to take advantage of 

a miscalculated opportunity to begin exercising regional dominance that can lead 

to escalation and military confrontation.

Unfulfilling the Prophecy

In a modern sense, we cannot afford to learn a doctrinal lesson ourselves; in 

fact, I would propose we avoid having an ally or proxy learn a necessity to change 

as well. We must skip the learning process and find a new balance through containment and overwhelming preparedness to respond in theater. The nuclear umbrella, although necessary, does not fully deter a limited and conventional engagement. The US Air Force will play a defining role in a future conflict in the Western 

Pacific, and our ability to adapt to rapid response and antishipping with a new 

level of air and naval cooperation will determine the outcome. My greatest fear is 

that we may find ourselves in a similar situation to the British Empire during the 

Suez Crisis of 1956. We may wake up one day and find that we are not as capable 

as we had thought and that we significantly overestimated our position in the 

world. The combination of fear and pride creates the necessary ingredients for a 

war that neither side wants, but a third party may draw both sides beyond the 

brink into an unavoidable collision course.33 Therefore, deterrence through 

strength, multiplicity, and a wide range of retaliatory long-range, precision-strike 

capabilities are less likely to spring the Thucydides’ Trap prophecy. 

Cadet Colonel Grant T. Willis

Cadet Willis is a senior cadet and the wing commander of Detachment 665, University of Cincinnati, OH. He began to contemplate the concept for this article after participating in the 2019 Global Strike Command Summer Internship Program. Willis will be receiving his bachelor’s degree in international affairs with a minor in political science upon his graduation in May 2020.

Notes

1. Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?,” The 

Atlantic, 5 December 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/.

2. John Mearsheimer, “John Mearsheimer—The Future of NATO,” YouTube, 4 November 

2018, https://www.youtube.com/.

3. International Institute for Strategic Studies, “No-One’s Ocean: The Pointlessness of ‘AirSea 

Battle’ in Asia.” YouTube, 15 October 2012, https://www.youtube.com/.
Avoiding Thucydides’ Trap in the Western Pacific through the Air Domain

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020 165

4. Ibid.

5. Michael E. Hutchens, William D. Dries, Jason C. Perdew, Vincent D. Bryant, and Kerry E. 

Moores, “Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons: A New Joint Operational Concept,” Joint Forces Quarterly 84, no. 1 (2017): 134–39, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/.

6. Shlomo Aloni, and Adam Tooby. Six-Day War 1967: Operation Focus and the 12 Hours That 

Changed the Middle East (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2019).

7. Aloni and Tooby, Six-Day War 1967.

8. Aloni and Tooby, Six-Day War 1967.

9. Bill Sloan, Undefeated: Americas Heroic Fight for Bataan and Corregidor (New York: Simon & 

Schuster Paperbacks, 2013).

10. Sloan, Undefeated: Americas Heroic Fight.

11. US Army, ADP3-90: Offense and Defense, 31 July 2019, https://fas.org/.

12. Kenneth M. Pollack, Armies of Sand: The Past, Present, and Future of Arab Military Effectiveness (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019); and Sloan, Undefeated: Americas Heroic Fight.

13. Gillian Rich, “This Icon of U.S. Power Is More Sinkable Than Ever But Hard To Kill Off,” 

Investor’s Business Daily, 31 January 2020, https://www.investors.com/.

14. US Navy, “USS America (LHA 6).” Command Home Page, https://www.navy.mil/.

15. David Axe, “The U.S. Marines Have Big Plans to Sink Enemy Warships,” National Interest, 

10 March 2020, https://nationalinterest.org/.

16. Ibid.

17. Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Missile Maps and Infographics,” Missile 

Threat Project (website), 3 December 2019, https://missilethreat.csis.org/.

18. Diana Stancy Correll, “The Air Force Has Stopped Its Continuous Bomber Presence Mission in Guam,” Air Force Times, 21 April 2020, https://www.airforcetimes.com/.

19. US Army Heritage and Education Center, “Falklands 1982: Challenges in Expeditionary 

Warfare by Maj Gen (Ret) Kenneth Privrasky,” YouTube, 18 March 2018, https://www.youtube.com/.

20. Pollack, Armies of Sand.

21. Michael A. Hanson, “China’s Marine Corps Is on the Rise,” Proceedings 146, no. 4 (April 

2020), https://www.usni.org/.

22. Evan Ackerman, “DARPA’s Semi-Disposable Gremlin Drones Will Fly by 2019,” IEEE 

Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News, May 9, 2018, https://spectrum.ieee.org/.

23. Ibid.

24. “US-India Military Alliance Would Be a Strategic Nightmare for China—Chinese Experts Admit,” EurAsian Times, 29 June 2020, https://eurasiantimes.com/.

25. Justin Sink, Archana Chaudhary, Jordan Fabian, and Bloomberg, “U.S. and India to Sign 

$3 Billion in Defense Deals, Trump Says,” Fortune, 24 February 2020, https://fortune.com/.

26. Bradley Bowman, Cleo Paskal, and Liane Zivitski, “US-India Helicopter Deal Deepens 

Vital Partnership,” Defense News, 5 March 2020, https://www.defensenews.com/.

27. John Suprin, “Yom Kippur War & The Development of U.S. Military Doctrine,” YouTube, 

The Dole Institute of Politics, 25 October 2012, https://www.youtube.com/.

28. Ibid.

29. Richard Javad Heydarian, “China Seizes Covid-19 Advantage in South China Sea,” Asia 

Times, 1 April 2020, https://asiatimes.com/.

30. Reuters, “China to Conduct Major Military Drill Simulating Seizure of Taiwan-Held Island,” Japan Times, 14 May 2020, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/.
166 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  FALL 2020

Willis

31. “What Do We Know so Far about China’s Second Aircraft Carrier?,” ChinaPower Project

(blog), 22 April 2017, https://chinapower.csis.org/.

32. Thomas Burke, Chesley Dycus, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Eric Reid, and Jessica Worst, 

“COVID-19 and Military Readiness: Preparing for the Long Game,” Order from Chaos (blog), 22 

April 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/.

33. 92nd Street Y, “Destined for War with China? Graham Allison and Gen Petraeus (Ret),” 

YouTube, 2 June 2017, https://www.youtube.com/.
Editorial Advisors

Gen Charles Q. Brown, Jr., Chief of Staff of the Air Force

Gen Herbert J. Carlisle, USAF, Retired; President & CEO, National Defense Industrial Association

Amb. Daniel Shields, Retired, Department of State

Maj Richard T. Harrison, Director, Air University Press

Reviewers

Air Cdre Nasim Abbas, Pakistan Air Force

Instructor

Air War College (Pakistan)

Dr. Sascha-Dominik “Dov” Bachmann 

Professor of Law and Justice

University of Canberra (Australia) 

Dr. Lewis Bernstein 

Historian, retired 

US Army 

Dr. Paul J. Bolt 

Professor, Political Science 

US Air Force Academy 

CDR John F. Bradford, US Navy

President

Yokosuka Council on Asia–Pacific Studies

Dr. Sean Braniff 

Asst. Professor, International Security Studies

US Air War College

Dr. David Brewster

Senior Research Fellow, National Security 

College

Australian National University

Dr. Stephen F. Burgess 

Professor, International Security Studies

US Air War College

Dr. Chester B. Cabalza 

Vice President, Center of Research and 

Strategic Studies

Development Academy of the Philippines 

Mr. Eric Chan 

Policy Analyst 

US Air Force 

Dr. Adam Claasen 

Senior Lecturer in History 

Massey University 

CDR Mark R. Condeno 

Philippine Coast Guard 

Dr. Zack Cooper 

Senior Fellow for Asian Security 

Center for Strategic and International Studies 

Lt Col Alexander B. Fafinski, USAF

Military Professor, National Security Affairs

US Naval War College

Dr. Ian C. Forsyth 

Analyst 

Department of Defense

Dr. Jai Galliott 

Defense Analyst, Cyber Security 

Australian Defence Force Academy 

Maj Jessica Gott, USAF 

Strategy Officer 

Dr. Manabrata Guha 

Distinguished Fellow, Centre for Joint 

Warfare Studies 

Ministry of Defence (India) 

Dr. Achala Gunasekara-Rockwell 

Adjunct Professor, Foreign Languages & 

Literatures

University of Alabama at Birmingham 

Dr. Amit Gupta

Professor, International Security Studies

US Air War College

Dr. Akhlaque Haque 

Professor, Political Science & Public Admin.

University of Alabama at Birmingham 

Dr. Jessica Jordan 

Assistant Professor

Air Force Culture and Language Center

Dr. Isaac Kardon

Assistant Professor, China Maritime Studies 

Institute

US Naval War College

Maj Gen Brian Killough, USAF, ret.

Former Deputy Commander, Headquarters 

Pacific Air Forces

Mr. Chris Kolakowski 

Director

General Douglas MacArthur Memorial 

Dr. Carlo Kopp 

Lecturer 

Monash University 

Dr. Amit Kumar 

President 

AAA International Security Consultants 

Lt Col Scott D. McDonald

United States Marine Corps, retired

Dr. Montgomery McFate

Professor, Strategic and Operational Research

US Naval War College

Dr. Sandeep "Frag" Mulgund

Senior Advisor (HQE)

Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations (AF/A3)

Headquarters United States Air Force

Dr. Brendan S. Mulvaney 

Director

China Aerospace Studies Institute

Dr. Satoru Nagao 

Visiting Fellow 

Hudson Institute 

Dr. Dayne Nix

Professor, Joint Maritime Operations

US Naval War College

Dr. Frank O’Donnell

Postdoctoral Fellow, National Security Affairs

US Naval War College

Dr. Jagannath P. Panda

Research Fellow & Centre Coordinator, 

East Asia

Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence 

Studies and Analyses 

Dr. James E. Platte 

Assistant Professor

Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies 

Dr. Terence Roehrig

Professor, National Security Affairs

US Naval War College

Dr. Jim Rolfe 

Senior Fellow, Centre for Strategic Studies 

Victoria University of Wellington 

Mr. Richard M. Rossow 

Senior Adviser and Wadhwani Chair in US–

India Policy Studies 

Center for Strategic and International Studies 

Maj Gary J. Sampson, USMC

Speechwriter/Special Assistant to the CJCS

Dr. Yoichiro Sato

Professor

Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

Commodore Abhay Kumar Singh, retired 

Research Fellow 

Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses 

Mr. Daniel K. Taylor 

Defense Intelligence Officer for East Asia

Defense Intelligence Agency

Dr. Lavanya Vemsani 

Professor, History and Religious Studies 

Shawnee State University 

Dr. Michael E. Weaver 

Associate Professor

Air Command and Staff College 

Mr. Keith Webster 

Senior Vice President for Defense and 

Aerospace 

US–India Strategic Partnership Forum 

Brig Gen Craig D. Wills, USAF

Director of Strategy, Plans, and Programs 

Pacific Air Forces

Dr. Roland B. Wilson 

Program Coordinator & Professor of Conflict 

Analysis & Resolution 

George Mason University, Korea Campus 

Dr. Austin Wyatt

Research Associate

University of New South Wales–

Canberra @ ADFA
Air University Press

Call for Articles and Manuscripts

Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2)

Air University Press is soliciting manuscripts, journal articles, 

and short papers that focus on Joint All Domain Operations 

(JADO—see LeMay Doctrine Note 1-20). More specifically, 

Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2), is defined as 

“The art and science of decision making to rapidly translate 

decisions into action, leveraging capabilities across all 

domains and with mission partners to achieve operational 

and information advantage in both competition and conflict.”

Products could be historical case studies, lessons learned 

from ongoing initiatives, or suggestions for future constructs. 

Length may vary from journal articles (typically under 

15,000 words), papers (15,000-75,000 words), or full-length 

book manuscripts (over 75,000 words). Submit works to the 

Director of Air University Press. Digital submissions and 

inquiries are also welcome through our organizational email 

at aupress@us.af.mil.